> Benny Lofgren wrote: > > Personally, I think it would be a good thing to bring back slices to the > > vocabulary. That would emphasize the distinction between physical disk > > partitions as they appear in the PC-centric hardware world and logical > > partitions/slices that are a subdivision *within* a disk partition. > > > > Not all architectures even have the PC notion of MBR/GPT partitioning, > > but rather use slices directly as the only means to subdivide a disk. > > Ironically, I think slice is a rather PC-centric term. Sun systems for > instance, use disklabels natively and call the parts within partitions. > Demoting "partition" to "slice" is only necessary on PCs (and I think why > this term mostly sees use in FreeBSD). It would be silly to use "slice" when > talking about Sun machines, because it is not a subdivision of some other > partition.
Sorry Benny, but he's right. It's not just the Sun machines. It's most of the other architectures, and furthermore it is the name of the structure in the kernel, so good luck with that effort of retraining the people who write your software. Unambigious is best: > Just say MBR (or DOS) partition or BSD partition as needed.
