On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 12:44 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 03/04/2012 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 04.03.2012 21:13, schrieb Peter Larsen: > >> > Only on systems that are dual-booted does > >> > partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for > >> > everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the > >> > bios needs during boot. > > > > is this a joke? > > No. I think that Mr. Larsen simply misunderstood, or generalized too > far. That wasn't my intention. I did go a bit further since the following list from the original email is quite scary reading today: > /dev/sda9 174809088 205529087 15360000 83 Linux > /dev/sda10 205531136 208603135 1536000 83 Linux > /dev/sda11 208605184 221302783 6348800 83 Linux > /dev/sda12 221304832 291960831 35328000 83 Linux > Nothing except (maybe) Windows cares about partition types or the > boot flag, and starting from there he landed on the Island of > Conclusions and decided that that meant that if you're not dual booting, > you don't ever need multiple partitions. lol - "Island of Confusions" - I like that! It is Sunday after all and time to relax a bit. I wanted to have a dialog about the number of partitions in the first place. > I know -- Oh Ghod, how well I know! -- how easy it is to forget that > most people don't have decades of computer experience and that things > that are intuitively obvious to those of us who do are sometimes > incomprehensible to the less experienced. And, of course, the > requirements of those of us using Linux only at home aren't the same as > for those using it professionally, especially when it comes to backups > and security. Still, it's good to have some insight from the > professional side if only to show us how different the two environments > are and what we'd have to take into account if we were using Linux to > run even a small business. Personally I have run all Linux systems that's been "mine" for the last 15 years a single OS systems. Dual boot is for desktops, not for servers. And for servers today, I see little to no roles for the traditional partition. Only system disks gets partitioned on my systems - all other disks don't even have a partition table. Absolutely no need for it. And no, that doesn't mean I have "data" on the same disk as "system". I just don't use partitions to make that separation - because they cannot. The data and system would still be on the same physical disk, defeating the purpose of the original contempt of my statement. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: abuse me. I'm so lame I sent a bug report to debian-devel-changes -- Seen on #Debian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
