Bootable Ubuntu USB using Trisquel?
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Does anyone have experience creating a bootable Ubuntu USB from the Trisquel OS?
you can do it but Ubuntu contains non-free software
from the community guidelines:
"Our community's resources --the forum, documentation, etc-- are for free software only Please do not distribute, recommend, or support non-free software here"
I am a translator!
dd if=nameOfISO.iso of=/dev/sdb bs=4M
make sure your USB is indeed sdb,sdc or whatever with:
lsblk
P.S: it's not Ubuntu, The original name (and the real one) is Spyuntu.
# dd if= of=/dev/ bs=4M;sync
Just to be on the safe side ;)
I am a translator!
I'm too lazy to go and check it. What is the sync for and why?
I made a lot of different usb live distros using the command above and never had any issue (with disparate hardware).
ciao green man!
I believe sync just updates.. things. To me, dd feels incomplete without it. I
was first taught dd by the Debian documentation, and the 'sync' was there. It's
probably there for a reason.
- green man
Yea, Arch'es wiki has "sync," too.
I always ignore it though, and have never run into any problems.
Apparently it syncs "cached writes to persistent storage," whatever that means.
I am a translator!
tx for the info greenman and jaded. I will pretend I understood the "syncs cached writes to persistent storage" part.. :)
info coreutils 'sync invocation'
says
`sync' writes any data buffered in memory out to disk. This can include (but is not limited to) modified superblocks, modified inodes, and delayed reads and writes. This must be implemented by the kernel; The `sync' program does nothing but exercise the `sync' system call.
The kernel keeps data in memory to avoid doing (relatively slow) disk reads and writes. This improves performance, but if the computer crashes, data may be lost or the file system corrupted as a result. The `sync' command ensures everything in memory is written to disk.
The actual disk is about 100 times than volatile memory such as RAM. That is why disks have, in addition to the actual disk, an embedding volatile memory (like RAM) called the buffer. In the case of a write, the data is first quickly written in the buffer before being actually dumped in large blocks (what is more efficient) onto the actual disk (persistent storage). As a consequence, the actual disk may not contain the written data (it is still in the buffer) and the filesystem can be in an inconsistent state even if the write has been achieved from the operating system's point of view. 'sync' simply forces the data in buffer to be written onto the disk.
EDIT: lembas replied faster!
;) Copy pasta is usually fasta!
> The actual disk is about 100 times than volatile memory such as RAM.
100 times what than volatile memory?
> 'sync' simply forces the data in buffer to be written onto the disk.
So it is a good thing to do. Thanks for the info.
100 times *slower* (in terms of throughput). For HDD disks. For SDD, it is closer to 10 times slower than RAM.
You usually need not execute 'sync': when you unmount a filesystem, it is automatically called (well, the corresponding kernel directive, not the userland command).
What if you tried this?
>>What if you tried this?
>>http://www.linuxliveusb.com/
From the link you provided, I understand it is licensed under GNU GPLv3.
But this software has reference for GNU/Linux distributions which ships non-free software and binary blobs with the kernel, Linux. Some of them even don't have a well written guideline to document which software can be included or not. (Unlike Debian GNU/Linux or Fedora GNU/Linux which has a social contract.) It even has Winblobs(!) which I can't tolerate for its malpractices.
So strictly speaking, this software violates GNU GPLv3 from the very core. The only positive sign I see here is it lists gNewsense GNU/Linux and Trisquel GNU/Linux. ** I won't recommend this software to anybody. **
EDIT: Hi willieaames,
I would like you to read this aritcle before you proceed with Ubuntu GNU/Linux.
> So strictly speaking, this software violates GNU GPLv3 from the very core
No, it does not. A GPLv3 software that recommends non-free software does not violate the license.
I'll answer to the top-level comment since this applies to other
comments already present here.
Before you keep on reading: I do know that the GNU GPL and the free
software philosophy mustn't be considered the same thing. And for those
who are reading this, I'll explain why: The GNU GPL is just a license,
and doesn't represent the free software philosophy entirely. As a mater
of fact, the free software movement accepts other licenses which aren't
even from the GNU project, like Apache License, Version 2.0; Artistic
License 2.0; modified BSD license ("3-clause BSD license"); Creative
Commons Public Domain; Expat License (sometimes referred as "MIT
License", although MIT has never made a license for its own use);
informal licenses; The Unlicense; X11 License (also referred as "MIT
License". Did you notice what I mean?); and many other licenses[1].
So... Back to the main subject:
What Ubuntu, and probably, Linux Live USB Creator, violates is the free
software philosophy.
Non-free software dependency/recommendation/suggestion/teaching/usage is
like a poisonous tree, that makes other poisonous trees from its
poisonous fruits. There are various ways to tackle this, just pick one:
* Offer to help developing the tree from the close up, and be a watchdog
to purify the tree;
* Take the seeds from the poisonous fruit and start studying and
purifying it;
* If the fruit has no seeds, take the poisonous fruit itself and start
studying and purifying it;
* Develop a purified tree from zero/scratch;
* Organize campaigns against the replication of the poisonous trees.
REFERENCES
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben