To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's reasonable in my view. All local BSD mount points (/usr, /home, /tmp, /var) go into one slice, so all together they only use up one disk 'partition'.
OTOH, if you want to separate /home, /usr and others on a Linux system you have to use up separate disk partitions. Linux must support extended partitions for practical reasons.
This only limits people who want to multi-boot more than 4 OSes on one disk. Those people will have to either buy another disk or use VMware or similar.
FreeBSD and NetBSD handle PC disk partitioning differently than each other.
NetBSD uses its own disklabel on all architectures that have disklike devices, and only uses the PC FDISK style partition on PCs.
I believe OpenBSD is also different, but I'm not familiar with its disk layout.
That suggests that on, say, the Amiga, you need a separate disk with a netbsd disklabel to store netbsd - but i believe this is incorrect.
However, I believe this *is* the case on architectures like vax, built for VMS, which has no concept of separate partitions on a disk. Right?







Member since:
2006-05-12
Just to clear up confusion. The *BSD's create a partition for themselves that has to be a primary and then create slices inside said partition. So, you're still able to chop up your mount points, etc... inside the partition. All in all, it's a bit "cleaner", but I don't know if actually is technically better or worse then the Linux way of partitioning.