They don’t want you to have dual boot. They want you to choose.
Glad I chose linux then.
I’m going to choose a VM.
I’d almost bet money that in a year or two they’ll make it so that the latest version of windows cannot be installed in virtual machines
That would break 90+% of installations then. And all of Azure.
Yes and
That’s when they “graciously” offer to whitelist “approved” devices to boot windows VM from.
Then anyone running a Windows VM would just switch to a Server edition, which is almost exclusively run via a VM.
I have a morbid curiosity to see that happen.
removed by mod
No surprises there, just the usual shit°-° /|-👍 / \
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
deleted by creator
What is that latter fallback called? I set up my boot manually using an EFI stub last time I installed arch but wasn’t aware of any fallback bootloader
deleted by creator
Thanks for the detailed explanation, makes a lot of sense! I guess what I did was set up a UEFI entry that specifies the location of the Linux kernel without any intermediate bootloader. Pretty sure I didn’t set the fallback, so I’m guessing that’s still owned by windows.
deleted by creator
I agree they should have sent a patch to the grub source, but keep in mind big software companies like microsoft, Verizon, … do not normally allow their product teams to send a patch or PR to open source projects. This is because in their contract it states that all code written on and during company times is owned by the company. This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.
This changes when the team explicitly works on the foss product/project like the ms wsl team or the team working on linux supporting azure hardware, but that is an exception. I do not believe the microsoft kernel/bootloader team is allowed to send patches to grub.Its a terrible thing, and it shouldnt be, but thats the fact of the world atm.
What? Microsoft have written and released and contributed to many open source projects - they created vscode for one. They are even one of the top contributors to the Linux kernel.
The wrote and released VS Code - a completely opensource development environment. If they wanted to patch Grub I bet they could have found the permissions internally to do that. Microsoft is a lot more open to OSS contributions then they were in the past.
Not saying youre wrong, but you took the wrong project as an example hehe.
Visual code is not open source. Its core is, but visual code isnt. The difference is what visual code ships with, on top of its core.
Its like saying chrome == chromium ( it isnt ).Visual code comes with a lot of features, addins and other stuff that isnt in the core.
.net debugger for example, is not found in vscodium ( build of the vscode core ). And there is more stuff i cant think of now but have come across. Source: been using vscodium for a few months instead of vscodeSure, my bad. But it does not change my point. They have released stuff as opensource even if not all of it. Which means they can if they want to.
This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.
That’s not how it works. It just means the company owns the code for all intents and purposes, which also means that if they tell you that you can release it under a FOSS license / contribute to someone else’s project, you can absolutely do that (they effectively grant you the license to use “their” code that you wrote under a FOSS license somewhere else).
Not true. A lot of commonly known closed source companies contribute to open source software, including Linux and BSD
And not every team is allowed to do that.
Also, youre telling somebody who has worked with big companies not allowing it in their employer contract that he is lying? Riiiight…
A lot of google devs also are not allowed to do any linux work outside of work without explicit permissions because of all the internal docs, teams and other work being done on linux from within google. Development rights is an absolute mess, legally.
I usually dont care and do what is right, despite what my emploter contract says, but i have gotten in trouble for itI’m not saying you’re lying, but you said
do not allow software developers to send a patch or PR to open source projects.
But this sentence in particular was misleading. Maybe you specifically did not have the right to do so, but in the Linux and BSD codebases there are a lot of @microsoft @netflix @oracle contributions, so at least there is someone in those companies authorized to do so
Fair, and ill edit my post accordingly!
There are teams that are allowed, and within those companies are teams that are directly related to foss projects because those companies are in the foundation or supports of the foundation. However, thats doesnt mean every (product) team in the company is allowed to or that they can do or change whatever they like. Its a complex mess
Thank you for have brought us your experience!
They can forbid you to work on opensource stuff while being in free time? I mean, I understand that you are not allowed to generate open code that utilises private know how of the company you work for. But not working on Linux in free time seems very strange to me 😮
Edit: deleted wrong “Edit:”
Yeah if you write proprietary code and then work on a similar project in your spare time, your company might sue you because you’re likely reusing code you’ve seen or written at work.
For example Windows developers are forbidden from working on ReactOS
Thats just dual booting. That wont work with the law if the contract says anything created using company hardware is theirs.
And yes, some companies need to give you a green light to work on projects in your free time, because they might have a team doing similar things somewhere, it might compete in something they would like to do in the future or like you said, might use company know how which is a huge nono. Its bs imo, but those clauses and rules are found in some employment agreements.
Remember, always read your employment agreements!😂 edited the wrong post, lol
In the mind of Microsoft, Windows is the only OS and all things on computers exist to facilitate Windows.
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
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?
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.
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.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re suggesting. Isn’t that more or less what I just said?
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.
You can have a own EFI partition per Drive (and on it whatever bootloader you want). You then need to use the UEFI boot menu if you want e.g. boot the Windows one. If you have 2 different OS on different drives they should never interfere with each other.
Well, i mean you could of course use the Linux Bootmanager to then forward to the Windows boot manager on the other disk. but i never experimented with that.
I just learned that you can do this setup even on one drive alone (having two bootloader on one drive in two partition and choosing in UEFI/Legacy BIOS)
even if you have two drives, you still have only one bootloader, not?
The idea is to have completely separate boot and OS drives. You select which one you want to boot through the BIOS boot selection (ie. pressing F10 or F11 at the BIOS screen).
This functionally makes each OS “unaware” of the other one.
Unfortunately it really doesn’t. And it’s actually Linux that’s the bigger problem: whenever it decides to updates GRUB it looks for OSes on all of your drives to make grub entries for them. It also doesn’t necessarily modify the version of grub on the booted drive.
Yes I’m sure there’s a way to manually configure everything perfectly but my goal is a setup where I don’t have to constantly manually fix things.
If you install each OS with it’s own drive as the boot device, then you won’t see this issue.
Unless you boot Windows via the grub boot menu. If you do that then Windows will see that drive as the boot device.
If you select the OS by using the BIOS boot selection then you won’t see this issue.
I was bitten by Windows doing exactly this almost 15 years ago. Since that day if I ever had a need for dual-boot (even if running different distros) each OS will get it’s own dedicated drive, and I select what I want to boot through the BBS (BIOS Boot Selection). It’s usually invoked with F10 or F11 (but could be a different key combo.
My install does not seem to do this. I removed the windows drive when installing Linux on a new drive. Put both drives in and select which one to boot in the bios. Its been that way for about a year and, so far, grub updates have never noticed the windows install nor added to grub.
That’s with bazzite, can’t speak for any other distro as that is the only dual-boot machine I own. Bazzite does mention they do not recommend traditional dual boot with the boot loader and recommend the bios method so maybe they have something changed to avoid that?
I did that and a Windows update nuked Linux from the BIOS boot loader a few weeks ago.
The only safe option is to have completely separate machines. Thankfully with the rise of ridiculously powerful minipcs that’s easier than ever.
While I generally agree with that, that’s not what seems to be happening here. What seems to be happening is that anyone who boots Windows via grub is getting grub itself overwritten.
When you install Linux, boot loaders like grub generally are smart and try to be helpful by scanning all available OSes and provide a boot menu entry for those. This is generally to help new users who install a dual-boot system and help them not think that “Linux erased Windows” when they see the new grub boot loader.
When you boot Windows from grub, Windows treats the drive with grub (where it booted from) as the boot drive. But if you tell your BIOS to boot the Windows drive, then grub won’t be invoked and Windows will boot seeing it’s own drive as the boot drive.
This is mostly an assumption as this hasn’t happened to me and details are still a bit scarce.
I don’t think dual boot has ever been a good solution (unless you also run one or both of the OS’s under the other in a VM).
Like, if you are unsure about linux, trying it out, learning, whatever, you can just boot a live"cd", or maybe install it on an external (flash) drive.
If you are kinda sure you want to switch, just nuke Windows; it’s easier to switch that way than to have everything on two systems, having to switch.
That is until you want to switch and use mostly linux, but you have friends who want to play one of those few games that only works on windows
The second windows isnt the only option for “all games without any effort”, it will be dead.
Well i believe it already is for the majority of games, though I don’t game anymore so I don’t know, proton wasnt 100% a year or two back
I’ve been on Steam+Proton for more than 3 years now. So many many games are now supported. It is usually the DRM kernel anti-cheats that are Windoxez only tend to be the broken ones. I dont buy or care about games that run anti-cheat in Windoze kernel.
deleted by creator
I literally got this error using a bootable SSD with Ubuntu Mate on it. Separate drives aren’t immune to the issue.
I’ve got the same setup 😎
This isn’t true if you have a bootloader on each drive, which, I think, is what the we’re talking about.
“wasn’t supposed to”
Are you quoting CroudStrike?
I’m quoting OP’s summary (or quote). I’m implying that Microsoft is hostile to Linux installations generally.
Does having Linux and Windows on seperate drives mitigate this issue somewhat?
Wanting to start dual booting and moving to windows. Wondering if that helps at all.
Edit: I meant moving to Linux… >.>Not on my experience. But separate machines would work, if Microsoft never releases a “Wi-Fi network security patch for compatibility with all machines”.
I keep Linux and windows on separate disks, grub or windows boot manager don’t know about each other. I have the Linux disk as the primary boot, if I need to boot into windows i use the bios boot selection screen. It’s a bit of a pain at times(have to mash F12 to get the bios boot menu) bit it’s less of a headache than trying to fix grub
Thanks for your input!
I have considered adding windows to grub, but these days I hardly boot into windows so there is probably not much point.
N I C E !
Ah, I see, there really is a way 😁👌🏻
If you can, put Windows in a VM instead.
I’d only use windows for gaming really, wouldn’t running it in a VM be less optimal in that vase? In terms of performance of windows and playing fames within the VM.
Really depends on the virtualization technology, hardware, configuration and game. Not a gamer myself.
Gaming on linux has come a long way in recent years though, in no small part thanks to Steam.
Do you think I can program on a Windows VM? Do you work with it? I still use Windows because I need my programs to work on Windows (had my programs built on Linux fail on Windows Machines before). Do you have experience on this?
That wouldn’t be about the VM but the OS. If the software is built to target linux without care for portability then it’ll fail on windows - you’d have to compile it targetting windows, either using the Visual Studio compiler or MinGW’s gcc, be it native for windows under MSYS2 or using a cross-compiler variant.
Well, you can just fix the bootloader, but that’s not super exciting I guess.
People who dual boot are likely to be linux newbies just trying it out. They’re more likely to blame linux when microsoft does what it does to competitors.
I dual boot and am maybe considered a newbie. But I’ve had this set up for about a year slowly preparing to stop using Microsoft crap. It’s part of a longer path to digital privacy that was kicked into gear when the win 11 update made my Wi-Fi card disappear, like gone- like it was never installed. Fuck HP and Microsoft
Ironically I had disabled secure boot to try another distro. Was going to drop Ubuntu for something else, still might but no rush, plenty to learn.
As a noob myself I can suggest KDE Neon. It’s quite similar to Windows. I switched 2 of my machines over and when the security updates stop for Windows 10 my gaming machine will switch also. I’m very satisfied 6 months in.
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is another good distro that uses KDE.
It’s not just about privacy. Linux and open source communities are a safespace for a novel way of doing things.
I’ve noticed that, I also appreciate you can kinda tinker which I appreciate. It’s wild being so accustomed to the limited control you have from using windows and mainstream software
That’s not necessarily true, I dual boot and I’ve been using Linux for my main OS for about 15 years now. I rarely use mine but it is useful/needed occasionally.
Hence “are likely to be,” not “are always.”
Your assessment of probability is speculation and I didn’t suggest you meant “always”.
Your assessment of probability is speculation
It is, but anecdote is insufficient to counter it.
I blame Linux distributions for not updating when the security vulnerability has been fixed for years a little more than I blame Microsoft for untrusting old vulnerable software versions. That said, failing to figure out if it is dual booting or not when there are multiple ways of doing it was not really a surprise.
(I also remember when some Fedora ISOs were unbootable immediately after release a few years ago for similar issues, they hadn’t updated shim or similar)
How do people use Windows with confidence, with stories like these?
stockholm syndrome
Remove your Microsoft installation, done.
Yes but…
But what? This is Microsoft, they fucked it up so many times that it’s either incompetence or sabotage, and knowing Microsoft, it’s probably both.
This is the same company that invented millions to sabotage Linux through the legal system (hello sco), and the same company that in purpose left gaping security holes open as to not lose any money, causing China to hack the US government through said holes.
Then we decide that just that money isn’t enough so we’ll spy on you at every step of the way, we will force feed you ads, and we’ll use you to train our shitty AI
Frack Microsoft, frack any and all of their software.
If Microsoft didn’t have a decades-long record of pulling shit like this, they might get the benefit of the doubt.
deleted by creator
Microsoft has been consistently “stupid” for a very long time about this one particular thing.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
Emphasis mine. Incompetence on Microsoft’s part is not an adequate explanation for this latest action matching a pattern of other actions designed to antagonize FOSS users.
Stupidity doesn’t adequately explain the number of times they have done this. I’m surprised it’s even a headline anymore.
I hate this phrase.
A lot of the time, people (and especially monopolistic, tax-dodging, $3.2 trillion multinationals with a long history of anti-competitive behaviour) really are just cunts.
Time and time again, we see big companies doing anything they can to destroy competition, mislead customers, etc.
Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice.
stupidity is a once-off
🎶 …this iiiiis my one an only wiiiiiiish! 🎶
In business and politics “malice” and “stupidity/incompetence” are one and the same.
It’s not like MS coined EEE or anything…
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.
