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. :-)