The update wasn’t supposed to reach dual-boot PCs.
  • uebquauntbez@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    Microsoft! You missed your last chance to stay on my computers with your os. Take care, so long and thanks for all the cons.

  • IncogCyberspaceUser@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    Does having Linux and Windows on seperate drives mitigate this issue somewhat?
    Wanting to start dual booting and moving to windows. Wondering if that helps at all.

    • JackDavies@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      I keep Linux and windows on separate disks, grub or windows boot manager don’t know about each other. I have the Linux disk as the primary boot, if I need to boot into windows i use the bios boot selection screen. It’s a bit of a pain at times(have to mash F12 to get the bios boot menu) bit it’s less of a headache than trying to fix grub

      • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
        0·
        6 months ago

        I took this approach as well but I let Grub add Windows as a boot option. No mashing keys at post and Windows doesn’t get to touch Grub or Debian.

        • JackDavies@lemmy.world
          0·
          5 months ago

          I have considered adding windows to grub, but these days I hardly boot into windows so there is probably not much point.

      • IncogCyberspaceUser@lemmy.world
        0·
        5 months ago

        I’d only use windows for gaming really, wouldn’t running it in a VM be less optimal in that vase? In terms of performance of windows and playing fames within the VM.

        • 0x0@programming.dev
          0·
          5 months ago

          Really depends on the virtualization technology, hardware, configuration and game. Not a gamer myself.

          Gaming on linux has come a long way in recent years though, in no small part thanks to Steam.

      • obbeel@lemmy.eco.brOP
        0·
        5 months ago

        Do you think I can program on a Windows VM? Do you work with it? I still use Windows because I need my programs to work on Windows (had my programs built on Linux fail on Windows Machines before). Do you have experience on this?

        • 0x0@programming.dev
          0·
          5 months ago

          That wouldn’t be about the VM but the OS. If the software is built to target linux without care for portability then it’ll fail on windows - you’d have to compile it targetting windows, either using the Visual Studio compiler or MinGW’s gcc, be it native for windows under MSYS2 or using a cross-compiler variant.

    • obbeel@lemmy.eco.brOP
      0·
      5 months ago

      Not on my experience. But separate machines would work, if Microsoft never releases a “Wi-Fi network security patch for compatibility with all machines”.

  • timmytbt@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    5 months ago

    So, excusing my ignorance as a fairly recent Linux convert, what does this mean for my dual boot system?

    I haven’t booted windows for weeks and am pretty sure there have been no updates since it was freshly reinstalled (maybe 6 months ago) as a dual boot with Debian.

    Is this only a problem if I allow Windows to update?

    Are Microsoft likely to fix the issue in a subsequent release?

    • Kuma@lemmy.world
      0·
      5 months ago

      Yes, you don’t have to worry as long as you don’t boot up windows and let it install the update.

      This is not the first time they break dual boots by touching the partitions, but this is the first time they deliberately break it (that I know of). I always had windows on its own drive because of that. If you don’t use windows a lot then I would suggest to do the same. You have to change to windows through bios but it isn’t that much more work.

      • Kuma@lemmy.world
        0·
        5 months ago

        And just in case when installing windows on its own drive, only have the windows drive mounted so it doesn’t write to the linux drive.

      • timmytbt@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        5 months ago

        Thanks for the reply, and good to know!

        I think I’ll blow away the windows install on this machine completely.

        I still have another pc for some audio tools that don’t run under Linux, but this machine is my daily driver now and I couldn’t be happier.

    • ochi_chernye@startrek.website
      0·
      5 months ago

      FWIW, I’m dual-booting windows and mint atm. Separate drives, but just one EFI partition, and this update hasn’t borked things for me.

  • Nick@lemmy.world
    0·
    6 months ago

    So they were trying to patch systems that use GRUB for Windows-only installs? What a load of BS. Why would anybody install GRUB to boot only Windows with that? Or am I overlooking something?

    Furthermore, if GRUB has a security issue, they should’ve contributed a patch at the source instead of patching it themselves somehow. I’m a bit stunned at the audacity of touching unmounted filesystems in an OS patch. Good thing Windows still doesn’t include EXT4 and BTRFS drivers because they might start messing with unencrypted Linux system drives at this rate

    • NaN@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      Grub has already been patched, that doesn’t mean distributions shipped it. SBAT broke systems that hadn’t been updated.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 months ago

      I agree they should have sent a patch to the grub source, but keep in mind big software companies like microsoft, Verizon, … do not allow software developers to send a patch or PR to open source projects. This is because in their contract it states that all code written on and during company times is owned by the company. This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.

      Its a terrible thing, and it shouldnt be, but thats the fact of the world atm.

        • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          Yes, but not all devs within microsoft are allowed to work on non-ms foss projects. I assume wsl devs are allowed to send stuff to linux but visual studio devs probably are not.

          • nous@programming.devEnglish
            0·
            5 months ago

            The wrote and released VS Code - a completely opensource development environment. If they wanted to patch Grub I bet they could have found the permissions internally to do that. Microsoft is a lot more open to OSS contributions then they were in the past.

            • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
              0·
              5 months ago

              Not saying youre wrong, but you took the wrong project as an example hehe.
              Visual code is not open source. Its core is, but visual code isnt. The difference is what visual code ships with, on top of its core.
              Its like saying chrome == chromium ( it isnt ).

              Visual code comes with a lot of features, addins and other stuff that isnt in the core.
              .net debugger for example, is not found in vscodium ( build of the vscode core ). And there is more stuff i cant think of now but have come across. Source: been using vscodium for a few months instead of vscode

              • nous@programming.devEnglish
                0·
                5 months ago

                Sure, my bad. But it does not change my point. They have released stuff as opensource even if not all of it. Which means they can if they want to.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zoneEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        this changes nothing: microsoft should have sent a patch remains microsoft should have sent a patch; internal policies are irrelevant to actions effecting external projects

      • tired_n_bored@lemmy.world
        0·
        6 months ago

        Not true. A lot of commonly known closed source companies contribute to open source software, including Linux and BSD

        • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          And not every team is allowed to do that.
          Also, youre telling somebody who has worked with big companies not allowing it in their employer contract that he is lying? Riiiight…
          A lot of google devs also are not allowed to do any linux work outside of work without explicit permissions. Development rights is an absolute mess, legally.
          I usually dont care and do what is right, despite what my emploter contract says, but i have gotten in trouble for it

          • Petter1@lemm.ee
            0·
            6 months ago

            They can forbid you to work on opensource stuff while being in free time? I mean, I understand that you are not allowed to generate open code that utilises private know how of the company you work for. But not working on Linux in free time seems very strange to me 😮

            Edit: There is a way: https://lemmy.world/comment/11915181

            • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
              0·
              6 months ago

              Thats just dual booting. That wont work with the law if the contract says anything created using company hardware is theirs.
              And yes, some companies need to give you a green light to work on projects in your free time, because they might have a team doing similar things somewhere, it might compete in something they would like to do in the future or like you said, might use company know how which is a huge nono. Its bs imo, but those clauses and rules are found in some employment agreements.
              Remember, always read your employment agreements!

            • tired_n_bored@lemmy.world
              0·
              5 months ago

              Yeah if you write proprietary code and then work on a similar project in your spare time, your company might sue you because you’re likely reusing code you’ve seen or written at work.

              For example Windows developers are forbidden from working on ReactOS

          • tired_n_bored@lemmy.world
            0·
            5 months ago

            I’m not saying you’re lying, but you said

            do not allow software developers to send a patch or PR to open source projects.

            But this sentence in particular was misleading. Maybe you specifically did not have the right to do so, but in the Linux and BSD codebases there are a lot of @microsoft @netflix @oracle contributions, so at least there is someone in those companies authorized to do so

            • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
              0·
              5 months ago

              Fair, and ill edit my post accordingly!

              There are teams that are allowed, and within those companies are teams that are directly related to foss projects because those companies are in the foundation or supports of the foundation. However, thats doesnt mean every (product) team in the company is allowed to or that they can do or change whatever they like. Its a complex mess

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.socialEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.

        That’s not how it works. It just means the company owns the code for all intents and purposes, which also means that if they tell you that you can release it under a FOSS license / contribute to someone else’s project, you can absolutely do that (they effectively grant you the license to use “their” code that you wrote under a FOSS license somewhere else).

    • Random Dent@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      In the mind of Microsoft, Windows is the only OS and all things on computers exist to facilitate Windows.

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      0·
      6 months ago

      They updated the system key store to invalidate known vulnerable boot configurations. One of those configurations was old versions of Grub, which had a pre-boot exploit a couple of years ago.

      The issue has already been patched for years, but it appears some Linux distros never bothered to update their system configuration. Not sure if this is a shortcoming of Grub or one of the distro maintainers that were affected, though.

      In fact, Microsoft tried to not apply this patch on dual boot systems, leaving them vulnerable but working, but clearly their detection failed. I think their detection required chainloading the Windows bootloader or something?

      Either way, the only Linux file that Windows will ever touch with updates is the “fallback for when the boot configuration is completely fucked” bootloader, which both Linux and Windows overwrite after installation, incase the boot configuration gets completely fucked. If you’re relying on that bootloader, you were always going to get fucked by some update eventually; either your installation failed or your motherboard is broken.

      • murtaza64@programming.dev
        0·
        5 months ago

        What is that latter fallback called? I set up my boot manually using an EFI stub last time I installed arch but wasn’t aware of any fallback bootloader

        • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
          0·
          5 months ago

          I don’t know what systemd-boot does, but the normal way to install a bootloader is to copy an efi file to the right folder (/EFI/archlinux/grubx64.efi or whatever) and register the bootloader in the boot configuration store. This allows you to pick the OS from a list by hitting the boot menu key for your device (f8/f12 usually I think?) rather than having to rely on something like systemd-boot or Grub to list all of your operating systems. This way, you can also boot UKIs and other Linux kernels compiled to simple EFI files, without ever even touching an independent bootloader.

          As a fallback, both Windows and some Linux bootloaders copy their files to the /EFI/Boot/bootx64.efi directory. This makes the drive bootable in cases where the boot configuration store is broken, or if the drive wasn’t hooked up to the same motherboard when the installation was done. This is particularly important for installer drives, because you don’t want to add a boot entry to your motherboard for every installer you plug in.

          The downside of this fallback file is that it’s just one single file in a preset directory, like the MBR of old. Some motherboards come with a file browser to select the EFI application you want to boot, but many will just give you a boot menu and nothing more. Because it’s a single file, that bootloader can either be Windows or it can be Linux. This isn’t a problem normally, but on broken motherboards this can render a system Windows-bootloader only or Linux-bootloader only. You can add both Linux and Windows to either, but the file being booted it always the last one that got updated.

          There’s also a weird edge case for when you install Linux on a GPT disk from CSM mode, where the GPT disk will have an MBR. That makes the Linux system incapable of using any UEFI features and it has the same problem: if Windows puts its bootloader there, the drive will boot Windows.

          As for bootloaders themselves, you generally only install one (though there’s nothing preventing you from installing both and having both be bootable, because they’re just entries in the UEFI menu!). If you want, you can install bootable Linux kernels as well, without any bootloader, though those don’t let you pick your boot options.

          • murtaza64@programming.dev
            0·
            5 months ago

            Thanks for the detailed explanation, makes a lot of sense! I guess what I did was set up a UEFI entry that specifies the location of the Linux kernel without any intermediate bootloader. Pretty sure I didn’t set the fallback, so I’m guessing that’s still owned by windows.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      0·
      5 months ago

      lol they fuck with my BIOS boot settings to the point i had to password it. they are that bad.

  • slembcke@lemmy.ml
    0·
    6 months ago

    Doesn’t Windows break dual booting semi-regularly? I’ve always avoided it as I’ve had friends get burned by this in the past. I guess I just keep different OSes on different drives, but that obviously isn’t feasible for everyone.

    • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
      0·
      6 months ago

      Legit have never had an issue with multi boot and windows like ever, tbf I don’t go into windows that frequently anymore but it’s never given me grief in at least a decade. I know my experience isn’t universal though, so sorry to anyone who does have boot issues after windows updates.

      In the worst case, could use bcdedit and use the windows boot loader (tbh I have no idea if that works here, but could be worth a try)

    • Petter1@lemm.ee
      0·
      6 months ago

      I have dualboot set-up on my MacBook and have no. But it is a long time ago, since I last started macOS and my Mac would not get new macOS updates anyway😂 that was the reason to install Linux in the first place 😝

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      0·
      6 months ago

      I know that used to be the case. It’s why I stopped trying to use a dual-booting system and instead just installed windows in Virtualbox.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      If Microsoft didn’t have a decades-long record of pulling shit like this, they might get the benefit of the doubt.

      • Shadow@lemmy.ca
        0·
        6 months ago

        Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          I hate this phrase.

          A lot of the time, people (and especially monopolistic, tax-dodging, $3.2 trillion multinationals with a long history of anti-competitive behaviour) really are just cunts.

          Time and time again, we see big companies doing anything they can to destroy competition, mislead customers, etc.

          Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice.

        • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

          Emphasis mine. Incompetence on Microsoft’s part is not an adequate explanation for this latest action matching a pattern of other actions designed to antagonize FOSS users.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          Microsoft has been consistently “stupid” for a very long time about this one particular thing.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          Stupidity doesn’t adequately explain the number of times they have done this. I’m surprised it’s even a headline anymore.