Burning ISO flash drive seems problematic?

[az2020]

Hi, I've been distro "speed dating" for a year. (ha). About a year ago I installed 15 distros to compare memory use. I just did it again, with about 25 distros.

My impression has consistently been that there's something odd about Linux Lite's iso. The reason I say that: I've had virtually no trouble "burning" the other distros to USB flash (and booting them. I might have trouble with drivers loading, reaching a desktop. But, the flash drives are recognized and at least *start* to boot.). I've burned them using unetbootin, MX USB Maker, the dd command. They don't seem to care.

But, every time I try Linux Lite... it seems very particular. Either the USB flash drive isn't recognized by the BIOS as even available to boot from. Or, it is recognized -- but when I choose to boot it, it does nothing and hands-off to the hard disk (i.e., the USB flash drive will be accessed for 5-10 seconds, and then the hard drive boots as if that's what I choose.).

This has been on two different computers (an older Toshiba Satellite C55-B, and a new Acer Aspire 5 A515-43-R19L).

Yesterday I was able to boot Linux Lite 4.8 in a Virtual Box for the first time. (I love what I see. I definitely would like to "hop" to it sometime.). This morning I thought I would pursue the bootable "burning" problem further.

I see on your web page that it's only supposed to be burned with Etcher or the DD command. I tried both, but the resulting USB flash drive won't begin to boot (in the way I described above). When I try to open that device in gparted, I get an error: "Invalid partition table - recursive partition on /dev/sdb"

I'm raising this topic not so much as "how can I get this to work," but "why is it this way?" As I said, I have not had this experience with 20 other distros (maybe I've had it with Antix 19). And, I had this experience last April when I "speed dated" some distros. I'm having it again this time.

Linux is known to be frustrating migrating to it (from Windows). It seems like something's wrong with the Linux Lite iso in a way that would make that even a higher-friction experience.  So, I'm raising this topic to try to help in some way. It's hard to believe it's just me (or, is it just me? I've tried two computers, different USB devices, burning it different ways -- including the Linux Lite-supported ways).

I'm willing to try things, and provide more info to track down what's happening.

[trinidad]

I abandoned all of the recommended ways you often read about on the Web to handle burning ISOs except two.

1) Sadly, I've found that burning to a DVD/BluRay works most reliably from Windows 10 Pro 1809 or better as the OEM features of the player/burner are all available.

2) The most reliable way to "burn" an ISO to a USB is to use disk-writer to write the ISO to a bootable FAT32 stick (for me from Debian).

And... Yes, though I hesitate to say it, I have never liked the way the Ubuntu LTS installer hybrid ISO works. On some hardware it will throw errors that are not the actual error, confusing to new users, errors that indicate the ISO was not accurately burned when in fact that is not the problem. Usually it is actually a read from compression error, on old hardware too slow of RAM buffering and memory threading, and on new hardware too fast, and/or caused by OEM secure memory sectors and miss-reads and sometimes 32bit firmware. For the majority of users the Ubuntu ISO method of installing is not a problem, but it is a problem for some. And in all honesty Linux Lite has been the most problematic for me as well, and I honestly don't know specifically why. I suspect it depends on the hardware at both ends of the process.

Far and away the Debian net install hybrid non-free ISO is the most reliable and the most easily accessible from the terminal and thus repairable after installing aptitude, but this is not something that can be easily acheived with Ubuntu given the packaging system and install heirarchy.

Perhaps this is something the community needs to look at, and make unique to Linux Lite, but unfortunately the vector of hardware nascence is rising so steeply these days that Ubuntu's development cycle must by necessity already assume a frenetically torrid pace.

On the web the general way recommended to fix a failed install is to re-install. The problem with that praxis in Ubuntu is that there is no guarantee the installer will not crash again, and the fact is the problem may be something simple. Ubuntu server used to be simple to install but things have been added to telemetry now that will fail some secuirty layers when trying to install it. What a good idea for Ubuntu. Dumb in my opinion. In the case of LTS the real issue for Ubuntu may be in the heirarchy of the installation (the order in which things are installed from the ISO) that inhibits user intervention on broken partial installs, (which is a questionable maybe even lazy practice given that a hybrid ISO is already being used) Then again Ubuntu is trying to make things simple for new users, and perhaps that is for the best.

TC           

[az2020]

And in all honesty Linux Lite has been the most problematic for me as well, and I honestly don't know specifically why. I suspect it depends on the hardware at both ends of the process.       

I don't know anything about this topic (how ISOs are made, the different ways they're written by different tools. But, when 20 distros boot fine (written a variety of ways), and one won't boot even when burned the official way... it looks like just one end would be the place to start.

For example: what does gparted's error mean: "Invalid partition table - recursive partition on /dev/sdb." I get that result burning both "official" ways, on multiple flash drives, burned from two different computers (one is 3-years old. One is new.). But, I can burn 25 other distros without any regard for the tool used to burn it, from either machine, and they boot fine. (In fairness: I did have the same experience with Antix 19. It seemed particular in this same way.).

It seems more pronounced as problem with this ISO (its format?) than just "it's all nebulous; no USB writers work perfectly."

If it were my distro, I'd make this the #1 priority. How many people can't even test-drive Linux Lite because there's a barrier with the ISO? Linux itself is enough of a barrier for most people (coming from Windows, the audience being welcomed on Linux Lite's site). And then the ISO is fussy in a way virtually no other distros are. Shouldn't that be the proverbial "low-hanging fruit" for growing Linux Lite's user base?

I hope I'm not sounding judgmental, or ridiculing. It's just that the distro looks *awesome* and it really hurts me to think of all the people who might not get past the ISO (when, as far as I know, there shouldn't be such issues with it). I'm more than eager to help identify what's happening. If someone can tell me what to try, what info to collect, I can do that. I'm not very knowledgeable on these things. But, I have a lot of time.

[az2020]

I've been looking around and seeing references to "the uefi version." I went back and looked at the download page. I just realized the significance of the "click the uefi icon" -- which I saw before. It didn't look like a person would normally go there (i.e., I didn't think UEFI was that new; I thought it was something else, after the official download links.).

Maybe that's my problem? I wouldn't think a non-UEFI distro would be unrecognized by the bios's boot list (and have that error message by gparted, about a nested partition). But, I don't know much about these things.

IMO, the download page could be made clearer. The official download could say "for older, non-UEFI machines." UEFI being around so long, I don't think anyone would suspect that an ordinary-looking download link wouldn't be ordinary. From what I gather, this distro arose as a solution to older Windows users being squeezed out (XP users first, then 7, etc.). I can see how UEFI wouldn't have been a priority. But, I don't think the average person landing on the download page would understand that. You just see the download link and think it works like any other distro. (Regarding the UEFI stuff below it: once you have the link, what's to look at? That's how I flowed with it. Seems like the standard download's *not* having UEFI would be an important point to raise, instead of implying it with the part beneath.).

While I'm opining... The UEFI logo goes to page 9 of a thread. At that point it's not clear what to do, the state of things, where to get it, etc. (Or, more importantly, if it's even recommended that people use it. From the posts I've seen on the forum, it sounds like people are recommending it. But, it's not clear from the download page.). If it's not ready for primetime, I'm sorry for suggesting that it be treated as if it were. But, it's not clear what a person should do or expect in this area.

EDIT: After looking closer at that, I think the UEFI logo deposited me on a post with the link to download the UEFI version.

I should probably shut up now that I understand things better. But, I still think the mainstream download part of the page should prominently say "LEGACY, NO UEFI SUPPORT". I don't think anyone would assume that's a question (are there any distros that don't have UEFI? And/or have alternate ISOs for it? I don't recall it working that way even when distros were in the process of supporting it, which was some time ago.). Therefore I don't think many would scroll further down for what really is the important information.

And, then, why not just have the link to the test UEFI version there (point to the thread as the place to go to discuss it)? I'm probably being nitpicky now. Sorry. I'm just coming at it from my experiences with other distros. I was not the least bit inclined to expect this approach. I imagine other people would be too assuming also.

Now that I am properly orientated, I am downloading the test UEFI and anxiously hoping it works! I will report back.

[Valtam]

Is your system UEFI? The 4.8 Release Announce is very clear on how to determine this.

I've also updated the information on our Download page regarding UEFI.

[az2020]

Is your system UEFI? The 4.8 Release Announce is very clear on how to determine this.

Yes, I've had UEFI since 2014(?). Of course, the new machine (Ryzen 3) is.

I didn't realize LL was in the process of implementing support for that. (See previous post.). But, why would that cause a nested partition table? It seems to me like a legacy, non-EFI ISO image would still look like anything else.  I mean, if I had one in drawer from 2010, and plugged it in, it wouln't have a "nested partition error." I assume writing an old, non-EFI ISO today would produce a readable USB flash drive (not the partition error). Something still seems odd about that. But, it's a moot point if UEFI isn't supported yet.

Any prognosis about UEFI being official? I hope it's not to far off because I really like this distro.

[Valtam]

Just use the 4.2 UEFI image, it's perfectly fine.

Wipe your USB using disk in Windows - https://www.tomshardware.com/news/format...37632.html.
Then try with Rufus - https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/tutorial-cr...-selection select the Linux Lite UEFI ISO.

[az2020]

Just use the 4.2 UEFI image, it's perfectly fine.

FYI: 4.2 UEFI-test booted on both my laptops. I got the Live-CD desktop. (I didn't try installing. I don't want to spend time on an older version.).

I feel silly coming in here all fired up about an ISO problem. That was a strange "wait, what?" moment (when I realized I had assume too much about the official download).

After poking around more, I can see that this has a "history" centered upon dislike for UEFI. (I'm *very* sympathetic. I haven't liked UEFI either. It's amazingly confusing. But.... it's a quixotic position now, isn't it?  : In some ways, it's almost like your *punishing* all the sell-outs who bought UEFI equipment. It's *our* fault for enabling the oppressor. ).

I also saw a "what's coming" communication which said 5.0 might have UEFI support. I sincerely hope you can get there. 4.8 is a *really* nice distro. I love the desktop. It's simple/clean, but not unpolished (which those terms can often imply, like Puppy or Antix). It's eye catching, but not overdone with animations and eye candy. It's just pleasant.

I used Lubuntu LXDE for four years. When I reached the point that I had to upgrade to the new LXQt desktop, it was different enough for me to distro hop. I used MX 18.1 the past 9 months. I'm on Peppermint 10 now. Linux Lite is in that same category of small, simple, clean -- but nicely/elegantly done (not just rough-around-the-edge hobbyist distro). To me, it would be a great alternative to Lubuntu.

If you're working on making UEFI support more mainstream in your distro, I'd be happy to help test. (It's time to stop leaving us disloyal UEFI people six versions back! Its not our fault!).

[Valtam]

4.2 can be upgraded to 4.8 in the usual manner.

[firenice03]

[quote author=Jerry link=topic=7051.msg50738#msg50738 date=1580766953]
Just use the 4.2 UEFI image, it's perfectly fine.

FYI: 4.2 UEFI-test booted on both my laptops. I got the Live-CD desktop. (I didn't try installing. I don't want to spend time on an older version.).

I feel silly coming in here all fired up about an ISO problem. That was a strange "wait, what?" moment (when I realized I had assume too much about the official download).

[/quote]


[member=11791]az2020[/member]
Install 4.2, run updates once done/reboot if needed, then use Lite Upgrade - you'll be on LL 4.8 before you know it..
Installing any 4.x will upgrade to the latest in the series.
No different than those who had 4.2 and upgraded along the way or waited till now.


The OS is the same - you'll get the updates from 4.2 thru 4.8 when upgrading.. No worries.
The only difference is the BIOS installer portion...


We're not left behind    - we're blazing the path ....


Any version can be upgrade to the latest within the series.. 4.2 to 4.8... 4.4 to 4.8 etc..
You'll have to install a new once LL5.0 comes out - you can't go from 4.8 (or any 4.x) to 5.x