To: Phil Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12/05/1997 16:15:01
Phil Nelson <email@example.com> writes [reordered]
>The problem is that there are so many different ways to do things, you can't
>have "one size fits all" and have everyone happy about the one size. Possibly
>we should not have a "standard" partitioning and make the user always enter
>their sizes. Defaults could still be given here.
Yup. Any linearly-computed defaults that fits Rob's machine would be
far too small for a small-memory machine or even a 32-meg or 64-meg machine.
And there the limits get arbitrary: i want about 100Meg of swap
for a 32M or 64M machine.
>The above was the reason for having custom installs. But they should be
>easier to access. I'll look at adding an appropriate menu selection to
>do custom reselection. (I'm not sure I'll have that much time to look
Exactly so. The option to customize is there, just as it was with
I have a better idea, though; add a menu entry that steals disk space
from one partition and adds it to an adjacent partition.
We already have overlap checks, adding ajdacency checks is easy, and
then it's just a matter of typing in the units to move and picking two
For brownie points, implement steals betwen non-adjacent partitions by
stealing the same amount of space between all intermediate partitions...