I don't understand the line of response to the Star Question in LXF 161 Page 108.
I think the questioner is under the impression that if you have two drives you need an OS on each.
Instead of just replying "It's OK, you don't!" the response, while it does point that out in a low key way, nevertheless goes off into some detail on how to set up a dual boot with two distros.
I also don't understand the statement in the reply that "Sticking to one OS on each drive is wasteful of space .. as most OS's need less than 15Gb". That seems to contradict itself, and wasteful compared with what? Sticking two OS's on one drive? Sticking several OS's on each drive? Having just one OS for all the drives?
They have lost me here - am I missing something?