Although I personally use a snapshot+rollback mechanism, I think for most users a rescue environment is more useful, because from my own experience and what I read from last question, many cases when the system end up cannot boot is from users playing with the boot process (eg grub) and make some mistakes. However conventional snapshot mechanism only backup the root/home partition, not boot and efi partition because of the filesystem limitation. A rescue environment would be helpful to at least help the user restore a grub install and provide a default kernel cmdline that can help the system boot. But of course, if /boot can be snapshotted and rolled back, it would be a very good thing (perhaps change boot partition to btrfs? But I don’t know if it is possible)
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, at 10:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
OK thanks for the responses so far. I have followup questions for everyone, even if you didn't previously respond.
Do you think a graphical rescue environment would be helpful in troubleshooting system problems?
Do you think a graphical rescue environment using volatile storage, would be useful? i.e. similar to a Live boot, by default no changes to the system or Live user environment would be written to persistent media; e.g. Firefox cache files and history, or even installing software, would be entirely lost on reboot from this graphical rescue environment
Do you think a mechanism for system snapshots and rollbacks would be useful in troubleshooting system problems?
Do you think a snapshot+rollback mechanism would be more or less useful than a graphical rescue environment, for troubleshooting system problems?