On 2008-04-10, Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> On 2008-04-10, Sinister Midget <fardblossom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2008-04-10, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:51:28 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Vista SP1 won't install on dual-boot systems: Microsoft
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| If you¢re dualbooting Windows Vista Enterprise or Ultimate alongside a Linux
>>>>| distro, and have installed the Linux bootloader into the MBR, then you¢re
>>>>| guaranteed to run into problems when installing Vista Service Pack 1,
>>>>| Microsoft has admitted.
>>> Once again, you lie about the articles you quote. Your headline "Microsoft
>>> Sabotages MBR (GNU/Linux) with Windows Update" is saying that Microsoft
>>> replaces the MBR, but that's false. It doesn't, and the article explicitly
>>> says that.
>> Maybe you should read it:
>> If you?re dualbooting Windows Vista Enterprise or Ultimate alongside
>> a Linux distro, and have installed the Linux bootloader into the
>> MBR, then you?re guaranteed to run into problems when installing
>> Vista Service Pack 1, Microsoft has admitted.
>> The service pack has a couple of prerequisite updates and one of
>> them, KB935509, contains an update to the Windows Vista bootloader.
>> However, this bootloader is often replaced by open source
>> bootloaders like Grub when installing Linux onto a system.
>> Microsoft has excused itself by saying Vista SP1 contains an update
>> to the BitLocker feature, and replacing the bootloader is a
>> necessary prerequisite just in case the system being serviced
>> contains a drive encrypted with BitLocker or worse, an encrypted
>> boot partition.
>> It destroys the mbr on Enterprise (pre-pre-alpha) and Ultimate
>> (post-pre-beta). It's intentional. That's more than sufficient to
>> satisfy the headline's claim.
> Exactly why I use the native windows bootloader to load linux on dual
> boot machines. In the end, it makes life much easier.
Unless they simplified it sincwe the last time I set one up, I'd never
bother with that again. It was the most arcane syntax I've ever seen.
Besides, what happens when the person playing around with Windows to
see if they might like it decide it isn't for them and they want to
blow it away? How are they supposed to get back to linux once the
bootloader is gone?
Free people have the option of being armed. Slaves have no option.