Talk:Live USB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] BIOS

Some computers, particularly older ones, may not have a BIOS that supports USB booting. In this case a computer can often be "redirected" to boot from a USB device through use of a bootable CD or floppy disk.

Does anyone have a working example of this? I have heard of this before but have never seen any specific examples. It would be great if someone could add a link to some software that does this, because at the moment it seems a little unverifiable without any specific examples. - Aug Leopold 01:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-installed Linux

I've just removed the "Pre-installed Linux" section - ISTM that this is nothing more than a section for commercial ads?! If anyone can find a real reason for its inclusion, please feel free to add back in - though it would make sense to explain it here! Nuwewsco 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant spam. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Chris Cunningham 11:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] made bootable ?

quote:

The first type of Live USB was created by simply taking the ISO image file from a Live-CD distribution and placing it on USB storage device and then making it bootable.

How exactly would one "make it bootable", or is it enough just to copy the contents of the .iso file to the live USB stick. I know that when burning a live_CD it's NOT just a case of copying the contents of the .iso to a CD, one has to use the "burn .iso" option, but what magic happens then, that needs to happen also to the Live USB? Mahjongg (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I suggest create a table with some data: based on rpm/deb , user interface (Xfce, JWM, Fluxbox...), size, installable (or non-installable) onto harddisk and so on. --Mac (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ubuntu

As the subject of linux distribution superiority is very prone to emotion, I have taken the liberty of removing edits such as "Only easy to install if the OS is Ubuntu" - which ironically was referenced to a tutorial on how to get around the fact Ubuntu offers no easy USB image. (Unlike other distributions intended for USB). I have also removed the reference for "live USBs can reduce USB life cycle" because it was cited to a Ubuntu tutorial which briefly mentions it. A more appropriate citation should be found. Further more for the purposes of neutrality instead of a screenshot of Ubuntu (which is intended for hard drives but *can* be installed on a USB) I favor replacing it with a distribution that is actually intended for a USB.

Erikina (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

A lot of stuff here is sourced to unreliable or primary sources (and some of it just points to download links). I removed these, but it's been reverted as a "mass deletion" (sigh). Planning on re-doing this, because this article shouldn't just be a list of downloads. Step one is getting rid of "references" which are merely pointers to demonstrations, or to user-generated documentation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I reverted it, what is the problem with download links? if you want to add good stuff, please do it, but just don't delete usefull info, besides, much of those references are the official how-tos, I think that is a reliable reference, and regarding "user-generated documentation", that is what wikipedia is, better to have some poorly writen tutorials than nothing at all, right? I really don't think links like this one https://launchpad.net/liveusb or this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLiveCD/USBHowTo should be removed, they provide and example of a way to do a Live USB and they are very appropriate. Consider adding reliable sources if you find them, (which is a very good thing) but please don't just delete good and usefull stuff... 87.196.199.145 (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They aren't appropriate at all. This isn't supposed to be a guide to using computers, it's supposed to be a descriptive resource which presents encyclopedic facts. And no, it's better to have no "poorly writen tutorials", because poorly written tutorials don't provide any benefit to the article. Please read WP:EL. I'll take care of this again on my next pass. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing about tutorials was a bad example, nevermind, but if this is supposed to be a descriptive resource which presents encyclopedic facts, then it should include the links of offical tools that can create Live USBs... right? , What is the problem with the links? what is the obsession some people have with removing GOOD links from articles? besides, this links do not fit ANY non-inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, none at all.... Oh, why do I even care? go ahead, just delete useful and good info that is relevant to the article... this is why I don't like to contribute to wikipedia... anyone can just come and screw most of the articles, and some editors just follow the rules like mindless "bots", in some kind of vendetta for "encyclopedic content", not to mention the "free as in freedom blah blah" extremists...

PS: While poorly writen tutorials might not benefit the article and should be replaced by better ones, links to tutorials would sure benefit the people... just think about what really matters... and please don't take offense... just think about it 87.196.212.101 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written instruction manuals at least establish that this is the term that's most frequently used by people in the field to describe the "live USB" concept (something that's not completely obvious). And it establishes that the concept is somewhat widespread (something that's also not obvious, particularly if it comes up for AfD). Instruction manuals may not be very reliable sources because they're not independent, but until we can find more reliable replacements, I don't think they should be removed. --Underpants (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ULUMFW

I finally found a windows program to create Ubuntu Live USBs with persistence, ULUMFW, I thought it might be of interest to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.112.158 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USB Life

As it said on the page, additional read/write cycles occur on the USB drive reducing it's life unless the OS is designed to keep changes stored in RAM until the user logs off? Will this use up more RAM by only writing to the USB when logging off or will it simply just use the ram to write to the USB less frequently? Also what is best way to do this? Does Unetbootin use the "Live CD derived" method or the "Full install" method? Which method does the Ubuntu USB creator or Fedora USB creator program or this opensuse article use http://en.opensuse.org/Portable_SUSE? --DrM4rio (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)