100
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
100 points (89.1% liked)
Technology
60047 readers
1490 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Primarily it's different because you would not have had to boot into any safe mode. You would have just booted from the last good image from like a day ago and deleted the current image and kept using the computer.
What’s the user experience like there? Are you prompted to do it if the system fails to boot “happily”?
Honestly, I'm actually not sure as I never had the system break that badly while I was using it.
lol thanks for the answer. This is the really relevant bit isn’t it? My Linux machines have also never died this badly before. But I’ve seen windows do it a number of times before this whole fiasco.
I don't think any of the major distros do it currently (some are working twards it tho), but there are ways (primarily/only one I know is with
systemd-boot). It invokes one of the boot binaries (usually "Unified Kernel Images") that are marked as "good" or one that still has "tries left" (whichever is newer). A binary that has "tries left" gets that count decremented when the boot is unsuccessful and when it reaches 0 it is marked as "bad" and if it boot successfully it gets marked as "good".So this system is basically just requires restarting the system on an unsuccessful boot if it isn't done already automatically.