On 12/15/2015 12:03 PM, ken wrote:
CentOS is a rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, whose target use case is business servers and workstations. Dual-boot is not a typical or supported use case for RHEL.
I figured it was a simple hand-off from RH. Just because it's from RH doesn't means it makes sense. It also doesn't necessarily mean that CentOS couldn't do a better job of it... especially that it horks dual booting.
Actually, it does mean that CentOS can't do a better job of it. CentOS is a rebuild. Period. They only changes they make are to remove Red Hat's branding.
Red Hat does what Red Hat's customers pay them to do. In that respect, it makes perfect sense.
Thanks much for that. I'll give that a try. The question arises, if it's this easy to do by hand, why couldn't the code (if not from RH, then at least from CentOS) build a little option in to preserve dual-booting (for many folks who don't have a helpful dude like yourself nearby in the email list)?
Detecting an actual Windows install involves code that's not included in RHEL or CentOS. The file required isn't very complex, but that's because in this case you have information that the software does not.
Geez, what a terrible ISO distro!
I don't think that's a fair assessment. CentOS (and RHEL) is one of the most stable systems I've ever used.
I mean only the Minimal v.7... this distro-package, not CentOS or RH altogether. I've been a fan of the latter for a long time. Even rarely RH can squeeze out a real hot stinker.
Minimal has its place, and serves that niche well enough. I don't think it's useful for new users, though.