On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:44:44 -0400 Nick Holland <n...@holland-consulting.net> wrote:
> > what people dont realize sometimes that yapping about > > and not giving patches is a sign of "wanting something" > > but "not giving back". i echo my ideas on the mailing > > list because if any of it is usable, a developer could > > make it happen probably 100x sooner, or of finally i > > get my sh*t together it is just flatly refused. life > > is too short for that. > > Hey, I beat you to whining about fdisk and disklabel by probably > almost ten years. :) And actually, a lot HAS improved since > then, in small, incremental ways. LBA made life a LOT easier. :) > > I think most the developers wouldn't mind seeing a smoother fdisk > program...as long as it fit all the other criteria that a good > fdisk program needs to fit. > > Talking about it from a x/255/63 and i386 perspective, however > is not a productive starting point. There is way, way too much > else in this very complicated world of small computers... I've enjoyed the rants about the old and odd stuff, and I hope the two of you don't mind me butting in, but both of you forgot to rant about something important, namely, new types of storage. On a the lower and fundamental levels, solid state storage does not have the limitations or organization of rotating storage (disks), but none the less, in current products the new tech has been (intentionally) impaired and implemented with the old ideas to provide ass-backwards compatibility. At present, the Solid State (storage) Disks/Devices (SSD's) currently available have been designed for the sake of selling into existing markets where being ass-backwards compatibility is, unfortunately, a requirement. Though my employers would shoot me for violating an NDA, and Theo would shoot me for signing an NDA in the first place, for me it's tough to make a living with out them, so I have to be vague and leave out important details. There are efforts afoot to abandon the limitations and organization of rotational storage, so both existing "disk layout" tools such as fdisk and disklabel, and even file systems, will eventually need to change to benefit from new technology. The whole concept of sectors, 512 byte or otherwise, on solid state storage systems/devices is really just a sad kludge. The concept of a "disk controller" is already out dated and will soon be abandoned. The following is publicly available information, is nearly two years old, is still using ass-backwards compatibility, and is obviously quite a few redesign revisions behind reality, but it should give you an idea of where the storage world is headed: http://www.tgdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34065 Thoughts? -- J.C. Roberts
