Denis Doroshenko wrote:
...
> the faq continuously repeats "root partition" where (i believe) "root
> filesystem" is actually meant. it is confusing, as a partition may
> be primary or secondary, then OpenBSD supports only primary
> partitions and only one per drive (unless something changed since)
> and that's where the disklabel is stored. also it is a root filesystem
> that should be within the bounds readable by BIOS (as far as i
> remember an OpenBSD partition size does not mean much of
> anything, since partition size may be a subject of BIOS restrictions,
> and once the kernel is running, the OS does not care about those)
no, it means what it says, and says what it means (at least in this
regard. :)
File systems live on partitions. Partitions are created with fdisk
and disklabel, and file systems live on those partitions, created
with newfs. (of course, file systems can also live on virtual disks
made out of other partitions, or files residing on file systems within
partitions residing on real or virtual disks...and more. Your head
spinning yet?)
Ok, at least that's my definition.
You can also say "fdisk makes partitions disklabel makes slices" or
"fdisk makes slices and disklabel makes partitions" or "fdisk makes
partitions and disklabel makes subpartitions" or "fdisk makes
do-hickies and disklabel makes thig-a-majigs", but no matter how you
put it, SOMEONE, if not most people, are going to get confused when
they first start out. This is acknowledged directly here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Disks
Changing the terms will only confuse people differently (or exactly
the same, just with different words). Heck, I remember back when
hard disks started becoming available to the masses (i.e., less than
the price of a new luxury car), people were confused about
partitioning then. It's confusing and not immediately intuitive.
It has to be understood, and changing the names will do NOTHING to
help this, 'specially when substituting another imprecise term.
(i.e., could not "file system" mean "the collection of files,
directories and partitions starting at '/'"? Imprecise, but I
don't think invalid)
A further confusion factor is the fact that some form of partitioning
exists on all our platforms. In some cases (for example, armish), two
layers of partitioning are used, in some cases (for example, sparc),
one layer. In at least one case (macppc), it can be either one or two
layers. :) "partition" is a good Unix term with lots of history, and
a good PC term with lots of history...and users are familiar with both.
And then...Unix came to the PC. I don't think either group has the
right to say to the other, "You need to use a new word". Simply
changing the words will leave people wondering, "Do they mean
'partition' here? It sure sounds like partitions".
I do think our FAQ documentation on partitioning (fdisk, disklabel) is
much better than it was long ago, but it could still use improvement,
and if someone wants to show me a CROSS PLATFORM replacement for FAQ
sections 14.1 and 14.2, do so...but improving it will be more than
simply replacing words. However, I doubt it will ever be a one
paragraph, one-read-through thing for new OpenBSD users. Or Linux
users. Or Windows users...
Nick.
