Each operating system has its files in their respective directories on ESP, and each operating system registers its own boot entries pointing to bootloader in these directories. With UEFI, there's nothing to overwrite, except setting the default entry.
That's not an issue, since you can both easily boot non-default entries and change, what the default entry is.
So it does what is expected from any boot loader. Installing grub does the same.
> And since their installer does not add other OSes to the Windows bootloader automatically
Which is fine; you should not chainload windows from grub either. Use ntldr for booting windows.
> you have to either change your UEFI settings
Exactly, you can change the default boot entry in your UEFI settings.
Or after POST, press a button on your keyboard for one-off boot change.
---
So what was the complain, again? Some people not using UEFI boot manager in a way it is supposed to be used?
I have configured password protection for my UEFI settings (so that a potential attacker could not easily disable Secure Boot, for example) and GIGABYTE's UEFI implementation requires that password for the boot manager as well. In other words, when booting using this setup, I need up to three passwords: 1. UEFI password, 2. Disk encryption password, 3. User password.
Hence I use systemd-boot to set BootNext and reboot into the Windows boot loader.
Another reason for having a bootloader is that you may have more entries than the built-in manager can handle, for example if you can boot into automatic snapshots.
Long time Kubuntu user dual-booting with GRUB, never experienced this.
I have UEFI enabled and both OS's on separate physical drives.
If not, please share the instructions on how you installed Linux first, and Windows second, because I'd really like to know.
One question - did you shrink partition from the front, or from the back of the disk?
Usually Windows has to be in front of the Linux, so if it's from the back, I'd really have to try that!
As far as I know the order never actually mattered as long as Windows could have a primary partition. The newer GPT system doesn't have such a distinction or low limits (Windows is limited to 128 partitions per disk; I think Linux can handle more).
Personally I still don't trust any open source or close source products from MS or any corporation. There is ALWAYS some strings attached. However, good thing about open sourcing software, is that you can always find alternative version that is compiled by the community or CE edition.
e.g: Use VSCodium instead of VSCode. Use ungoogled-chromium instead of Chrome. Use WebKit instead of Safari
Microsoft got much more diversified since than it seems.
Microsoft hasn't changed its character, only how it presents itself.
MS lost (or rather, made essentially zero head way in) everything except desktop computers.
I mean, would you rather have an OS that turns your computer into a personal space invasion device that helps a multi-trillion dollar megalith monetize your every breath while consuming a huge portion of the performance of your $1,000 personal computer, or would you rather have a lightweight customizable OS that only does what you tell it to do, doesn't cost you anything, and can do almost everything that the other guy can do just as well for free with no tracking?
MS has always been about forcing subpar tech with shady tactics, and they are very good at it.
Specially now that Asus, Razor, Lenovo are getting into the same space with Windows 11 devices.
After all Proton is all about running Windows games.
Microsoft's booming business numbers would like to have a discussion.
$26 billion in quarterly operating income, about to overtake Apple in profit, and practically none of their growth over the past decade has come from desktop computers.
They have an extremely lucrative business across cloud everything these days and it has very little to do with Windows on the desktop.
Over the past decade that Windows desktop has largely been stagnant as a business, their total sales have gone from $78 billion to $218 billion. Operating income was stuck for 6-7 years in the ~$14-$22 billion range (the later Ballmer stagnation years), until after 2015. They'll cross $100+ billion in operating income over the next four quarters. All of that leap has happened from 2016 to now and basically none of it has to do with consumer Windows.
My gut feeling is Microsoft is making money by moving old Active Directory servers into their own cloud offering, Azure. Their revenue is booming because they make more money from hosting a server than selling a Windows / MSSQL / Exchange licence that runs on someone elses hardware. To give them their due, they do it well, facilitating a smooth transition that allows you to move one machine at a time into the cloud, while the patient is still going about their normal business.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean the proportion of people / businesses out there running Microsoft software is growing. Maybe it's dropping? I don't know. But if it is dropping, it's going to come to an ugly end in a few decades time.
You don’t need a dual boot. You don’t need windows today. In a sense that’s what the Halloween papers predicted. I don’t have a single windows device. Apple for phones and work laptop, system76 for home laptop.
IMO the dual boot example just shows how little they actually care and always cared.
However my whole family is on linux only and on the rare occasion where they need to run some weird software they prefer dual boot to VM, because easier or because old machine.
If you install LLM stuff or the relatively stable atom clone vscode. You are seeing dependencies that are also maintained by Microsoft.
No issue so far, except when you run a bleeding edge system and realize that all required M$ libs are outdated and either you downgrade or can't use that tool that has that single M$ made python adependency that won't build on a modern system...
You can run linux on Windows but still can't install a dual boot system with Linux first. IMO that says it all