Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 01:06:42 +0100 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Announcing 2.0.5-950622-SNAP Message-ID: <13565.804125202@whisker.internet-eireann.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:42:36 MDT." <199506251942.NAA03772@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. Just the amount of work involved is all. You can't have 2 FreeBSD slices on a disk and boot from the second one as the boot code is too stupid to understand that you might want to boot from something other than the first one it finds. If you can think of a way of making dual-boot work in all possible scenarios, then I'm certainly not adverse.. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13565.804125202>