Author here. Thanks for posting this. This is something I wanted to continue. The plan is still discussing NetBSD source code, as much as I can. Reading NetBSD code is a great way to learn operating systems! :-)
Few years ago there was an similar thing but with OpenBSD code. There is a IRC channel on Freenode who a group of people go through OpenBSD code like "doas" and stuff.
I always found it noteworthy in that the designers of Microsoft Windows did not consider co-existance with other OS on the same computer, i.e., "dual-booting". When I install NetBSD I never have to worry about it clobbering any code needed by other OS to boot. Not sure about today, but years ago Windows used to require being installed in the first bootable partition. If some other OS code occupied that position it was clobbered. On the other hand, the designers of NetBSD seem to have considered the possible co-existence with other OS on the same computer. To me, that is great design. NetBSD has this author's favorite bootloaders and I consider their kernels more flexible to boot than Linux kernels. I do not use grub. NetBSD has long supported the 1995 multiboot specification. Years ago, Linux did not. Perhaps that has changed. It always seemed like there were only a limited number of bootloaders that could boot Linux.
Does the "server experience" count? I have never been sold on the "desktop" abstraction. I prefer to administer the computer through the command line. I guess that is why I like NetBSD. I do not see "OS" and "desktop" as synonymous or mutually inclusive.
They sorta did then sorta skipped everyone else. The real requirement was that their bootloader was in the first partition. You can install windows to a different drive/folder. It would probably mess with a lot of programs out there though. The later versions (past 2000 I think, maybe xp its been awhile) did not really give you the option to put it somewhere else.
Did not realize I had to do full on research before posting on everything? My point if you had read it would be boot.ini allows multi boot in particular cases. I am not sure on the UEFI bits as I do not really multi boot anymore. I am sure it is great or miserable. I just personally have little need to do it anymore as VM's tend to solve the particular issues I ran into. Did your browbeating me bring much to the discussion? Why did you bother to comment other than to mock me? Am I understanding YOU correctly?
> I always found it noteworthy in that the designers of Microsoft Windows did not consider co-existance with other OS on the same computer
More likely, given that the desktop OS monopoly was well in place when Windows (as an OS, rather than the graphical framework that rode on top of DOS as a separate product, so especially the NT lineage) was designed, and coexistence actively weakened that, coexistence was considered and considered incompatible with Microsoft’s strategic objectives. Forcing a choice between Windows or something else rather than Windows and something else was good for MS.
This is why Microsoft was and is the devil. We must never forget Netscape, Be, constant virus attacks, and the bad old days when Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser which they allowed to rot like a garbage can full of shit. To use or develop with any Microsoft products today, or to work there or own their stock, is to agree with all of these terrible things.
Support for multiboot was added to the NetBSD bootloader so that it could boot Xen, I didn't consider whether it should be able to boot Linux or test that.
If it can boot Linux as well then that is good to know.
Not sure about booting Linux. Some Linux bootloaders cannot boot NetBSD, e.g., syslinux. The FreeBSD bootloader, which is multiboot compliant, can boot NetBSD. At least this was the case years ago. Pardon me if I am ascribing intent to what is merely fortuitous.
From what I have read I suspect this may have been an intentionally created incompatibility. They wanted dual boot to be inconvenient. As a user, that is not the sort of design I want.
But if the user prefers some other bootloader instead of Microsoft's or Apple's, then all bets are off. The idea of the "primary" OS being something other than Microsoft's or Apple's is not contemplated. For me, the non-GUI OS is the primary OS and the GUI OS is something kept around out of necessity, only used occasionally.
> It's way less painful these days if you're using UEFI.
Interesting. My experience has been the opposite; I've had much more issues with UEFI than I ever had using BIOS, even when after disabling Secure Boot in the settings.
Oh, this is very nice:) One question: Why does this page open with a link to FreeBSD docs? (Just general information on x86 boot process? Is this code similar/shared between the BSD family members?)
Yes, this is just general information on x86 boot process, but it shares some things with NetBSD boot process, specially how the boot is divided in phases.
When I first started this doc, it was just personal writing, because of that some links are scattered and there are TODO entries laying around. I'll fix that one day :-)
