The update wasn’t supposed to reach dual-boot PCs.
    • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
      18·
      3 months ago

      I never did dual boot. The first time moving from windows 2000 to Linux, my hard drive was only 2 GB and I couldn’t fit both of the OS:es on it, so I nuked the windows one.

      • azimir@lemmy.ml
        12·
        3 months ago

        At one point my 1GB disk was the “big one” in the dorm. It was the windows share of some random media. I had room for the whole 40MB videos “Jesus vs Frosty” (The Spirit of Christmas) and “Jesus vs Santa Claus”. It was before South Park became an actual show, but people watched those 100’s of times off my hard drive.

        When I bought a 3GB from Fry’s it was an open question how we’d fill it. Of course, that was just as the mp3 codec started to gain traction… Problem solved.

    • xavier666@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      Microsoft breaks bootloader and nixes Linux partition

      Microsoft: “patch seems to be working as intended”

  • uebquauntbez@lemmy.world
    7·
    3 months ago

    Microsoft! You missed your last chance to stay on my computers with your os. Take care, so long and thanks for all the cons.

  • h0bbl3s@lemmy.world
    4·
    3 months ago

    I dual booted a few times back in the days of winxp and win7. Never had a good experience somehow windows or a grub update always messed up things. Haven’t ran windows in years but when I have to it goes on a separate drive now.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    This is a regular occurrence and honestly we need to stop recommending dual boot. Use separate drives if you need to, but sharing the same drive is destined to brick something

    • Petter1@lemm.ee
      0·
      3 months ago

      But having 2 drives does not solve the boot loading issue, I mean, even if you have two drives, you still have only one bootloader, not?

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        No. You can have more than one EFI system partition with separate bootloaders on each drive and set their boot order in the BIOS, just like booting from USB or anything else.

        This is also possible with just one drive. The efi boot entries for each OS are stored separately in the efi system partition.

        • non_burglar@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          EFI can also live in firmware memory.

          You can pull the linux drive, boot from the windows drive, and if one of the firmware updates was for efi, windows will trash the entry for your Linux disk.

          This has happened for me many times, I had to use a grub rescue disk to rebuild the efi table.

          • NaN@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            The boot entries live in firmware yes, efibootmgr can create and remove them. The are pointers to the bootloader. Many systems can boot from the disk itself without the entry, the entry just makes it pretty (“Fedora” instead of NVME1).

              • NaN@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                11·
                2 months ago

                Somewhat. One, a system can be bootable without the entries because they are just pointers to the actual bootloader, so even if windows does the stupid and deletes them it isn’t the end of the world. It does depend on your specific firmware though.

                Also two, you can write them again with a single line in efibootmgr, they’re just saying “if I click Fedora load the shim from the EFI system partition on disk 1”.

                This is very different than the old world where windows would delete your bootloader entirely and the MBR couldn’t be easily explored. They live in the efi system partition instead - or at least the shim does- and typically every OS leaves the other ones alone (even Windows, except in this case, although it didn’t touch the shim itself).

                The initial comment was about the bootloader and really only applies to MBR partitions.

  • Nick@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    So they were trying to patch systems that use GRUB for Windows-only installs? What a load of BS. Why would anybody install GRUB to boot only Windows with that? Or am I overlooking something?

    Furthermore, if GRUB has a security issue, they should’ve contributed a patch at the source instead of patching it themselves somehow. I’m a bit stunned at the audacity of touching unmounted filesystems in an OS patch. Good thing Windows still doesn’t include EXT4 and BTRFS drivers because they might start messing with unencrypted Linux system drives at this rate