2 ms·

> OpenBSD's positively Byzantine, labyrinthine partitioning I believe this stems from its BSD Disklabel roots. Disks are divided into 'slices' under BSD, which

> OpenBSD's positively Byzantine, labyrinthine partitioning I believe this stems from its BSD Disklabel roots. Disks are divided into 'slices' under BSD, which are called 'partitions' under non-BSD, either MS-DOS style or EFI. This 'slice'/partition is then sub-divided into different lettered "sub-partitions". And for historical reasons, the 'c' partition refers to .. I think the whole slice.

lproven 2y ago
Nope. I suggest reading my article. HN will break my formatting here. https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/10/version_76_openbsd_of_theseus/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/10/version_76_openbsd_of... OpenBSD created no fewer than nine separate partitions in its 32GB primary volume. The result is that it hasn't got the space to install, say, Xfce. ```` thinkpad-w500$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/wd0a 986M 248M 688M 27% / /dev/wd0n 7.4G 227M 6.8G 4% /home /dev/wd0d 1.8G 5.8M 1.7G 1% /tmp /dev/wd0f 3.5G 1.5G 1.8G 45% /usr /dev/wd0g 986M 329M 608M 36% /usr/X11R6 /dev/wd0h 4.1G 924M 2.9G 24% /usr/local /dev/wd0m 5.7G 2.0K 5.4G 1% /usr/obj /dev/wd0l 1.8G 2.0K 1.7G 1% /usr/src /dev/wd0e 2.8G 10.4M 2.6G 1% /var ```` The real point here is that with such elaborate partitioning, this OS needs dynamic space management such as a logical volume manager. <sarcasm> But its developers are too old-school and want users to exercise their psychic powers and foresee their disk space needs in a few years and plan ahead. Sadly my clairvoyance is extremely weak. </sarcasm> IRL they think you're going to give a whole huge disk to the OS and the problem will go away. Same as the SUSE devs with Btrfs. It will fill its own disk with snapshots and because the FS design is broken, `df` does not work, so it can't tell and then it will self-destruct. Actually, in practice, this is bad design. It needs to be fixed. To be fixed, it needs to be called out publicly. That's what I am doing.

lproven 2y ago

Nope. I suggest reading my article. HN will break my formatting here. https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/10/version_76_openbsd_of_theseus/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/10/version_76_openbsd_of... OpenBSD created no fewer than nine separate partitions in its 32GB primary volume. The result is that it hasn't got the space to install, say, Xfce. ```` thinkpad-w500$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/wd0a 986M 248M 688M 27% / /dev/wd0n 7.4G 227M 6.8G 4% /home /dev/wd0d 1.8G 5.8M 1.7G 1% /tmp /dev/wd0f 3.5G 1.5G 1.8G 45% /usr /dev/wd0g 986M 329M 608M 36% /usr/X11R6 /dev/wd0h 4.1G 924M 2.9G 24% /usr/local /dev/wd0m 5.7G 2.0K 5.4G 1% /usr/obj /dev/wd0l 1.8G 2.0K 1.7G 1% /usr/src /dev/wd0e 2.8G 10.4M 2.6G 1% /var ```` The real point here is that with such elaborate partitioning, this OS needs dynamic space management such as a logical volume manager. <sarcasm> But its developers are too old-school and want users to exercise their psychic powers and foresee their disk space needs in a few years and plan ahead. Sadly my clairvoyance is extremely weak. </sarcasm> IRL they think you're going to give a whole huge disk to the OS and the problem will go away. Same as the SUSE devs with Btrfs. It will fill its own disk with snapshots and because the FS design is broken, `df` does not work, so it can't tell and then it will self-destruct. Actually, in practice, this is bad design. It needs to be fixed. To be fixed, it needs to be called out publicly. That's what I am doing.