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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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 :-)
[+] [-] silasdb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] non-entity|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manuw|5 years ago|reply
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 follow your future articles :)
[+] [-] jayp1418|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwdisswordfish2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|5 years ago|reply
It is also the main reason why NeXT and Sun NeWS are the only UNIX forks that ever provided a good desktop experience.
[+] [-] m463|5 years ago|reply
why bother with embrace, extend, extinguish if you can just skip to extinguish? :)
[+] [-] elwes5|5 years ago|reply
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/de...
The problem is they only really made it work correctly with OS2, WindowsNT, Win9x, and DOS. Even then it was kind of a pain to make it work correctly.
Have not messed with the UEFI bits they added in recent versions so it may be different now. But I doubt it.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rjsw|5 years ago|reply
If it can boot Linux as well then that is good to know.
[+] [-] psexec|5 years ago|reply
Why would they? According to Microsoft and many third-party developers who don't know any better, PC and Windows are the same thing.
It's way less painful these days if you're using UEFI. No thanks to MS though.
[+] [-] vegesm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yjftsjthsd-h|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silasdb|5 years ago|reply
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 :-)
[+] [-] GeertVL|5 years ago|reply