From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 25 17:06:36 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id RAA13190 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 17:06:36 -0700 Received: from whisker.internet-eireann.ie (whisker.internet-eireann.ie [194.9.34.204]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA13175 ; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 17:06:21 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whisker.internet-eireann.ie (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA13567; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 01:06:43 +0100 To: Warner Losh cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Announcing 2.0.5-950622-SNAP In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:42:36 MDT." <199506251942.NAA03772@rover.village.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 01:06:42 +0100 Message-ID: <13565.804125202@whisker.internet-eireann.ie> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > 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