[ SOLVED ] Burning ISO flash drive seems problematic?

[az2020]

And in all honesty Linux Lite has been the most problematic for me as well, and I honestly don't know specifically why. I suspect it depends on the hardware at both ends of the process.         

I don't know anything about this topic (how ISOs are made, the different ways they're written by different tools. But, when 20 distros boot fine (written a variety of ways), and one won't boot even when burned the official way... it looks like just one end would be the place to start.

For example: what does gparted's error mean: "Invalid partition table - recursive partition on /dev/sdb." I get that result burning both "official" ways, on multiple flash drives, burned from two different computers (one is 3-years old. One is new.). But, I can burn 25 other distros without any regard for the tool used to burn it, from either machine, and they boot fine. (In fairness: I did have the same experience with Antix 19. It seemed particular in this same way.).

It seems more pronounced as problem with this ISO (its format?) than just "it's all nebulous; no USB writers work perfectly."

If it were my distro, I'd make this the #1 priority. How many people can't even test-drive Linux Lite because there's a barrier with the ISO? Linux itself is enough of a barrier for most people (coming from Windows, the audience being welcomed on Linux Lite's site). And then the ISO is fussy in a way virtually no other distros are. Shouldn't that be the proverbial "low-hanging fruit" for growing Linux Lite's user base?

I hope I'm not sounding judgmental, or ridiculing. It's just that the distro looks *awesome* and it really hurts me to think of all the people who might not get past the ISO (when, as far as I know, there shouldn't be such issues with it). I'm more than eager to help identify what's happening. If someone can tell me what to try, what info to collect, I can do that. I'm not very knowledgeable on these things. But, I have a lot of time.

[trinidad]

I abandoned all of the recommended ways you often read about on the Web to handle burning ISOs except two.

1) Sadly, I've found that burning to a DVD/BluRay works most reliably from Windows 10 Pro 1809 or better as the OEM features of the player/burner are all available.

2) The most reliable way to "burn" an ISO to a USB is to use disk-writer to write the ISO to a bootable FAT32 stick (for me from Debian).

And... Yes, though I hesitate to say it, I have never liked the way the Ubuntu LTS installer hybrid ISO works. On some hardware it will throw errors that are not the actual error, confusing to new users, errors that indicate the ISO was not accurately burned when in fact that is not the problem. Usually it is actually a read from compression error, on old hardware too slow of RAM buffering and memory threading, and on new hardware too fast, and/or caused by OEM secure memory sectors and miss-reads and sometimes 32bit firmware. For the majority of users the Ubuntu ISO method of installing is not a problem, but it is a problem for some. And in all honesty Linux Lite has been the most problematic for me as well, and I honestly don't know specifically why. I suspect it depends on the hardware at both ends of the process.

Far and away the Debian net install hybrid non-free ISO is the most reliable and the most easily accessible from the terminal and thus repairable after installing aptitude, but this is not something that can be easily acheived with Ubuntu given the packaging system and install heirarchy.

Perhaps this is something the community needs to look at, and make unique to Linux Lite, but unfortunately the vector of hardware nascence is rising so steeply these days that Ubuntu's development cycle must by necessity already assume a frenetically torrid pace.

On the web the general way recommended to fix a failed install is to re-install. The problem with that praxis in Ubuntu is that there is no guarantee the installer will not crash again, and the fact is the problem may be something simple. Ubuntu server used to be simple to install but things have been added to telemetry now that will fail some secuirty layers when trying to install it. What a good idea for Ubuntu. Dumb in my opinion. In the case of LTS the real issue for Ubuntu may be in the heirarchy of the installation (the order in which things are installed from the ISO) that inhibits user intervention on broken partial installs, (which is a questionable maybe even lazy practice given that a hybrid ISO is already being used) Then again Ubuntu is trying to make things simple for new users, and perhaps that is for the best.

TC           

[az2020]

Hi, I've been distro "speed dating" for a year. (ha). About a year ago I installed 15 distros to compare memory use. I just did it again, with about 25 distros.

My impression has consistently been that there's something odd about Linux Lite's iso. The reason I say that: I've had virtually no trouble "burning" the other distros to USB flash (and booting them. I might have trouble with drivers loading, reaching a desktop. But, the flash drives are recognized and at least *start* to boot.). I've burned them using unetbootin, MX USB Maker, the dd command. They don't seem to care.

But, every time I try Linux Lite... it seems very particular. Either the USB flash drive isn't recognized by the BIOS as even available to boot from. Or, it is recognized -- but when I choose to boot it, it does nothing and hands-off to the hard disk (i.e., the USB flash drive will be accessed for 5-10 seconds, and then the hard drive boots as if that's what I choose.).

This has been on two different computers (an older Toshiba Satellite C55-B, and a new Acer Aspire 5 A515-43-R19L).

Yesterday I was able to boot Linux Lite 4.8 in a Virtual Box for the first time. (I love what I see. I definitely would like to "hop" to it sometime.). This morning I thought I would pursue the bootable "burning" problem further.

I see on your web page that it's only supposed to be burned with Etcher or the DD command. I tried both, but the resulting USB flash drive won't begin to boot (in the way I described above). When I try to open that device in gparted, I get an error: "Invalid partition table - recursive partition on /dev/sdb"

I'm raising this topic not so much as "how can I get this to work," but "why is it this way?" As I said, I have not had this experience with 20 other distros (maybe I've had it with Antix 19). And, I had this experience last April when I "speed dated" some distros. I'm having it again this time.

Linux is known to be frustrating migrating to it (from Windows). It seems like something's wrong with the Linux Lite iso in a way that would make that even a higher-friction experience.  So, I'm raising this topic to try to help in some way. It's hard to believe it's just me (or, is it just me? I've tried two computers, different USB devices, burning it different ways -- including the Linux Lite-supported ways).

I'm willing to try things, and provide more info to track down what's happening.