Re: disk vs partition numbering

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Hollis Blanchard]

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> 
> > Oh, btw, it's HIGHLY confusing that disks start at 0, partitions at
> > 1. Could you please fix it and make it consequently? either hd1,1
> > or hd0,0, but not hd0,1 or hd1,0.
> 
> No. It is consistent with most operating systems, so less confusing to
> the user. GRUB Legacy used 0-based counting for partitions, and I have
> received an uncountable number of complaints. Thus it is really a bad
> idea to make GRUB inconsistent against other systems.

I am very glad partitions are now numbered from one; that will certainly
reduce user confusion (although we should expect complaints from people
who know how grub1 works).

However, we will now receive lots of complaints, like this one, because
disks start at zero but partitions start at one. After all, we've all
learned that consistency is critical for good user interface...

-Hollis

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

On Saturday 09 December 2006 01:17, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > > Oh, btw, it's HIGHLY confusing that disks start at 0, partitions at
> > > 1. Could you please fix it and make it consequently? either hd1,1
> > > or hd0,0, but not hd0,1 or hd1,0.
> >
> > No. It is consistent with most operating systems, so less confusing to
> > the user. GRUB Legacy used 0-based counting for partitions, and I have
> > received an uncountable number of complaints. Thus it is really a bad
> > idea to make GRUB inconsistent against other systems.
>
> I am very glad partitions are now numbered from one; that will certainly
> reduce user confusion (although we should expect complaints from people
> who know how grub1 works).
>
> However, we will now receive lots of complaints, like this one, because
> disks start at zero but partitions start at one. After all, we've all
> learned that consistency is critical for good user interface...

Agreed. Yes, consistency is extremely important. Unfortunately, there are two 
types of consistency in this world:

- Mathematical or symmetrical consistency

- Customary or accustomed consistency

As you know very well, GRUB Legacy follows the former. I decided to change it 
to the latter in GRUB 2, as I don't have to care about compatibilities with 
GRUB Legacy so much, and I learned that theoretical beauty is often just a 
masturbation when coming to the user interfaces with experience.

There are so many "inconsistencies" in computers. For example, lines are 
counted from 1. Columns are counted from 0. AFAIK, all editors and viewers 
follow this convention. If one makes it "consistent", probably a lot of 
people would feel uncomfortable.

The critical thing is how to reduce new things that people would have to study 
for using a program. GRUB Legacy made a mistake, since nearly all operating 
systems use 0-based for disks, and 1-based for partitions. In GRUB Legacy, 
compatibilities preceded the learning curve. That is why one chapter is used 
only to train people for a new thing in the manual! The same thing is 
described more formerly in a later chapter as well. This is the cost in 
having inconsistency with other materials. Not about the cost in writing 
documentation. It is about the cost in millions of people reading many lines 
again and again.

Now, some people say that this is inconsistent against GRUB Legacy. OK. I 
admit it. But which is more important in a long run: easy for existing users 
to migrate to GRUB 2, or easy for new comers to adapt GRUB 2? How difficult 
is it that existing users know GRUB now follows the same rule as others? How 
difficult is it that beginners study a rule different from others, so not 
intuitive at all?

Okuji

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Hollis Blanchard]

On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 23:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> 
> The critical thing is how to reduce new things that people would have to study 
> for using a program. GRUB Legacy made a mistake, since nearly all operating 
> systems use 0-based for disks, and 1-based for partitions.

Since I'm used to Linux, which assigns disks letters rather than
numbers, I was unaware that other OSs like BSD number disks from 0.
Since that's the case, and neither 0 nor 1 will make sense to people
expecting "a", I'm OK with 0.

> Now, some people say that this is inconsistent against GRUB Legacy. OK. I 
> admit it. But which is more important in a long run: easy for existing users 
> to migrate to GRUB 2, or easy for new comers to adapt GRUB 2? How difficult 
> is it that existing users know GRUB now follows the same rule as others? How 
> difficult is it that beginners study a rule different from others, so not 
> intuitive at all?

Yes, I definitely agree with the decision to number partitions from 1.
(Hopefully we can do the same with menu entries too. :) Making this
change at a time when the config file syntax changes is the only good
opportunity.

-Hollis

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[James Lockie]

Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 09 December 2006 01:17, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
>>     
>>>> Oh, btw, it's HIGHLY confusing that disks start at 0, partitions at
>>>> 1. Could you please fix it and make it consequently? either hd1,1
>>>> or hd0,0, but not hd0,1 or hd1,0.
>>>>         
>>> No. It is consistent with most operating systems, so less confusing to
>>> the user. GRUB Legacy used 0-based counting for partitions, and I have
>>> received an uncountable number of complaints. Thus it is really a bad
>>> idea to make GRUB inconsistent against other systems.
>>>       
>> I am very glad partitions are now numbered from one; that will certainly
>> reduce user confusion (although we should expect complaints from people
>> who know how grub1 works).
>>
>> However, we will now receive lots of complaints, like this one, because
>> disks start at zero but partitions start at one. After all, we've all
>> learned that consistency is critical for good user interface...
>>     
>
> Agreed. Yes, consistency is extremely important. Unfortunately, there are two 
> types of consistency in this world:
>
> - Mathematical or symmetrical consistency
>
> - Customary or accustomed consistency
>
> As you know very well, GRUB Legacy follows the former. I decided to change it 
> to the latter in GRUB 2, as I don't have to care about compatibilities with 
> GRUB Legacy so much, and I learned that theoretical beauty is often just a 
> masturbation when coming to the user interfaces with experience.
>
> There are so many "inconsistencies" in computers. For example, lines are 
> counted from 1. Columns are counted from 0. AFAIK, all editors and viewers 
> follow this convention. If one makes it "consistent", probably a lot of 
> people would feel uncomfortable.
>
> The critical thing is how to reduce new things that people would have to study 
> for using a program. GRUB Legacy made a mistake, since nearly all operating 
> systems use 0-based for disks, and 1-based for partitions. In GRUB Legacy, 
> compatibilities preceded the learning curve. That is why one chapter is used 
> only to train people for a new thing in the manual! The same thing is 
> described more formerly in a later chapter as well. This is the cost in 
> having inconsistency with other materials. Not about the cost in writing 
> documentation. It is about the cost in millions of people reading many lines 
> again and again.
>
> Now, some people say that this is inconsistent against GRUB Legacy. OK. I 
> admit it. But which is more important in a long run: easy for existing users 
> to migrate to GRUB 2, or easy for new comers to adapt GRUB 2? How difficult 
> is it that existing users know GRUB now follows the same rule as others? How 
> difficult is it that beginners study a rule different from others, so not 
> intuitive at all?
>
> Okuji

I like that fact that grub is different. :-)
All software should refuse to work unless the manual is read, grub 
legacy was like that for me. :-)
I take that back, software should work without having to read the 
manual, grub legacy was NOT like that for me.
Maybe grub should use the way of designating a disk/partition in the 
same way as what OS it is running on?
Yes, being different for each OS. :-)

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[adrian15]

> On Saturday 09 December 2006 01:17, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> As you know very well, GRUB Legacy follows the former. I decided to change it 
> to the latter in GRUB 2, as I don't have to care about compatibilities with 
> GRUB Legacy so much, and I learned that theoretical beauty is often just a 
> masturbation when coming to the user interfaces with experience.
 >
 > But which is more important in a long run: easy for existing users
> to migrate to GRUB 2, or easy for new comers to adapt GRUB 2? How difficult 
> is it that existing users know GRUB now follows the same rule as others? How 
> difficult is it that beginners study a rule different from others, so not 
> intuitive at all?

If Gnu/Linux it is as good as it seems the most of the people that are 
going to begin to use grub2 would be the ones that come from migrating 
from Windows.

For them their first hard disk (Who is going to have a zero-hard disk in 
the real world. It has no sense) is C:, but you could name it 1.
And when they partition their hard disk they suppose that the first cut 
it is the 1 not the 0.

I advise to use the hard disk from 1 and partition from 1 convention on 
grub2.

About your arguments... mine are: Grub2 users are not unix OS or its 
sysadmins but Windows ones. Grub2 should address to this kind of users 
in my opinnion.

Nevertheless sysadmins will learn (reading the manual) how to make grub 
work but normal users will complain because if it is not straightforward 
it is not worthy.


adrian15

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

On Wednesday 13 December 2006 05:11, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> Since I'm used to Linux, which assigns disks letters rather than
> numbers, I was unaware that other OSs like BSD number disks from 0.
> Since that's the case, and neither 0 nor 1 will make sense to people
> expecting "a", I'm OK with 0.

Not always true. For example, look at /dev/fd* and /dev/ide/hd/*. Linux is 
inconsistent, but does use 0-based counting for disks when using integers.

> Yes, I definitely agree with the decision to number partitions from 1.
> (Hopefully we can do the same with menu entries too. :) Making this
> change at a time when the config file syntax changes is the only good
> opportunity.

I didn't think of this. It is an excellent question. For now, I don't know 
which is more natural, starting from 0 or 1 for menu entries. Marco, what is 
your opinion about this? Since you wrote most of the code, I guess you have 
some suggestion.

Okuji

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

On Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:14, James Lockie wrote:
> I take that back, software should work without having to read the
> manual, grub legacy was NOT like that for me.

Exactly. It is ideal that one can use software without reading a manual 
appropriately. The reality is different, but we should make effort to get 
closer to this goal.

> Maybe grub should use the way of designating a disk/partition in the
> same way as what OS it is running on?
> Yes, being different for each OS. :-)

Unfortunately, this would cause strange behaviors. For example, suppose that 
you have installed GRUB into a floppy or CD-R. When you bring it to another 
computer, how should GRUB behave? Mimic the operating system on which GRUB 
was installed? Mimic the operating system the user is trying to boot? If you 
have multiple operating systems installed, which one???

Okuji

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

On Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:59, adrian15 wrote:
> For them their first hard disk (Who is going to have a zero-hard disk in
> the real world. It has no sense) is C:, but you could name it 1.
> And when they partition their hard disk they suppose that the first cut
> it is the 1 not the 0.

And you could name it 0.

> About your arguments... mine are: Grub2 users are not unix OS or its
> sysadmins but Windows ones. Grub2 should address to this kind of users
> in my opinnion.

Hmm... I don't agree that most users are Windows users. AFAIK, most Windows 
users stick to the default selector (ntldr), and does not try to see how GRUB 
works at all.

But you are comparing apples with oranges here. What Windows does is to count 
only partitions for hard disks and count only disk for floppy disks and 
CD/DVD drives. C: is not a disk. It is a partition that Windows can recognize 
as a primary partition. D: is a second partition, regardless of whether it is 
in the same disk as C: or in next disk, or in next next disk. So you cannot 
compare GRUB's scheme with Windows' simply.

Personally, I think it is really unfortunate that the way of Windows is of no 
use. Really no use. If Windows were not that crap, everybody else could 
follow the same way, and everybody would be quite happy.

Okuji

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[adrian15]

> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:59, adrian15 wrote:
>> > For them their first hard disk (Who is going to have a zero-hard disk in
>> > the real world. It has no sense) is C:, but you could name it 1.
>> > And when they partition their hard disk they suppose that the first cut
>> > it is the 1 not the 0.
> 
> And you could name it 0.

This is in computing world... but if you go to a building you go to the 
ground floor or to the 1st floor but you not do go to the 0th floor!


> 
>> > About your arguments... mine are: Grub2 users are not unix OS or its
>> > sysadmins but Windows ones. Grub2 should address to this kind of users
>> > in my opinnion.
> 
> Hmm... I don't agree that most users are Windows users. AFAIK, most Windows 
> users stick to the default selector (ntldr), and does not try to see how GRUB 
> works at all.

When I talked about Windows users I was talking about Windows users that 
do not stick the Windows but the ones that migrates, and thus dual boot 
with Gnu/Linux.

> 
> But you are comparing apples with oranges here. What Windows does is to count 
> only partitions for hard disks and count only disk for floppy disks and 
> CD/DVD drives. C: is not a disk. It is a partition that Windows can recognize 
> as a primary partition. D: is a second partition, regardless of whether it is 
> in the same disk as C: or in next disk, or in next next disk. So you cannot 
> compare GRUB's scheme with Windows' simply.

Yes. You're right. So.. please compare the building floors scheme (what 
everyone understands) with hard disks and partitions.

> 
> Personally, I think it is really unfortunate that the way of Windows is of no 
> use. Really no use. If Windows were not that crap, everybody else could 
> follow the same way, and everybody would be quite happy.

I am of the same opinnion. :)
I suppose the MS-DOS original developer (that one that Bill bought the 
OS with little money) thought that letters were less scary for 
identifying devices.

> 
> Okuji

adrian15

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Marco Gerards]

adrian15 <adrian15@raulete.net> writes:

>> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:59, adrian15 wrote:
>>> > For them their first hard disk (Who is going to have a zero-hard disk in
>>> > the real world. It has no sense) is C:, but you could name it 1.
>>> > And when they partition their hard disk they suppose that the first cut
>>> > it is the 1 not the 0.
>>
>> And you could name it 0.
>
> This is in computing world... but if you go to a building you go to
> the ground floor or to the 1st floor but you not do go to the 0th
> floor!

Another thing about computing world is that not everything is logical,
you don't have to deal with bits and bytes only, but also with
people.  Many operating systems start counting disks with 1.

You could argue other operating systems do other things and you will
be right.  But a decision has to be taken, which is what Okuji did.

[...]

>> But you are comparing apples with oranges here. What Windows does is
>> to count only partitions for hard disks and count only disk for
>> floppy disks and CD/DVD drives. C: is not a disk. It is a partition
>> that Windows can recognize as a primary partition. D: is a second
>> partition, regardless of whether it is in the same disk as C: or in
>> next disk, or in next next disk. So you cannot compare GRUB's scheme
>> with Windows' simply.
>
> Yes. You're right. So.. please compare the building floors scheme
> (what everyone understands) with hard disks and partitions.

It has nothing to do with floors, but it does have something to do
with counting.  No one starts counting with 0.  Except when you count
partitions, of course. ;-)

--
Marco

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Damon Register]

Marco Gerards wrote:
> with counting.  No one starts counting with 0.  Except when you count
> partitions, of course. ;-)
what about arrays in C/C++ ?

Damon Register

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Tomáš Ebenlendr]

Dne 13 Prosinec 2006, 22:00, Yoshinori K. Okuji napsal(a):
> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:14, James Lockie wrote:
>
>> I take that back, software should work without having to read the
>> manual, grub legacy was NOT like that for me.
>
> Exactly. It is ideal that one can use software without reading a manual
> appropriately. The reality is different, but we should make effort to get
> closer to this goal.
>
>> Maybe grub should use the way of designating a disk/partition in the
>> same way as what OS it is running on? Yes, being different for each OS.
>> :-)
>>
>
> Unfortunately, this would cause strange behaviors. For example, suppose
> that you have installed GRUB into a floppy or CD-R. When you bring it to
> another computer, how should GRUB behave? Mimic the operating system on
> which GRUB was installed? Mimic the operating system the user is trying to
> boot? If you have multiple operating systems installed, which one???
>
> Okuji

The only think grub may (should?) mimic is bios. IBM-PC compatible bios
has no 'visible' numbering. I would choose 0-based, (subtracting 0x80
is better for me than 0x81), but I'm not a beginner.

Another thing is, that we can add possibility to change naming scheme
by some module. Then, at the beginning of config file will be something
like 'renamedevices --linuxstyle', and then we can use (hda,1).


--
                            Tomas Ebenlendr
                            http://drak.ucw.cz/ebik

Re: disk vs partition numbering

[Tristan Gingold]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:09:59AM +0100, adrian15 wrote:
> >On Wednesday 13 December 2006 09:59, adrian15 wrote:
> >>> For them their first hard disk (Who is going to have a zero-hard disk in
> >>> the real world. It has no sense) is C:, but you could name it 1.
> >>> And when they partition their hard disk they suppose that the first cut
> >>> it is the 1 not the 0.
> >
> >And you could name it 0.
> 
> This is in computing world... but if you go to a building you go to the 
> ground floor or to the 1st floor but you not do go to the 0th floor!
That's a pretty interesting example.  In US and Japan ground floor is 1st floor
while in *some* other countries (such as France) ground floor is 0th floor.
I concluded that some conventions are not universal and one have to choose
one.

Tristan.