Solved USB boot not always working

Solved issue
J

jar1

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2023
Messages
39
Reaction score
10
Credits
252
Hi
I have been testing linux distros using USB drive but I only got working ubuntu and lubuntu. For some reason Arch and puppy linux wont boot from the USB
i used rufus to write the .iso to the USB
Any ideas what Im doing wrong? (I can provide more info if asked)

I'm using laptop which architecture is x86 but supports 64bit

thx!
 


BigBadBeef said:
For me, etcher was the one causing issues.
Click to expand...

That's unusual, though it's probably worth trying a variety of methods if one (Rufus) isn't working. Heck, some distros (such as Mint) come with a USB writer already installed. So, if that's an option they should consider trying that as well.
 
jar1 said:
I have been testing linux distros using USB drive but I only got working ubuntu and lubuntu. For some reason Arch and puppy linux wont boot from the USB
Click to expand...
Erm... this is often associated with windows secure boot, Ubuntu are one of the few distros that work with it. Make sure both windows Secure boot and quick [fast] boot are disabled and do a power restart before you try again
 
z7vl7abxc said:
ubuntu (which op said they could boot into) should have one in the menu called Startup Disk Creator which (to explain the link) is launched by the command usb-creator-gtk: https://screenshots.debian.net/package/usb-creator-gtk#gallery
Click to expand...

Yup. It's even in Lubuntu. Quite a few distros have a USB writer by default these days. I'm not sure how often they're used, but it is the trend. I'd say it's a welcome trend, though I'd probably just use Etcher out of habit.

I'm amidst a rather impressive storm with quite a bit of electrical activity. My 'net connection is terrible.
 
BigBadBeef said:
For me, etcher was the one causing issues.
Click to expand...
KGIII said:
That's unusual,
Click to expand...
Not so unusual for me. Etcher has never worked for me in Windoze, nor Linux ( call a Catholic priest, my computers all need an exorcism).
Rufus in Windoze, and USB Image Writer in Linux have never let me down, both FTW! ;)
 
xlbooyahlx said:
Not so unusual for me.
Click to expand...

Weird indeed. It has been our 'go to' for recommendations for a couple of years now. We've literally suggested it hundreds of times with great success. I use it almost daily in my Lubuntu testing, as I test once in a VM and once on real hardware (a laptop dedicated just to testing).

Hmm... That laptop is better than some of the desktop systems I have. I should move stuff around, or maybe it's time for a new desktop or two. I haven't purchased new hardware in a while, now that I think of it.

Anyhow, yeah... We've collectively suggested it hundreds of times, if not thousands of times, in the past couple of years. Well, it's probably in the hundreds and not the thousands. I'm not really sure. A search for "Etcher" shows at least 10 pages worth of results. I think it stops at 10 pages worth of results, because it only shows 10 pages of results for the word "Linux". I'm pretty darn sure we've mentioned Linux more than 250 times.
 
KGIII said:
It has been our 'go to' for recommendations
Click to expand...
As it is on most distro instructions for install.
I used to follow the instructions to a "T", but after a few dozen fails, I do what I know works for me.
It may very well be my hardware, as I've got (4) different NUCs siiting here from an 8i5BEH all they way up to a gaming NUC 11 Phantom Canyon NUC11PHKi7C, so the Catholic priest may very well be needed to get Etcher working. The one good thing about an all intel Nuc is that you can load pretty much any distro on it (not my NUC 11 Phantom Canyon NUC11PHKi7C though).
Laptop on the way if USPS can quit routing it to the wrong city SMH.
 
Last edited:
jar1 said:
x86 but supports 64bit
Click to expand...
I've got an old laptop that i was playing around with last week. 64bit CPU (x64) with a 32Bit (x86) UEFI.
Threw me fits until @z7vl7abxc stepped in to give me a heads up.
Only 32 bit (x86) Linux distros would install in spite of it having a 64bi (x64) CPU.
 
KGIII said:
It has been our 'go to' for recommendations for a couple of years now
Click to expand...

Over 6 and a half years, in fact.

A former Member, name of Dash mentioned it in January 2017.

In May 2017 Jarret Buse mentioned it, and I started using it.

In July 2017 @atanere and I recommended it in support threads and it gained popularity with our Members from there.

Balena bought into them maybe a year later.

Two things to check with Etcher:
1. When choosing the target drive to burn the iso to, be sure to check if the options are scrollable, and choose your USB stick/SD card, or else you may wipe the wrong drive.
2. It results in an Appimage on Linux (zip on Windows, becomes an .exe) which more often than not can be double-clicked, but if not, you may need to set the executable bit.

Ventoy is good, though, particularly for multibooting a number of live distros.

Posts 7, 8 and 10 are likely of no consequence to the OP, if he does not have an active Linux distro installed yet, although conceivably you could use the imaging software if you wanted to use 2 usb sticks (slower).

Cheers

Wizard
 
Brickwizard said:
Erm... this is often associated with windows secure boot, Ubuntu are one of the few distros that work with it. Make sure both windows Secure boot and quick [fast] boot are disabled and do a power restart before you try again
Click to expand...

this was the problem, I had to disable secure boot from bios

now installing Arch linux :)

thx!
 
Excellent, now please return to your first post and mark as solved

Thx
 
KGIII said:
That's unusual, though it's probably worth trying a variety of methods if one (Rufus) isn't working. Heck, some distros (such as Mint) come with a USB writer already installed. So, if that's an option they should consider trying that as well.
Click to expand...
I think its more like not all BIOSes being the same. There appears to be some nitpicking with the particulars of each writing method that different bioses can differentiate between, thusly some being more friendly to certain forms of bootables, while others stand out just enough for the detection subroutines to disregard them.
 
BigBadBeef said:
There appears to be some nitpicking with the particulars of each writing method that different bioses can differentiate between, thusly some being more friendly to certain forms of bootables, while others stand out just enough for the detection subroutines to disregard them.
Click to expand...

That'd be my guess as well. The good thing is that there's a variety. For the longest time, Rufus was simply broken and nobody was pushing out new releases. I'm not sure if that changed, but it probably did as people are seeing success again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,563 (members: 3, guests: 1,560)

Latest posts

Top