Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work

[Michael Catanzaro]

My personal opinions:

On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 18:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 1a. Does preserve preexisting include providing a working menu entry
> in the boot manager (e.g. in the GRUB menu)? 

Yes.

> 1b. Or is it sufficient to just preserve the installation data —
> meaning it's permissible for its bootability to be either non-obvious
> or broken?

No. Users will not be able to recover from this scenario.

> 2. If the answer to 1a. is yes, and 1b. is no, does this dual-boot
> requirement apply to both BIOS and UEFI?

Yes.

> 3. If resources cannot meet the dual-boot requirement by ship time,
> should the installer inform the user that their previous installation
> will be preserved but may not be bootable?

I think that would be OK, if the warning is clear and you have to click
a red button to bypass it.

Can you link to the discussion on why the above requirements are
problematic?

> 4. Why is the preservation of an existing Linux OS, including a
> previous Fedora, not explicit in the spec? Should it be?

This would be nice to have. When I tried dual-booting a year or so ago,
the status quo was that os-prober usually worked, but not really
reliably.

If we adopt the bootloader spec, then it we should add a guarantee that
we preserve the ability to boot other Linux systems that adhere to that
spec (which is admittedly none). But there was significant debate over
whether Fedora should adopt that spec.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/attachments/20140627/76f55a9e/attachment.sig>