Re: Confusion
On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 12:13 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2014 09:54:04 -0500
> "John W. Foster" <jfoster81747@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 16:31 +0930, josh wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > When one has a problem with any GNU/Linux distribution and goes to
>
> [clip]
>
> > > Am I missing something obvious here?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Josh.
>
> >
> > Well I'm gonna ask the obvious:
> > Did you burn it as a ".iso file" or did you burn it as an image,
> > which is what should have been done. Hope this helps, as Ive made
> > than error before my self. john
>
> Hi John,
>
> Apparently, so have I, because I've thought that in the case of iso9660
> (as opposed to UDF) formatted discs, "image and ".iso" were the same
> thing.
>
> The way I've always burned discs is either:
>
> wodim dev=/dev/sg2 padsize=63s -dao -pad -v -eject myfile.iso
>
> or
>
> growisofs -Z=/dev/sr0=myfile.udf
>
> These *appear* to have given me readable CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays.
>
> What's the difference between an image and an .iso?
>
> Thanks,
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
> Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
>
_______________________________________________
In my experience the 'image' always produces a bootable installation
disk. .iso may be written/read as a saved expanded file system &
therefore is not bootable, This is just what I've experienced & YMMV.
A lot of this depends on the software writing the disk as well. If you
simply download an .iso & use a disk writer in a GUI you can have a disk
that is readable/not bootable & a 'windows' system will try to mount it,
sometimes giving the false start of the boot sequence, but not
completing the install. Your 'command line' sequence is apparently
designed to write an image disk. I am not familiar with this
process.However I'm filing it in my tips directory.
thanks
john
Reply to: