Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!usenet.coe.montana.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mycroft From: mycroft@trinity.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: NetBSD-0.9 partitioning Date: 02 Sep 1993 07:15:33 GMT Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 16 Message-ID: <MYCROFT.93Sep2031533@trinity.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <746948012.8813.0@unix7.andrew.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: trinity.gnu.ai.mit.edu In-reply-to: Christopher Dalton's message of Thu, 2 Sep 1993 01:33:32 -0400 In article <746948012.8813.0@unix7.andrew.cmu.edu> Christopher Dalton <cd27+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: [Never done the first three, so I can't really comment on them.] 4. Why can't NetBSD use the same install procedure as 386BSD (which didn't require a clue)? Why can't NetBSD lose as badly as 386BSD, you mean? The 386BSD installation procedure created two partitions on my machine--one 5MB swap partition, and the rest in root. In theory, this is a lousy setup. In practice, it's even worse, and given that different systems have different loads, it makes more sense to let people configure the system for the load they expect.