Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #169754 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Giovanni Gigante <giov-debian@deepsky.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-05 15:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-07-08 06:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 66 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Giovanni Gigante <giov-debian@deepsky.it> - 2016-07-05 15:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2016-07-05 19:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:00 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2016-07-05 23:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-07-06 11:00 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2016-07-06 21:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-07-07 08:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 11:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-07 12:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-07-07 12:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-07 13:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Giovanni Gigante <giovanni.gigante@deepsky.it> - 2016-07-07 17:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-08 03:00 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-09 15:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-09 17:00 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-09 19:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-09 22:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2016-07-09 22:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-09 22:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 00:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-07-10 10:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-09 22:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 00:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-10 04:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-07-10 10:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-10 14:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-10 00:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-07-10 09:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-09 22:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-09 23:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-07-10 15:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 16:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> - 2016-07-10 08:40 +0200
UEFI bootloaders (was: Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie?) Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> - 2016-07-10 23:20 +0200
Re: UEFI bootloaders (was: Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie?) "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-07-11 01:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-07 20:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2016-07-07 20:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-07 21:00 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2016-07-07 21:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-07 21:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-07 23:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2016-07-08 05:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-08 20:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2016-07-08 21:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-08 22:00 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2016-07-09 00:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-09 01:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2016-07-09 05:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-08 21:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-08 22:20 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-09 00:10 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-07-09 00:30 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 21:40 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 00:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:00 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:00 +0200
Re: enumerating with Grub* (was: reasons to ditch LILO before...) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-08 02:10 +0200
Re: enumerating with Grub* (was: reasons to ditch LILO before...) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-08 03:10 +0200
Re: enumerating with Grub* (was: reasons to ditch LILO before...) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 04:20 +0200
Re: enumerating with Grub* Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-08 05:00 +0200
Re: enumerating with Grub* David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-08 07:20 +0200
Re: enumerating with Grub* Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-08 07:50 +0200
Re: enumerating with Grub* David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-07-08 16:50 +0200
Re: reasons to ditch LILO before upgrading to jessie? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-07-08 06:10 +0200
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 04:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: enumerating with Grub* (was: reasons to ditch LILO before...) |
| Message-ID | <rStyx-6V1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #169864 |
On Thursday, July 07, 2016 09:03:38 PM David Wright wrote: > The most modern fdisk program I have is gdisk (for GPT disks) and it > counts partitions from 1. Is there some newfangled disk subsystem > that's passed me by which starts counting at zero? I guess it still confuses me, but maybe I have the 0 and 1 reversed...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 05:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: enumerating with Grub* |
| Message-ID | <rSubf-79E-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #169864 |
David Wright composed on 2016-07-07 20:03 (UTC-0500): > On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 20:03:46 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote: >> Grub and Grub2 count drives starting with 0 (as a BIOS does). >> Grub also counts partitions starting with 0. >> Grub2 inexplicably counts partitions starting with 1. > I'm afraid I can't go back further than 1996 with Debian (but that was > the first release, 1.1 or buzz). At that time, Debian counted > partitions from 1, as did lilo. The old Grub definitely stood out > in starting from 0, which is why they spelled it out so carefully > in the docs, eg: > https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/legacy/Naming-convention.html#Naming-convention > Now they have fallen into line, the Grub manual has to make sure you > realise it has been changed, eg > https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html#Naming-convention > The most modern fdisk program I have is gdisk (for GPT disks) and it > counts partitions from 1. Is there some newfangled disk subsystem > that's passed me by which starts counting at zero? I'm not aware of any that are "newfangled", but all the SCSI hosts I'm familiar with do as does a PC BIOS, count starting with 0, usually making the host, the eighth possible device in a SCSI chain, ID7. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 07:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: enumerating with Grub* |
| Message-ID | <rSwmK-oH-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #169870 |
On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 22:52:57 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote: > David Wright composed on 2016-07-07 20:03 (UTC-0500): > > >On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 20:03:46 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote: > > >>Grub and Grub2 count drives starting with 0 (as a BIOS does). > > >>Grub also counts partitions starting with 0. > > >>Grub2 inexplicably counts partitions starting with 1. > > >I'm afraid I can't go back further than 1996 with Debian (but that was > >the first release, 1.1 or buzz). At that time, Debian counted > >partitions from 1, as did lilo. The old Grub definitely stood out > >in starting from 0, which is why they spelled it out so carefully > >in the docs, eg: > >https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/legacy/Naming-convention.html#Naming-convention > > >Now they have fallen into line, the Grub manual has to make sure you > >realise it has been changed, eg > >https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html#Naming-convention > > >The most modern fdisk program I have is gdisk (for GPT disks) and it > >counts partitions from 1. Is there some newfangled disk subsystem > >that's passed me by which starts counting at zero? > > I'm not aware of any that are "newfangled", but all the SCSI hosts > I'm familiar with do as does a PC BIOS, count starting with 0, > usually making the host, the eighth possible device in a SCSI chain, > ID7. Yes, my first Debian systems all had 2GB SCSI disks, so I'm quite familiar with that. But that's counting disks, not partitions. What I'm trying to find out is why you wrote "Grub2 *inexplicably* counts partitions starting with 1" (my emphasis) when everything I've ever seen counts partitions from 1 (with the notable exception of old Grub). I think they've been counted from 1 since their invention. However, I've fallen behind in disk technology, still using PATA disks except for caddies. Hence my question about newfangled devices. Do any of those expect you to count their partitions from other than 1? I'm just flailing around for a reason why old Grub might have done what it did, because you haven't yet given one. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 07:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: enumerating with Grub* |
| Message-ID | <rSwPL-B6-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #169873 |
David Wright composed on 2016-07-08 00:04 (UTC-0500): > What I'm trying to find out is why you wrote "Grub2 *inexplicably* > counts partitions starting with 1" (my emphasis) when everything > I've ever seen counts partitions from 1 (with the notable exception > of old Grub). I think they've been counted from 1 since their invention. The inexplicable part is a consequence of never having seen anything explaining *why* the change that breaks backward compatibility with itself and the compendium of archived help discussion was made, nor why made only for partition enumeration, not disk enumeration, thus mixing two counting methods within single configuration strings. > However, I've fallen behind in disk technology, still using PATA > disks except for caddies. Hence my question about newfangled devices. > Do any of those expect you to count their partitions from other than 1? > I'm just flailing around for a reason why old Grub might have done what > it did, because you haven't yet given one. I wasn't trying to explain why it did what it did, only what it did. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: enumerating with Grub* |
| Message-ID | <rSFgl-64x-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #169875 |
On Fri 08 Jul 2016 at 01:44:28 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote: > David Wright composed on 2016-07-08 00:04 (UTC-0500): > > >What I'm trying to find out is why you wrote "Grub2 *inexplicably* > >counts partitions starting with 1" (my emphasis) when everything > >I've ever seen counts partitions from 1 (with the notable exception > >of old Grub). I think they've been counted from 1 since their invention. > > The inexplicable part is a consequence of never having seen anything > explaining *why* the change that breaks backward compatibility with > itself and the compendium of archived help discussion was made, nor > why made only for partition enumeration, not disk enumeration, thus > mixing two counting methods within single configuration strings. > > >However, I've fallen behind in disk technology, still using PATA > >disks except for caddies. Hence my question about newfangled devices. > >Do any of those expect you to count their partitions from other than 1? > >I'm just flailing around for a reason why old Grub might have done what > >it did, because you haven't yet given one. > > I wasn't trying to explain why it did what it did, only what it did. Fair enough. You and I see things from a very different perspective. You want to see the whys of Grub2's scheme, I want those of old Grub. You see breaking backwards compatibility as inexplicable. I see that as less important than the major design flaw (IMHO) in old Grub of counting partitions in a unique (noone has come up with a counter- example) manner. The argument of mixing counting methods (disks from 0, partitions from 1) is a red herring. Counting this way is firmly established. Why do partitions count from 1? Well, it might be because the designers realised that '0' could be used as an indication of the whole disk. There's no such concept when enumerating disks. /sbin/lilo -A uses 0 in just this way: it deactivates all partitions. But as for design flaws, I see that choice of partitions counted from 0 in old Grub in much the same way as, say, Guido's choice of integer division (3 / 2 yields 1) in Python versions before 3: an unfortunate choice. The backwards compatibility broken by that change alone in py2→py3 makes enumeration changes in Grub seem trivial to get frustrated by. The person who started this subthread seemed to have difficulty with the numbers 0 and 1 anyway. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 06:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rSvgZ-85T-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #169845 |
Gary Dale composed on 2016-07-07 14:39 (UTC-0400): > It also has a "rescue shell" that I've never been able to do anything > useful with. When grub fails, I boot from a rescue cd instead. That way > I get a real working environment. The Grub shell works the same whether in boot rescue mode or run from a normal boot, a lot like more familiar shells. A little practice under a normal boot should make it easy to understand what to do in rescue mode so that it shouldn't be too intimidating under the pressure of being in actual rescue mode. I find Grub's rescue mode nearly always easier to work through to a normal boot than to locate and boot appropriate rescue media, whose purpose often as not is just to work past a broken boot menu. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web