Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:42:36 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Announcing 2.0.5-950622-SNAP Message-ID: <199506251942.NAA03772@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 25 Jun 1995 15:44:29 BST
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: Dual boot, no and possibly never. The "oops, I want to go back now" : was covered in my previous message. I'm curious why dual boot is a "no and possibly never"? Windows NT can install itself in such a way as I can boot either 3.1 or 3.5. This is useful for testing to see if the new OS is sane enough (like running make on the programs that you are developing, eg) and gives you a way to back out quickly to a known good level. Right now I have a 2.0.5R and 2.0R dual boot situation setup since I can't afford to have my world badly broken. One or two things broke with 2.0.5R, so I'm waiting for the 2.0.5 cd to upgrade, since it will likely be after my release schedule reaches a sane place. They were likely my fauly, but I didn't have enough time to track down the causes, and just rebooted 2.0R. True, I need two disks to do that, but now that there are slices, I don't see a technical barrier to having multiple BSD systems on one disk (maybe I'm blind to something, however). For R releases, it is no big deal, but for the SNAPs it is a much bigger deal, since they are by definition more unstable than an R release (put more precicely, the quality of SNAPs varies to a large degree, some are solid, others are flakey. The R releases are basically solid). Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506251942.NAA03772>