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. Allan
