On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:51:43PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:31:04 +0200,
> Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> >
> > * Yoshinori K. Okuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 16:51]:
> > > * Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
> > > partition of "hd0" is now "
At Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:31:04 +0200,
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>
> * Yoshinori K. Okuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 16:51]:
> > * Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
> > partition of "hd0" is now "hd0,1" but not "hd0,0".
>
> Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent h
* Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 17:35]:
> > * Yoshinori K. Okuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 16:51]:
> >> * Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
> >> partition of "hd0" is now "hd0,1" but not "hd0,0".
> >
> > Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
* Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 17:41]:
> > It was already discussed plenty of times and the answer is that with
> > BIOS it's impossible to guess the linux's names, so it would just
> > confuse the users
>
> Or it may be Solaris or OS/2 Warp or some OS not yet released.
I enjoy the a
* Vladimir Serbinenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 17:36]:
> >Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
> >
> >If changing the partition naming scheme, I would have thought it'd
> >become hd1,1. But why is the first disk 0 and the first partition 1?
> >
> >Using Linux style names might make
> Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>
>>* Yoshinori K. Okuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 16:51]:
>>
>>
>>>* Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
>>> partition of "hd0" is now "hd0,1" but not "hd0,0".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
>>
>>If changing t
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
* Yoshinori K. Okuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 16:51]:
* Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
partition of "hd0" is now "hd0,1" but not "hd0,0".
Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
If changing the partition naming sch
> * Yoshinori K. Okuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 16:51]:
>> * Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
>> partition of "hd0" is now "hd0,1" but not "hd0,0".
>
> Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
>
> If changing the partition naming scheme, I would have th
* Yoshinori K. Okuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061015 16:51]:
> * Number partitions from 1 instead of 0. For instance, the first
> partition of "hd0" is now "hd0,1" but not "hd0,0".
Hm. What's the reason for being inconsistent here?
If changing the partition naming scheme, I would have thought it'd
