Felix Miata wrote:
> Also, why are this/these stick(s) getting flip-flopped between sdd and sdc?
That's because Kent plugged them in at the same time, i guess.
sdc is the clearly ill one, sdd is the one which is at least readable.
Kent West wrote:
> > > dd: failed to open '/dev/sdd': Read-only file system
> > Why does dd talk of filesystems ?
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Because the only error number usable for "this thing is read-only" in
> POSIX is EROFS, so that's what a read-only block device reports.
> Anyway, if this is a pendrive or some other flash-based media, it most
> often means it is in the fail-safe last-resort mode (switched to
> read-only access so that you can try to salvage some data off it).
Valid theory. One can read this in the web about SanDisk devices.
But i am reluctant to declare two out of two USB sticks ill.
For now i still deem it possible that something like udev decided to
block access because of the data it saw on the device.
The decisive experiments would be to try writing to the sdd stick on
some other operating system with very different software between kernel
and userland. (Best would be an old GNU/Linux without any systemd/udev.)
Although i really do not believe in the theory that the ISO can kill
the USB stick, i leave the decision to Kent whether he wants to risk
a third stick (preferrably a young one) for experiments.
Have a nice day :)