![]() ![]() whereas most ISOHybrid media is designed to boot from either BIOS or UEFI and therefore uses MBR. There is also the problem of restricting the media you create to UEFI boot only, which can be very desireable to do (to prevent installing your OS in BIOS/Legacy/CSM mode when you wanted to install it in UEFI mode), but that can only be accomplished if you can set the partition scheme to GPT. So, writing an ISOHybrid in dd mode will usually break the principle of least astonishment, which Linux maintainers, who are less tuned to hearing reports from Windows users, tend to disregard as a non issue, when it most certainly is an issue.įurthermore, whereas pretty much any OS provides native tools to easily create a FAT32 partition onto a USB drive, and extract ISO content onto it (which, if you have a UEFI system, should be more than enough to create a bootable drive, provided that the image creators did their job properly), so that you shouldn't even have to use a utility like Rufus, using dd for copying an image requires a little more involvement and, if you are using it manually, can lead to dramatic mishaps ( dd is not also called Disk Destroyer by mistake), which are a lot less likely to happen when using file extraction mode. The fact that Windows cannot natively mount the usual Linux partition that follows the ESP is EXCEEDINGLY CONFUSING FOR MANY USERS. Well, unfortunately for you, it is very easy to disprove that dd mode is the better option for users (and that's not even counting the similar reports I get through e-mail). How could this not objectively be the better option?" If you are coming to this FAQ with the idea that DD mode has no drawbacks, then you have drunk the ISOhybrid kool aid, which has been a massive plague for people who are effectively trying to ensure that users can actually create a bootable drive in the best possible condition, without being constrained to the shortcomings of a "one method to rule them all" fallacy.Īnd here, I hear you protesting: "But dd is a lot faster than copying individual files, and it enables the use of a native Linux file system as well as an ESP, plus it makes sure that the resulting drive is a bit for bit copy of the one created by the person who produced the ISO. Here's the full reason on Github: Why doesn't Rufus recommend DD mode over ISO mode for ISOHybrid images? Surely DD is better!Ĭongratulations. ![]() Rufus' author also has an excellent answer on SuperUser that I just saw from Kamil Maciorowski's comment after posting this answer ![]() With the dd method users would need to delete the partition and reinitialize the disk whereas this method only requires a simple format or deletion of the files ![]() But in summary it's simpler for the average users, is less astonishing and users can use the pen drive for data normally. The reason is very long, see the full in the above link or below. Rufus also supports the dd mode but its author already states why it doesn't use that mode by default in the FAQ in its Github repo. There are also some other methods such as copy the whole ISO file into the data partition and map it then use the boot-from-mapped-ISO feature of Grub, or copy all the files of the installer into the FAT32 partition and use syslinux to boot That's the dd method and most other Linux distros suggest to use dd mode to create a bootable USB installation drive. But modern Linux installation discs are also isohybrid so they can also boot directly if the image was written into a normal non-optical disk. CDs and DVDs use ISO-9660 or UDF, not FAT32 or ext4, otherwise most non-Linux platforms can't read them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |