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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20201024204133.5820dc79a75c02c3ff2c2da1>