On Jun 6, 2007, at 10:02 AM, De Zeurkous wrote:

> Like indicated earlier in the discussion, a new, simplified disklabel
> format would solve all those problems on a whim.

Yes, a new, simplified one LIKE GPT.

Maybe we can advance this discussion a little further by you actually  
outlining what you don't like about GPT.

> Why bother standardizing that? It's sysadmin-specific and you don't  
> need
> to bother with it once it's set up properly. Surely you wouldn't  
> want to
> dictate a fixed FS hierarchy and disk layout to everyone?

When I mean "layout", I mean location on the disk of the partition  
map, number of partitions that can be described by the partition map,  
byte-order of the fields within the partition map, etc.

> GUIDs are a myth. They are theoretically impossible to generate with
> common hardware.

...but, as a matter of practicality, are possible to generate with  
sufficient "uniqueness" as to make the theoretical chance of a  
collision very unlikely.

> Then again, I absolutely see no reason for disks (or other devices,  
> for
> that matter) to be roaming without support for networking...

How nice for you to live in a bubble.

> ...again, an updated disklabel format will solve all the remaining of
> those issues.

Ah, you mean one like, let's see ... GPT.

> So we'll be stuck with MBR for the rest of the days of computing.  
> Are the
> trinary, analog, and isolinear versions standardized already?

You are confused.  I guess you missed the part in the EFI spec that  
says the "protective MBR" is optional (it is, however, recommended)?   
Most GPT partition map parsers don't even look for one.  The MBR is a  
footnote, and nothing more.  It is not relevant to the actual usage of  
GPT.  Get over it.

> *sigh* The fact Windoze and some other OSes are ill-behaved are the
> problem of those OSes, _NOT_ others. The MBR we have to contain the
> disklabel on some systems is bad enough already.
>
> Or am I expected to dig up my copy of Norton Utilities 1.0 for  
> Slowaris
> every time I nuke a disk in a test system for some reason?

What on earth are you talking about?

> Hm -- I haven't seen _any_ clever way as of yet.

Then I guess you haven't been looking very hard.

-- thorpej