Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:41:33 +0100
From:      Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
Subject:   Re: What is the "better / best " method to multi-boot different OSes natively WITHOUT VirtualBox(es) ?
Message-ID:  <20201024204133.5820dc79a75c02c3ff2c2da1@sohara.org>
In-Reply-To: <20201024213211.065fdb26.freebsd@edvax.de>
References:  <CALMiprbGBaSJQUAA=1HDZAjvsVNK7dqB_5mBb5DKzV16F3hxHg@mail.gmail.com> <20201024111010.5c867e8540a369b826d26703@sohara.org> <8bfbda9f-79b9-5e45-7c00-de32da3f14ed@holgerdanske.com> <20201024213211.065fdb26.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 21:32:11 +0200
Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:40:10 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> > On 2020-10-24 03:10, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 02:51:25 -0700
> > > TheBigBlue Guard <thebigblueguard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Yes ...everyone...What is the "better /best and least expensive "
> > > 
> > > 	A [boot] swap drive bay is the most foolproof and reliable
> > > method that ensures no OS no matter how buggy or misguided can mess
> > > up another.
> > 
> > 
> > Boot drive swap bay -- minimum effort, maximum reliability, and maximum 
> > expense.  This is what I do.
> > 
> > 
> > Multi-boot -- maximum effort, minimum reliability, and minimum expense.
> 
> Add safety to the list - a disk that is not in the machine
> cannot be messed up by a stupid installer program. :-)

	This is (an example of) what makes it the least expensive approach,
anything else is bound to wind up costing you hours at some point.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20201024204133.5820dc79a75c02c3ff2c2da1>