![User's banner](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.sdf.org%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fa00581dc-13f3-4280-965f-d46f3fbe4a5e.png&w=2048&q=75)
![Avatar](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.sdf.org%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fec6a393d-8add-4914-ac98-ef53deecc74a.png&w=3840&q=75)
![Avatar](/_next/image?url=%2Flemmy-icon-96x96.webp&w=3840&q=75)
NaN
I blame Linux distributions for not updating when the security vulnerability has been fixed for years a little more than I blame Microsoft for untrusting old vulnerable software versions. That said, failing to figure out if it is dual booting or not when there are multiple ways of doing it was not really a surprise.
(I also remember when some Fedora ISOs were unbootable immediately after release a few years ago for similar issues, they hadn’t updated shim or similar)
No. You can have more than one EFI system partition with separate bootloaders on each drive and set their boot order in the BIOS, just like booting from USB or anything else.
This is also possible with just one drive. The efi boot entries for each OS are stored separately in the efi system partition.