On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:23 -0400 > Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:11:37 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: > > > > > > > > I have one of those. But I decided to stick with traditional DOS > > > > > partitioning style and grub instead of GPT and grub2. > > > > > > > > I am leaning toward traditional partitioning, but with grub2. Do > > > > those two not mix well? > > > > > > GRUB2 works fine with MBR partition tables. But if you're starting > > > from scratch, you may as well use GPT and get rid of the legacy MBR > > > limitations and fragility. > > > > > > > I'm not dissing GPT...but what's fragile about MBR? > > it's 30 years old, > only 4 primary partitions, > only 16 extended partitions, > it's got that weird DOS boot flag thing, > it all has to fit in one sector. > > I had to fix a mispartitioned disk over the weekend, this really should > have been a simple mv-type operation, but because all 4 primary > partitions were in use I had to disable swap and use it as a leap-frog > area. It felt like I was playing 15 pieces with the disk. That's > fragile - not that the disk breaks, but that it breaks my ability to > set the thing up easily. > > Basically, mbr was built to cater for the needs of DOS-3. In the > meantime, 1982 called and they want their last 30 years back. > > Just because we can hack workarounds into it to get it to function > doesn't mean we should continue to use it. > You misunderstand me. I wasn't arguing that GPT wasn't perhaps more elegant than MBR and dos partitions. I wanted to know what was _fragile_ about MBR. Completely different things. -- :wq
