* Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061015 16:51]:
* Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
partition of hd0 is now hd0,1 but not hd0,0.
Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
If changing the partition naming scheme, I would have thought it'd
* Vladimir Serbinenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061015 17:36]:
Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
If changing the partition naming scheme, I would have thought it'd
become hd1,1. But why is the first disk 0 and the first partition 1?
Using Linux style names might make sense as
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061015 17:41]:
It was already discussed plenty of times and the answer is that with
BIOS it's impossible to guess the linux's names, so it would just
confuse the users
Or it may be Solaris or OS/2 Warp or some OS not yet released.
I enjoy the amusement
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061015 17:35]:
* Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061015 16:51]:
* Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
partition of hd0 is now hd0,1 but not hd0,0.
Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
If changing the
* Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061015 16:51]:
* Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
partition of hd0 is now hd0,1 but not hd0,0.
Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
If changing the partition naming scheme, I would have thought it'd
become
At Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:31:04 +0200,
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
* Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061015 16:51]:
* Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
partition of hd0 is now hd0,1 but not hd0,0.
Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
If
