this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
4 points (53.2% liked)

Linuxsucks

338 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. FOSS advocates and Linux evangelists aren't welcome. -We ask that you block us.
  2. Moderation is heavy handed. Try to stay on topic (that is LINUXSUCKS!).
  3. No Complaining Mute the sub if users, content, or rules bother you *it's ok to report rule violations

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
madthumbs@lemmy.world
Uschteinheim@lemmy.world
4
Linux forums are full of dual boot woes (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago by madthumbs@lemmy.world to c/linuxsucks@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I believe, you've posted a windowssucks post...

[–] madthumbs@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Would it be an issue if the bootloader and instructions for dual booting were from Microsoft though? It's also kinda silly to have them on the same drive anyway as it's not like it's not a known common issue.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So, what this meme is about, is that Windows upgrades typically overwrite the bootloader.

The user has installed a bootloader with the ability to select between multiple operating systems (typically GRUB) and then Microsoft comes along and undoes this change without asking.

If the bootloader and instructions for dualbooting were from Microsoft, that would imply that they wouldn't keep overwriting GRUB, or at least that the bootloader they overwrite it with, still allows you to select your other operating system.

Microsoft has no interest in fixing this, because they're the monopolist. Continuously interfering with the use of alternative operating systems allows them to keep their competition small.

[–] madthumbs@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I was using Arch for a comparatively short time. -An Arch update damaged the bootloader (it's own -sole OS on the drive). -It doesn't make Arch monopolistic.

If there's a complaint, it should be that people are offering a free OS instead of allowing room for real competition.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The only woe I’ve ever had in dual booting is that Windows would enable fast boot automatically, which Linux didn’t like.

Other than that, no problems in the last 10-ish years.

[–] madthumbs@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Never heard of that, but there was a very recent issue with secure boot. 10-ish years sounds lucky!

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Something something Microsoft evil something something arch btw

  • Every lemmy comment about this

The problem of which bootloader loads first depends on who updated their bootloader last. I've had different linuxes in multiboot systems steal the bootloaders from eachother.

Also BIOS mode is not good, you don't want to run hardware access through another emulation layer (CSM) that may not support features added in UEFI

[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago

Lemmy dot world ahh post.