• shortwavesurfer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Lodra@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      What’s the user experience like there? Are you prompted to do it if the system fails to boot “happily”?

      • shortwavesurfer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Honestly, I’m actually not sure as I never had the system break that badly while I was using it.

        • Lodra@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

      • NekkoDroid@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.