FreeBSD has two ways that you can partition your disk -- a `compatible' way and a non compatible way.
Both ways create MBR partition tables. The non-compatible way jsut lies to the BIOS about the geometry.
The real issue here is that IBM didn't look at the assigned partition ID list before creating their partition ID. FreeBSD has been using 0xa5 for about 9 or 10 years now. It is on all the lists.
This has nothing at all to do with what you are describing. Dangerously dedicated disks have the x0a5 partition on them.
So calling it compatible vs non-compatible is a bit of a miss nomer.
The problem, as others have pointed out, is only the partition ID. This has been discussed to death in the freeBSD lists. People have taken disks that have Linux on it and changed the partition ID only from linux's 0x80 to freebsd's 0xa5 and the machine becomes a brick. It is *ONLY* the partition ID.
Of course, this is all conjecture, but I suspect I'm right.
Re:Is it broken or blocked? (Score:4)
The real issue here is that IBM didn't look at the assigned partition ID list before creating their partition ID. FreeBSD has been using 0xa5 for about 9 or 10 years now. It is on all the lists. This has nothing at all to do with what you are describing. Dangerously dedicated disks have the x0a5 partition on them.
So calling it compatible vs non-compatible is a bit of a miss nomer.
The problem, as others have pointed out, is only the partition ID. This has been discussed to death in the freeBSD lists. People have taken disks that have Linux on it and changed the partition ID only from linux's 0x80 to freebsd's 0xa5 and the machine becomes a brick. It is *ONLY* the partition ID.
actually you are wrong.