Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:08:48 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org> Cc: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why dual boot? Message-ID: <3C527220.C5842AA7@mindspring.com> References: <20020125234453.R32624-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"f.johan.beisser" wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > this is not always very convienent. i have ONE dual booting machine, my > laptop. this also happens to be one of two machines that runs win2k. Laptops are an incredibly common "dual boot" case, from my experience. > > Additionally, no production system can be a dual-boot system, since > > production systems by nature are up 24 hours a day. > > i don't think anyone has disputed this. production systems are, by nature, > single OS/single purpose machines (that's my own choice, and my own > philosphy.. it makes locking a machine down easier..). People don't have their first experience with FreeBSD with the installation of a production system. People who install production systems are generally computing professionals, and I would count them out of the target market for one-off installs, in any case, which is what we are talking about here. Could someone else send the comment in on the consent decree public comment period (ends Monday; see SlashDot) that ther should be a requirement that the space on the disk should be divided such that either user data, or another OS, can be installed on all machines, or that Microsoft should be required to provide partition shrinking tools that can be operated via addition of a .bat file in the / directory? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C527220.C5842AA7>