this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
1219 points (97.4% liked)

linuxmemes

21175 readers
1641 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith
    zephyr
    rtxn
    1219
    That's why we need two ssds for dual boot (lemmy.world)
    submitted 7 months ago by Waffelson to c/linuxmemes
    184 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

    Heard you and that wouldn’t fly. Just like you’re not supposed to run Windows on mission critical systems like nuclear reactors (seriously, check the EULA), running multiple operating systems side by side is most likely out of a supported configuration and “use at your own risk”. You’d have zero standing or less for any sort of lawsuit.

    [–] DaddleDew 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

    But just because it is in the EULA doesn't make it legal. At a time where big tech is being kept under a microscope for antitrust regulation, I'd say that an OS that actively destroys other competing OSes on the machine it is installed on should be considered an unfair anti-competitor tactic.

    [–] Alexstarfire -5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Idk why you think they have to support this. It'd be one thing if it was malicious but I really doubt it is.

    [–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

    Might not hold up legally, but it's still insane that the single largest vendor of operating systems cant figure out how to install a bootloader with playing russian roulette.

    [–] Mango 2 points 7 months ago

    It's malicious.