On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:41 PM Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> Amelia A Lewis wrote:
>
> > So, and I recognize that the answer might reasonably be "go read more
> > code and figure it out yourself," a question for Theo and others if you
> > have a moment: why couldn't an arch expand past sixteen? It
> Medoesn't a care a flying fsck about what is "trendy".
Is this the most ironic sentence ever posted on here? Dubiously censoring an
expletive with a common 'Unix' utility isn't motivated by some sort of desire
to feel like a part of the righteous ones? Come on.
If you didn't make any of this up, you dumbed it down to the point where
there's no useful info left. You seem to operate on the assumption that merely
dissing the work of companies and from ecosystems you don't like, as though
it's the 'trendy' thing to do, is enough for you to get by on this
Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> So, and I recognize that the answer might reasonably be "go read more
> code and figure it out yourself," a question for Theo and others if you
> have a moment: why couldn't an arch expand past sixteen? It seems, both
> from the math calculating struct size (which may
I have a dread sense that I'm going to regret asking questions, but I'm
going to do it anyway, because hey, what the hell, I can always drink
bleach.
On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 19:09:53 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[snip]
>
> Reality hasn't changed. A sector is still 512 bytes, and
> disklabel has to
Theo de Raadt writes:
> Reality hasn't changed. A sector is still 512 bytes, and
> disklabel has to fit in it.
OK.
Allan
Strahil Nikolov wrote:
> On April 25, 2020 4:09:53 AM GMT+03:00, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> >Allan Streib wrote:
> >
> >> Theo de Raadt writes:
> >>
> >> > OpenBSD has apparently become popular amongst people who can't
> >think
> >> > and connect "real world constraints" and "reality" with
On April 25, 2020 4:09:53 AM GMT+03:00, Theo de Raadt
wrote:
>Allan Streib wrote:
>
>> Theo de Raadt writes:
>>
>> > OpenBSD has apparently become popular amongst people who can't
>think
>> > and connect "real world constraints" and "reality" with "no
>alternative
>> > decision was possible".
Allan Streib wrote:
> Theo de Raadt writes:
>
> > 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.
>
Theo de Raadt writes:
> 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.
I'm not the one complaining about
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
The limitation to 16 partitions definitely feels painful to me.
There is softraid(4). The only discipline that supports a single
chunk is crypto. Make a couple of OpenBSD RAID partitions,
set them up as crypto, partition those new crypto pseudo-devices,
up to 16
A little bit of fun, slightly related to some of the discussion:
[1] is something that comes into my mind each time i read some of the emails
[2] is coming next
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlt5Wa13fFU
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIV4poUZAQo
Allan Streib wrote:
> Theo de Raadt writes:
>
> > Allan Streib 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
Theo de Raadt writes:
> Allan Streib 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
Allan Streib 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.
As currently
Ingo Schwarze writes:
> The limitation to 16 partitions definitely feels painful to me.
Well, one pragmatic solution is to add another disk -- 16 more
partitions. Not always possible, granted.
Seems like one of those numbers that was chosen long ago, when disks
had orders of magnitude less
Lars,
Your email didn't contain a diff.
Is there a reason for that?
I'm wondering whether it is because it is too difficult for you,
or maybe it is too difficult for everyone, or maybe you are simply
talking out of your ass by trying to assign work to other people
because that is your nature?
HAMMER2 could be ported. There is much collaboration between OpenBSD
and DragonflyBSD already (drivers for example).
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/environmentquickstart/#index3h2
On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 16:48 -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
> ZFS cannot be ported to OBSD. It has an
Hi Strahil,
Strahil Nikolov wrote on Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:16:41PM +0300:
> And who the hell needs more than 16 partitions ?
Me, and i'm quite sure many do. It's certainly not a good idea to
combine any partitions that are separate in a default install because
there are good reasons for all
On 2020-04-23, Ian Darwin wrote:
> So: I was able to newfs, mount, and use an OpenBSD partition which
> disklabel called 'a' and which had no trace of an fdisk partition around it.
>
> As Allan pointed out, this is not for booting from - none of those
> fdisk partitions looks very healthy.
On 2020-04-24 04:45, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
> Your point is well-taken (though this is just the way mespeaks); yet,
> Theo is a native speaker
No-one is a native speaker of this made up crap, mecraps
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:29:01PM +0200, Francois Pussault wrote:
> I agree ; Using more than 10 partitions is rare but in case of NFS or other
> network shares of course.
> 16 is really enough in my point of view.
>
I've got to disgree with this one. I'm doing porting work.
I yank out all of
On 2020-04-23 11:45, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
"Jan Betlach" wrote:
For a non-native English speaker like myself, it is very difficult to
read your mestuff...
Your point is well-taken (though this is just the way mespeaks); yet,
Theo is a native speaker, and he seems to have completely
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 04:42:53PM -0400, Allan Streib wrote:
> > So, can I setup openBSD labels on x86_64 without legacy/GPT partition
> > first ?
>
> IIRC yes you can, as long as you don't need to boot from that disk.
Easily confirmed (a few false starts deleted from this transcript):
$
>
> From: Strahil Nikolov
> Sent: Thu Apr 23 22:16:41 CEST 2020
> To: , Theo de Raadt ,
>
> Cc: Martin Schröder
> Subject: Re: More than 16 partitions
>
>
> On April 23, 2020 10:46:44 PM GMT+03:00, Theo de Raadt
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:14:25PM +0200, Jan Betlach wrote:
> For a non-native English speaker like myself, it is very difficult to read
> your mestuff…
One may practice by reading Gollum/Smeagol-passages..
For a non-native English speaker like myself, it is very difficult to
read your mestuff…
Jan
On 23 Apr 2020, at 19:47, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
theo wrote:
That is a rewriting of history.
It's history the way meknows it. Mecertainly predates some of it.
The disklabel format
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Strahil Nikolov wrote:
> So, can I setup openBSD labels on x86_64 without legacy/GPT partition
> first ?
> And who the hell needs more than 16 partitions ? Why not we just port
> ZFS from FreeBSD, or LVM from Linux and get over it ?
>
> P.S.: The last one
> So, can I setup openBSD labels on x86_64 without legacy/GPT partition first ?
IIRC yes you can, as long as you don't need to boot from that disk.
Allan
On April 23, 2020 10:46:44 PM GMT+03:00, Theo de Raadt
wrote:
>You need to stop making this mailing list just about you.
>
>STFU.
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> "Martin Schröder" wrote:
>> > Am Do., 23. Apr. 2020 um 21:31 Uhr schrieb :
>> >> No problem. Would it be too crude a suggestion that we go back to
You need to stop making this mailing list just about you.
STFU.
wrote:
> "Martin Schröder" wrote:
> > Am Do., 23. Apr. 2020 um 21:31 Uhr schrieb :
> >> No problem. Would it be too crude a suggestion that we go back to the
> >> content now...?
> >
> > You didn't provide any patch.
>
> That
"Martin Schröder" wrote:
> Am Do., 23. Apr. 2020 um 21:31 Uhr schrieb :
>> No problem. Would it be too crude a suggestion that we go back to the
>> content now...?
>
> You didn't provide any patch.
That is entirely correct.
--zeurkous.
--
Friggin' Machines!
Am Do., 23. Apr. 2020 um 21:31 Uhr schrieb :
> No problem. Would it be too crude a suggestion that we go back to the
> content now...?
You didn't provide any patch.
"Christian Groessler" wrote:
> On 4/23/20 7:57 PM, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
>
>> theo wrote:
>>> You made it all up.
>> That's an easy accusation, with an easy response: No, medid not make any
>> of it up
>
>
> Could you refrain from using your idiotic "me.."-words?
Fine, me'll try and keep the
On 4/23/20 7:57 PM, zeurk...@volny.cz wrote:
theo wrote:
You made it all up.
That's an easy accusation, with an easy response: No, medid not make any
of it up
Could you refrain from using your idiotic "me.."-words? Thanks
"Jan Betlach" wrote:
> For a non-native English speaker like myself, it is very difficult to
> read your mestuff...
Your point is well-taken (though this is just the way mespeaks); yet,
Theo is a native speaker, and he seems to have completely missed the
content of merecent responses.
Weird,
theo wrote:
> You made it all up.
That's an easy accusation, with an easy response: No, medid not make any
of it up.
--zeurkous.
--
Friggin' Machines!
You made it all up.
wrote:
> theo wrote:
> > That is a rewriting of history.
>
> It's history the way meknows it. Mecertainly predates some of it.
>
> > The disklabel format predates the PC.
>
> Indeed. Mewasn't sure where and when exactly it appeared, so meleft that
> bit out. But medid
theo wrote:
> That is a rewriting of history.
It's history the way meknows it. Mecertainly predates some of it.
> The disklabel format predates the PC.
Indeed. Mewasn't sure where and when exactly it appeared, so meleft that
bit out. But medid know it was older, and metried to communicate that
That is a rewriting of history.
The disklabel format predates the PC.
It came from the the ancient attempt to handle things in CSRG's
4.3reno/4.4 work on the hp300. It was probably a rewrite of the
native HPUX disk format.
This was then put on all the other architectures, as a unified
view of
"Groot" wrote:
> I've tried and failed to create more than 16
> partitions on OpenBSD. First of all I don't
> understand the difference between the operations
> performed by fdisk and disklabel. Is it that
> OpenBSD sees partitions differently? First we
> create an OpenBSD partition with fdisk
Haai,
theo wrote:
> Groot wrote:
>
>> I've tried and failed to create more than 16
>> partitions on OpenBSD. First of all I don't
>> understand the difference between the operations
>> performed by fdisk and disklabel. Is it that
>> OpenBSD sees partitions differently? First we
>> create an
Groot wrote:
> I've tried and failed to create more than 16
> partitions on OpenBSD. First of all I don't
> understand the difference between the operations
> performed by fdisk and disklabel. Is it that
> OpenBSD sees partitions differently? First we
> create an OpenBSD partition with fdisk
43 matches
Mail list logo
