Would it be an issue if the bootloader and instructions for dual booting were from Microsoft though? It’s also kinda silly to have them on the same drive anyway as it’s not like it’s not a known common issue.
So, what this meme is about, is that Windows upgrades typically overwrite the bootloader.
The user has installed a bootloader with the ability to select between multiple operating systems (typically GRUB) and then Microsoft comes along and undoes this change without asking.
If the bootloader and instructions for dualbooting were from Microsoft, that would imply that they wouldn’t keep overwriting GRUB, or at least that the bootloader they overwrite it with, still allows you to select your other operating system.
Microsoft has no interest in fixing this, because they’re the monopolist. Continuously interfering with the use of alternative operating systems allows them to keep their competition small.
I was using Arch for a comparatively short time. -An Arch update damaged the bootloader (it’s own -sole OS on the drive). -It doesn’t make Arch monopolistic.
If there’s a complaint, it should be that people are offering a free OS instead of allowing room for real competition.
Would it be an issue if the bootloader and instructions for dual booting were from Microsoft though? It’s also kinda silly to have them on the same drive anyway as it’s not like it’s not a known common issue.
So, what this meme is about, is that Windows upgrades typically overwrite the bootloader.
The user has installed a bootloader with the ability to select between multiple operating systems (typically GRUB) and then Microsoft comes along and undoes this change without asking.
If the bootloader and instructions for dualbooting were from Microsoft, that would imply that they wouldn’t keep overwriting GRUB, or at least that the bootloader they overwrite it with, still allows you to select your other operating system.
Microsoft has no interest in fixing this, because they’re the monopolist. Continuously interfering with the use of alternative operating systems allows them to keep their competition small.
I was using Arch for a comparatively short time. -An Arch update damaged the bootloader (it’s own -sole OS on the drive). -It doesn’t make Arch monopolistic.
If there’s a complaint, it should be that people are offering a free OS instead of allowing room for real competition.