Unetbootin, unotworkin'

[nightflier]

A0.1, 32-bit.

USB drive created with dd works fine. If using unetbootin, it only brings you to very limited shell.

We should either support the unetbootin approach, or prominently display warnings not to use it.

[Former user]

unetbootin is garbage and we do not officially support its use. in fact i denounce its use at every available opportunity on the forums. as far as creating a bootable usb from linux we are on record as supporting dd only and we have how-tos not only in the forums but also in our readthedocs via the bitbucket push for centralized documentation. as far as making a bootable usb stick from windows i have no knowleage of windows. maybe someone could write a howto for that as well

[nightflier]

Fair enough. We should state which installation methods are acceptable. So far we have "burn to optical disc" and "write USB drive with dd" .. leave it at that?

[Former user]

imo yes. and we can link to an apropiate forum thread or the readthedocs page

[roarde]

Post those warnings even more prominently? Yes.

But in the real world, people are going to use Unetbootin so at least some effort should be made to have it work correctly when that's practical. It's usually either an unwanted difference between the ISOLINUX and SYSLINUX directories, or user error in formatting the USB stick before running Unetbootin.

[Moises Henriquez]

The reason unetbootin does not work for us is because we chain-load 2 ramdisks on the boot process for the installer in order to achieve the graphical environment.

I have been able to write the ISO to a USB using YUMI, but unetbootin will most likely not be supported in the near future.

[nightflier]

Not directly a VL issue.