Talk:USB flash installation media

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 08:33, 23 August 2013 by AdamT (Talk | contribs) (About making the installation media without overwriting: Removing strikeout for now.)

Jump to: navigation, search

Article Name is Ambiguous, Move Warranted?

Hello,

First off, references:

  1. Article Naming Guidelines
  2. Wikipedia:USB Flash drive

The current title, "USB Installation Media" seems ambiguous (i.e, not descriptive). The current title could rightfully imply a USB connected hard drive or optical drive while the article is focused entirely on USB connected flash media.

In keeping with Arch Wiki's naming guidelines, I suggest the article be renamed to something more specific such as "USB Flash Installation Media," or "Thumb Drive Arch Linux Install." The former is likely preferable as it results in a very similar name, just one that is more descriptive.

Cheers all,

AdamT (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair, certainly USB Flash Installation Media would be preferable. -- Kynikos (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been rolling this around a bit more before making any changes. I figure this will generate some noise so I want to get it right the first time. Does USB Flash Install work a bit better while simplifying the word choice?
Once the name is agreeable I hope to migrate the UEFI USB instructions from the UEFI article make the naming consistent and maybe make this article a bit shorter and sweeter by linking to other relevant articles and removing any redundant content.
AdamT (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
We have to make sure that the title of this article can't be confused with Installing Arch Linux on a USB key, and I think USB Flash Install wouldn't meet that requirement. -- Kynikos (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Kynikos. Just as a follow-up I will make this move shortly here. I just wanted to make sure nothing else crossed my mind first. AdamT (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This change made me a bit nervous so I kept putting it off. I have finally pulled the trigger. No broken redirects but some double redirects. I will look at these and correct. Just a head's up in case someone checks here. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Special:DoubleRedirects AdamT (Talk) 07:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Double redirects corrected. No broken redirects still. Closing this. AdamT (Talk) 07:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Verifying the USB

Before and after having performed the dd onto the USB disk, check that the md5sums are correct. For example:

- $ md5sum archlinux-2008.06-core-x86_64.img && echo && cat md5sums.x86_64

The next command will give similar results, but will also let you confirm that the data was written correctly and can be read correctly:

- dd if=/dev/sdb count=661159 status=noxfer | md5sum && echo && cat md5sums.x86_64

--Zatricky 06:45, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I would like to verify this once I get my install back up and running and then integrate this into the GNU/Linux dd section if verified still working. AdamT (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
After testing this with a known good live USB flash drive I was unable to duplicate the commands as outlined above while getting back a verifiable shasum. I am striking this for removal. AdamT (Talk) 08:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

About making the installation media without overwriting

I'm not totally sure if I misunderstood something, but I had to change the path of the entries of the *.cfg files. For instance:

INCLUDE boot/syslinux/archiso_sys.cfg

became:

INCLUDE syslinux/archiso_sys.cfg

It was the only way it worked with the unofficial ISO x86_64 image of march 13th, 2012. Looks like the syslinux command described in the page doesn't get the path as it should.

I edited all of the .cfg files, but probably only editing this ones should have been enough:

archiso.cfg archiso_head.cfg archiso_sys_inc.cfg

I hope it could be useful to somebody, because I spend some time with this (I even thought that was a problem with the hardware). I think it could be possible to make a simple script (or give some command lines) to patch the files once they are copied into the USB and run syslinux.

Thanks !!

I cannot find that this is still relevant to the article as it now exists. I am striking it out as it looks like it could be good to remove. AdamT (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just lunched from USB drive without UUID(don't have any idea why it didn't have one). Solution was to change label to appropriate in loader/entries/archiso-x86_64.conf. Not sure weither this should be added to article.

--Versusvoid (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Versusvoid, I would love to adapt the article but I cannot follow your description above. Looking at that section, it may be out dated. If you are watching this please elaborate when you have time. Thanks, AdamT (Talk) 08:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

UNetbootin should be removed

I think UNetbootin should be removed. It was just added more information that basically tells you to use something else. This program is way too intrusive. It installs its own version of the bootloader, a crappy syslinux.cfg, and doesn't give a shit about labels. Unetbootin is totally NOT recommended for Arch Linux and it should be removed from the wiki. --DSpider (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good riddance! But, perhaps we should keep the warning? Or just refer them to this discussion page. --DSpider (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This is not the first time UNetbootin info is added and then removed (sadly by me.). Search the history you will find the same topic show up long time ago. If it is broken, we'd better clearly tell people it is broken. And it can prevent it from being recommended again. -- Fengchao (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please don't take example from what User:Danielwallace did; content should never be removed without at least a valid explanation in the edit summary, and anyway, in this case UNetbootin must be mentioned, even only as an non-recommended, discouraged alternative in a Warning: following the philosophy of the ArchWiki and Arch Linux in general, no available option must be hidden to the users, who are the only ones who can choose what's best for themselves in the end. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Deletion reverted. Close. -- Fengchao (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Reopening as the section has been restored. My opinion is unchanged. -- Kynikos (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for re-opening the section but it was my first time that I wrote on this wiki. I know that UNetbooting overwrite the syslinux.cfg, infact my guide is to edit that file to permit the boot of the installation media. So I think you could remove the disclaimer. Mathias (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Lol, silly me, I added the disclaimer back without re-reading the section just because I remembered this has been the cause of some edit warring in the past, sorry... Of course you're right, however I've merged the disclaimer into the introduction paragraph in order to try to prevent future disputes. Closed (again). -- Kynikos (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that there has been an increase in the number of new users attempting to use unetbootin (and failing) since this section was changed. I think this tool should be more strongly discuraged. There really is no reason to use it, even with the syslinux warning. I'd like to at least amplify the warning about using another tool, and ideally return the original warning from DSpider (Do Not Use UNETBOOTIN). 2ManyDogs (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I admit it's been a while since I last tested UNetbootin: is the procedure described in the article working or not? In any case yes, please expand the warning about using another tool, specifying the reason why UNetbootin is worse. However let's not delete the section again, otherwise this cycle of deletions and restorations will never end... -- Kynikos (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It works, but it breaks syslinux.cfg so the USB stick does not boot properly. This is explained at the top of the topic. I changed the "Note" to a "Warning" and added a little more text to the first paragraph. I think this is sufficient for now. (I agree deleting the section is not the best solution -- I just wanted the warnings to be a bit stronger) 2ManyDogs (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's try to close this discussion again ^^ -- Kynikos (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)