Allan Streib <astr...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> writes: > > > Allan Streib <astr...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > > >> Seems like one of those numbers that was chosen long ago, when disks > >> had orders of magnitude less storage capacity they have now, and 16 > >> partitions really would have been more than enough. > > > > the word "chosen" makes it seem like such an arbitrary decision. > > No, didn't mean to imply arbitrary or ill-considered, more that > someone(s) decided that to be an adequate number, considering various > requirements and constraints. At the time, that would probably not have > included the common availability of multi-terabyte drives. Obviously I > wasn't there.
Incorrect. And wow, you demonstrate an amazing inability to read. All the offsets and sizes have to fit in a 512 byte sector. It wasn't chosen. THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY. OpenBSD has apparently become popular amongst people who can't think and connect "real world constraints" and "reality" with "no alternative decision was possible". This is very common amongst people who won't lift their finger.
