Does boost support multiple accounts with independent feed settings?

Unfortunately, I think we've all had that panic (plugging a monitor into the motherboard and not the GPU). welcome to the club!

Can you get into the BIOS/UEFI menu? Typically by pressing [DEL] or [F12] in the first few seconds of boot. From there, there's generally a menu to either select to order (put the USB drive at the top of the list), or on fancier menus, the "Save and exit" page may even have a "Boot device [USB]" button.

The EFI partition is a section of your harddrive.that contains bootable binaries(?). In UEFI mode, your motherboard scans all harddrives EFI partitions. I believe they are always FAT32, marked with a "boot" flag, and essentially contains folders for each OS bootloader.

I'm simplifying quite a bit I suspect, but that's the gist of it.

Your harddrive will be in either MBR or GPT mode, selected when you or your first OS made the partition table. Any modern system should have picked GPT, and I don't think windows uses MBR anymore either. Bit fuzzy on that one.

The "architecture" as you describe it is a partition format, or how the data is "physically" arranged on that section of the disk; fat32, NTFS, ext4, btrfs, etc. Skipping over a heap of context, This is something that is specific to each partition, and is selected more out of convention or preference than anything else. There are a few exceptions, but in general, your boot drive will be fat32 (as above), windows generally will use NTFS for its main partition (other special partitions may use other formats), Linux may use many different formats, but by general convention it would be ext4 (this is a very sweeping statement, but I think its a good place to start).

You definitely shouldn't have hardware problems, so there's one stress off your mind at least. Now just recovery.

Assuming you didn't do anything to drastic, you've probably only broken the EFI. This is not he wrost case by far. I would do the following:

• make a Linux live USB, as suggested in the other comments.
• boot up and inspect your disks and the current partition layout.
• double check that your windows drive (NTFS partition) at least exists, bonus points if you can access it, don't stress yet if you cannot.
• given you were going to overwrite fedora, I would delete those partitions, and the opens use ones if they exist as well, and start with a blank segment of disk to work from.
• (optional) expand your boot partition to 500MB/1GB. Small cost really, and will save you future pain if you're exploring other distros. You may have to move the windows partition to do this, this is usually safe enough to do with a GUI partition manager (gparted), perhaps riskier on CLI. Just take it slow and be sure with the steps. Check data access after it's done.
• go back through the install process for opensuse, it should be able to automatically create all the needed partitions with the empty space you have left on the disk.
• boot opensuse, rejoice.
• make a windows boot drive, boot into that and perform a recovery. Note that this might break grub, depending how Microsoft is feeling that day. Second worst case is that you'll have to redo your boot ordering. Worst case is that you'll have to hope back into a live USB and regenerate grub.

There will be limitations throughout your network; LAN speed, write speed on B, write speed on C, etc. these factors may slow down the reads on A such that it is never reading at full speed no matter what.

If you took a simpler example, say old SATA disk A being read the. Getting written to NVME disk B and C on the same machine, you are much more likely to start hitting HDD caps on the reading device, where delays from seeking may occur. Even then, your OS should be providing some level of "smoothing". It could be either reading whole files or large blocks of data from the HDD at any one time, such that it will try to make the most of a read at a location while not bottlenecking the sending of data to both write devices. Not to mention that rsync may also be smart enough to cache data between the two outputs such that two readys don't need to happen.

With all that said.... Does it matter? Not really. The OS will try it's best to get data out of A as fast as possible. The network will try to get data distributed in the same way. Disk A may be working hard and may do some jumps and read/writes, but it won't intentionally break itself.

we were hacked.

How?

The remote code execution step of our toolchain was used to run remote code.

They made an init system called systemd, and it worked way better than anything prior.

Then they realised that to have a functional and maintainable system, you need a bunch of other system level tooling to be in and around about the same layer as the unit system (time sync, base network, disk mounting, etc.). All of these other things got spun off as daemon projects, for example "systemd-timesyncd". And all got good and consistent command line tooling that made things relatively convenient.

The downside is now power-users saw systems taking over their computer and "violating the Unix philosophy". I would argue that at some level, it doesn't. They've made a suite of relatively independent tools all part of the same group with the purpose of managing the system. It gets things running, it gets users logged in and out, it tells you what when wrong, and it will restart things if it can. System management, do one thing and do it well.

I think the fact is that managing a modern system in a way that "just works" is complicated challenge. Many people either haven't run Ubuntu 9, and done a software update, or have repressed a lot of those memories.

Is it perfect: no. Is it the best model we have so far: I would say so.

Is that the actual hole? I can't believe they could star in this.

Is this not the equivalent of asking someone on the street to pay for a fence for your property so you don't have to look at them?

I used this setup for my last work laptop. Arch + Win10 on separate drives. I was lucky with my ThinkPad that the UEFI boot select (F12 on boot) was easy to use, so I didn't actually use grub/etc. at all. Just select Windows drive and boot, or select Linux drive and boot (systemd-boot).

During installation, I had each other drive disconnected, such that the bootloader for each system ended up on the right drive. Also makes the installation less stressful as you can wipe and flash the whole drive without worrying about a mix-up.

Did not use secure boot at the time. No issues there from memory. My current setup is win11 and secure boot with openSUSE. Possible, but a bit more of a headache to get right.

Never had any issues with either drive affecting the other. You will be able to get into the windows/NTFS drive from Linux which can cause issues if Windows is in a hibernate state. Try to avoid doing that in general. Windows generally can't see the other filesystem, maybe the boot partition, but it should stick to its own drive. I don't think I ever had cross-contamination.

Kernel level business should have no effect on boot and drive setup. Also UEFI and microcode patches from either OS always seemed to work fine.

I've never seen that Win10 tool before. Honestly I'd recommend just using their USB install media and doing a normal setup. I've tried to be tricky with Windows N in the past but it came back to bite me. It's probably fine regardless if you choose o use it.

Absolute worst case: keep a live USB handy. At least that way you can always get back to a recovery mode if something does go wrong.

Final thoughts: Windows 11 seems to play better with a shared UEFI boot volume. I haven't had an issue so far (>1 year) with windows trying to edit or break the boot setup. I have had Win10 change the boot order in the past, but I feel like that might have been aligned with major windows updates. Probably not much of a concern nowdays.

I agree with the sentiment of being "a huge amount of effort", but I also have issue when looking at things like the YouTube example. Honestly, in that scenario I'd rather it not have an animation than do something janky.

I think it's one of those things where you can't put a blanket statement on either side. If you're going to put effort in (i.e. add animations), it should at least be not worse than doing nothing.

Looks cool. Has anyone used it in earnest? I've always wanted to try a LaTeX successor, but the former is so prevalent that I've been concerned about it losing steam or not being compatible with journals, etc.