Search Results for 'boot from iso'

I made an ISO-Snapshot for distribution to others and then burned it to a USB with Live-USB-Maker. I have a friend with an old computer that wanted to try it and liked my setup.

There is nothing wrong with what the USB it created, as it boots and all the programs and such are there, including what I added, but I am trying to figure out how do I get it to include all the configuration tweaks that I made instead of looking like standard antiX with my added programs?

I have come to the conclusion that I need to change the base settings on which demo runs in live, and that added users would get when installed or later. Are these all in one area or in various places?

Does anyone have any tips as to the best way to handle this and be able to create it again easily for antiX 19.2 or antiX 20?

I want to install it on a flash drive using some of these programs or in another way.
LinuxLive USB Creator
unetbootin
casper rw creator
Universal-USB-Installer
YUMI
I do not know what to select at the start of the launch in these settings items.

antiX-19.1_x64-full.iso
The screenshots show another distribution, not the one I’m going to use.

Laptop Dell Latitude D430. Centrino Duo. 2 Gb RAM.

• This topic was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by ops.
• This topic was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by ops.
• This topic was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by ops.

Attachments:

1. 

   AntiX_Desktop.png
   

2. 

   AntiX_options.png
   

3. 

   Boot-options_AntiX_.png
   

4. 

   F5_AntiX_Persist.png
   

[Member berghsg]

Thanks guys for the warm welcome and encouraging remarks.

Re: You can change grub image from the antiX control Center
I have already done this for the installed OS, and it worked, HOW EVER I would like to ensure that my own custom grub window pops up when running live session (Before installing the OS). I would like to know where the OS (running live) derives the default splash screen (see my attached on my 2nd Mar 2020 posting). Perhaps I can just over write this png (or jpg) with my own of the same name. ?
In other words: I am using ISO Snapshot > to create a custom iso / distro > to allow end user to run live or install options > in live option I would like to show my custom grub boot splash. Hope my request here makes sense.

Re: using app select…
I will have to try this out sometime later. I already attempted to make an executable desktop icon by adjusting
[Desktop Entry]
Type=Application
Terminal=false
Exec=/path/to/executable
Name=Name of Application
Icon=/path/to/icon
BUT never came right in earlier attempts.

Re: add-desktop process
(Start menu) > Preferences > Add Menu Item > add-desktop
Attempt:
a) Item name: Popcorn-Time
b) I selected my icon.png from /usr/share/pixmaps
c) Item Category: Desktop Shortcut
d) Item command:
I tried both /home/live/Popcorn-Time/./Popcorn-Time (The path where i have the shared library executable)
and
Popcorn-Time.sh (but this did not work in the add-desktop process)
e) Filename: Popcorn-Time (this is the actual name of the file that executes – shared library executable)

After trial and error
My final setting that worked is as follows:
a) Item name: Popcorn-Time
b) I selected my icon.png from /usr/share/pixmaps
c) Item Category: Desktop Shortcut
d) Item command: /home/live/Popcorn-Time/./Popcorn-Time
e) Filename: Popcorn-Time

Thanks again!!!

Stephen

[Member BitSeeker]

Yes, I did check the MD5 sum using md5sum and it matched. I got the same menu hierarchy on both of the DVD’s that I burned and on both computers that I booted them on.

Filename: antiX-19.1_386-full.iso

Expected MD5: 0328cbcb092a5213a9ee4cc6c7906caf  antiX-19.1_386-full.iso
Actual   MD5: 0328cbcb092a5213a9ee4cc6c7906caf  antiX-19.1_386-full.iso

Other than requiring a 32-bit version, I wasn’t actually sure which image to download, but the most recent “full” image seemed a reasonable place to start from. It was downloaded from the “United Kingdom – Centre for Scientific Computing, University of Warwick – Coventry” mirror.

I didn’t have that kind of issue with MX, but for the old PC I thought antiX might be a better choice as it is a “light” as opposed to “medium” weight distro.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by BitSeeker.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by BitSeeker.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

There is definitely something wrong if you have that sort of menu hierarchy.
Did you check the md5sum of the downloaded and booted iso?

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

I am enjoying Antix 19.1 for about 8 days now, and must compliment the developers of this OS. It has made installing and adding new programs quite easy. Even some of the customization was easy.
Many positives, one being no systemD!
I love Conky!
Easy to work with
Easy iso (distro) creator > ISO snapshot
etc etc
The only things that i would caution new users on is:
1) The selection of certain Desktop environments which bring up a very limited WM, I found Space-IceWM where the Window Manger allows forward backward arrows, Ctrl c and Ctrl V, multiple tabs, open in Terminal, Open in Root window, listing available devices etc Very useful. I find that ROX, Minimal and IceWM on their own too limited!

2) I am still struggling with replacing the default grub boot splash screen (see attached below) with my own custom. Yet to find out who can help me with this. My gripe is that there are a number of locations that involve grub in this OS but a few of them are redundant. Would like to know how i can make an iso (using ISO snapshot) that allows me to show my own custom grub splash window.

3) Creating new desktop icons of installed programs where some programs that do not place an icon on the desktop are difficult to add to desktop. Unless they are in the list /usr/share/applications it is extremely difficult to add an icon that executes the new program installed. Ubuntu Cinnamon and Debian allow us to add via ‘create a new launcher’.

Attachments:

1. 

   grub-menu.jpg
   

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

I just tested this.

Made myself a live usb (of base) with encryption via live-usb-maker (gui).

Booted, set up persist_root, installed gimp, libreoffice and switched to using jwm.
Remastered and set up new rootfs.
Rebooted to jwm desktop with gim and libreoffice.
Ran iso-snapshot, saved file to external device, chose Personal option.
Once finished I also plugged in another usb stick, ran lum-gui clone without encryption and it finished without error.
(encryption fails as we know).

Cloned usb devise is the same as the original without encryption of course.

Booted the snapshot iso in Virtualbox and it is the same as the original live usb.

I’m about to test how that snapshot boots on an encrypted live-usb via lum-gui.
Ok – used lum-gui to write an encrypted live-usb of my snapshot and it boots to jwm desktop plus gimp and libreoffice.

So it seems to do what you want it to.(unless the issue is caused by the existence of homefs – I’ll test that later)

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by anticapitalista.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member olsztyn]

Having done lots of testing to narrow down the source of this error I was able to pinpoint this error to Live USB Maker version change from 0.4.5 (synaptic) to 0.4.6. In Live USB log it is change from 2.41.16 to 2.41.17.
I realized I had updated antiX (indiscriminately running antiX Updater) that apparently resulted the error in LUM cloning Live USB (encrypted). Therefore I went back to a saved previous version, before my careless update (trusting only good things may be brought about by update…) and confirmed:
– Previous Version 2.41.16 of Live USB Maker does not experience this error and creates a clone of encrypted Live USB correctly. I just had to remember to fall back the kernel from 4.19 to 4.9 as without that fallback the resulting copy of Live USB fails booting with fatal dm-crypt error. This is a known fact and was extensively explained by BitJam some time ago along with challenge for LUM due to different versions of vmlinuz between antiX and startup files.
– Not having an older version of antiX Live saved, so having just updated antiX, would have presented a challenge of finding a workaround in cloning a Live USB (encrypted).
– One possibility considered was ISO snapshot. This did not work out and actually appears to have exposed another (possibly unrelated to LUM) issue: Although LUM does not complain and creates Live USB (encrypted) from ISO image and the resulting Live USB boots, it does so forgetting all original desktop and application settings and persistence options. Upon specifying persistence at boot time it fails on the step to copy existing files to homefs. This defeats the entire idea of workaround. This error happens both with old version of LUM (2.41.16) and new and new LUM, so perhaps it is not related to LUM but rather to ISO snapshot.

To summarize two issues:
– Live USB Maker 2.41.17 fails with error (encrypted clone from running system), while version 2.41.16 worked fine (with kernel 4.9, so kernel 4.19 requires fallback).
– Live USB (encrypted) from ISO snapshot (regardless whether LUM version is old or new) does not remember any desktop and application settings and persistence files. Upon specifying persistence during boot it fails on the step to copy existing files to homefs.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by olsztyn.

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

[Member olsztyn]

anticapitalista wrote:

I assume you are running frugal on hard disk when you say running live.

Not Frugal. It is from running Live – Live USB. Running Live USB Maker to create a clone with options ‘Clone Running System’ and ‘Encrypt’ results in error ‘Error encountered in Live USB creation process’ soon in the process.
I am trying to cut the relevant part of LUM log from Var as I was running multiple combinations:

====================================================================
/usr/local/bin/live-usb-maker gui -N -E -C off –from=clone -t /dev/sdc
program: live-usb-maker
started: Fri 21 Feb 2020 02:55:13 PM EST
version: 2.41.17 (Thu 12 Dec 2019 01:59:33 AM MST)
kernel: 4.19.83-antix.1-amd64-smp
OS: antiX 19 (Marielle Franco)
found lib: /usr/local/lib/cli-shell-utils/cli-shell-utils.bash
lib version: 2.41.05 (Tue 05 Nov 2019 08:50:59 PM MST)
———————————————————————

You will be asked to create a passphrase during the first boot
Found man page: live-usb-maker.1
Found live media device /dev/sdb
Will use target device /dev/sdc (28.7G SanDisk Ultra_Fit)
> mount /dev/sdb1 /run/live-usb-maker/bios
Clone running encrypted live system
Live boot directory /antiX
Found (750M) rootfs persistence file
Will clone rootfs persistence file
Found (2.0G) homefs persistence file
Will clone homefs persistence file
Will use source directory /live/boot-dev
Distro: antiX-19_x64-full Marielle Franco 16 October 2019
Found grub config 2.0

Encryption enabled
Estimated extfs overhead for 29127M is 44M

Total Used Extra
entire drive 28.6 GiB 28.6 GiB 1 MiB
main partition 28.4 GiB 5.01 GiB 23.4 GiB
bios partition 150 MiB 32 MiB 118 MiB
uefi partition 50 MiB 16 MiB 34 MiB

>> encryption-initrd
Checking to see if the live media will support encryption …
> wait_for_file /run/live-usb-maker/iso/antiX/linuxfs
> mkdir -p /run/live-usb-maker/linux
> mount -t squashfs -o loop,ro /run/live-usb-maker/iso/antiX/linuxfs /run/live-usb-maker/linux
> copy-initrd-programs –no-color –from=/run/live-usb-maker/linux –to=/run/live-usb-maker/initrd –clean
Cleaning out all libraries and these program(s): ntfs-3g eject cryptsetup
> copy-initrd-programs –no-color –from=/run/live-usb-maker/linux –to=/run/live-usb-maker/initrd –encrypt
add program: ntfs-3g
add program: eject
add program: cryptsetup
add 4.19.83-antix.1-amd64-smp encryption modules to initrd
> copy-initrd-modules –quiet –only-encrypt –from=/run/live-usb-maker/linux –to=/run/live-usb-maker/initrd
Ready to make encrypted live-usb on device sdc
… by cloning directory /live/boot-dev

>> partition-clear
> dd status=none if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=512 count=34
> dd status=none if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=512 count=34 seek=64
> dd status=none conv=notrunc if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=512 count=34 seek=60063710
> partprobe /dev/sdc

>> partition-make
Using msdos partitioning
> parted –script –align optimal /dev/sdc unit MiB mklabel msdos
> dd status=none if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc seek=1024 bs=1K count=128
> parted –script –align optimal /dev/sdc unit MiB mkpart primary 1 150
> parted –script –align optimal /dev/sdc unit MiB set 1 boot on
> dd status=none if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc seek=153600 bs=1K count=128
> parted –script –align optimal /dev/sdc unit MiB mkpart primary 150 29276
> dd status=none if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc seek=29978624 bs=1K count=128
> parted –script –align optimal /dev/sdc unit MiB mkpart primary 29276 29325
> parted –script –align optimal /dev/sdc unit MiB set 3 esp on
> partprobe /dev/sdc
> wait_for_file /dev/sdc1

>> makefs-bios
> mkfs.ext4 -O ^64bit -m0 -i100000 -J size=32 /dev/sdc1
mke2fs 1.44.5 (15-Dec-2018)
64-bit filesystem support is not enabled. The larger fields afforded by this feature enable full-strength checksumming. Pass -O 64bit to rectify.
Creating filesystem with 152576 1k blocks and 1672 inodes
Filesystem UUID: 0c79153b-4483-4c9d-bbeb-79208605cc6d
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
8193, 24577, 40961, 57345, 73729

Allocating group tables: 0/19 done
Writing inode tables: 0/19 done
Creating journal (32768 blocks): done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: 0/19 done

> tune2fs -L antiX-Live-usb /dev/sdc1
tune2fs 1.44.5 (15-Dec-2018)
> wait_for_file /dev/sdc3

>> makefs-uefi
> mkfs.vfat -F 32 -n ANTIX-UEFI /dev/sdc3
mkfs.fat 4.1 (2017-01-24)

>> encrypt-main
> wait_for_file /dev/sdc1
Error: Directory /run/live-usb-maker/bios is already a mountpoint
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The other error I mentioned when trying to work out a workaround was not related to LUM but rather to setting up Home persistence (persistence = all), where during boot upon question whether to copy existing files. If answered ‘y’ then process fails with red messages, which I could not capture and copy fails.
I did not tesst yet whether this happens with any occurrence of setting home persistence or just on copy made through LUM from system snapshot.
Thanks for understanding.

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

[Member olsztyn]

For further clarity in result of subsequent testing:
– Having made sure antiX is fully updated, Live USB Maker is failing with error when specifying ‘From running system’ and ‘Encrypted’. It appears to be new manifestation of Live USB Maker challenge…
– When running Live USB Maker with ‘Encrypted’ option but specifying ISO snapshot (created beforehand) it appears to work fine and creates a working encrypted copy.
– This would be a working workaround except that when specifying home persistence on the resulting Live USB copy an error occurs (in red during boot) after answering ‘y’ to whether to copy existing files to the new Homefs. This appears to clear all configurations along with existing user files and in effect renders the resulting Live USB rather useless. I was not able to capture the wording of the error in the booting log but this appeared to me a new bug that I have not seen before.

Any ideas how now to resolve this Homefs persistence issue so to make further progress in a workaround to Live USB Maker failure?
These things seemed to work fine in old times under antiX 17 but understandably there are many changes since then in antiX 19 so new challenges are here…
Thanks in advance for some ideas…

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

I am not sure if this is an old yet unresolved problem with LUM creating encrypted USB (from running system in my case if it matters) or newly arisen problem:
Creating encrypted Live USB from running (Live) system results in failure with message ‘Error creating Live USB’ shortly into the creation process. Creation of non-encrypted one appears to work fine…
I am trying to go back to history to see which workaround was working if not something new… remembering a variety of similar failures under antiX 19:
– Defaulting to LUKS 1 encryption while Debian kernel using Luks 2 – I do not think this is the one because that one was not booting after creation
– Failure after upgrading kernel to 4.19 from 4.9 – this was due to discrepancy version of vmlinuz between one in antiX and in the boot files. The workaround was in that case to fall back to old 4.9 kernel then run Live USB Maker then update kernel in the Live copy to 4.19 kernel.
– Some other issues creating Live USB that also had some workarounds, not remember all…
Since failure of LUM to create encrypted Live USB from running system is critical (at least to me) I have been trying to find another workaround: Create ISO Snapshot from running Live system then using that ISO as input to Live USB Maker to create an encrypted Live USB. This workaround appears to kind of work but does not preserve any configurations so everything needs to be configured again, including desktop settings, application settings (such as browser settings), all defaults and links to apps in Personal Apps menu… This is a lot of work to consider this a workaround for LUM failure to create encrypted Live from running system
This issue appears to be new unless it is a remote manifestation of one of the old issues but I may be wrong.
I will appreciate suggestions of any workarounds if no fix is in sight yet…

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

While experimenting with Antix19 today, I ran into unsuspected and baffling difficulties, which turned out to be caused by the live USB used for installation. Maybe I can help some others by telling about it on the forum.

I have two separate small ssd’s in my computer. The first one has the Antix17 system I use on a daily basis, the other one an old Antix15 installation that hasn’t booted for some years now. I wiped the second one and installed Antix19 from a live USB. I can then experiment freely using dual boot, and make the switch permanently when I feel ready. Data and media files are on other HDD’s and can be shared without any problem by both installations. I have used this procedure before without experiencing any problems whatsoever.

I ran into problems with Antix19 soon, and decided to start over at a later time. However I was unable to boot to my old Antix17 system, although I had been very careful to not let the installer touch its disk. To be precise, I could boot to a console, but was unable to start a graphical interface. I saw complaints about a ‘read-only file system’ and log files were not saved. The only thing I remembered about using the Antix17 disk from within the Antix19 system was a double click on the disk from within SpaceFM, causing it to mount the Antix17 file system (I was planning to copy some configuration files). Apparently this was a huge mistake: doing so gave the Antix17 filesystem a new UUID, thereby preventing it from mounting properly on booting Antix17.

Here if my /etc/fstab file from Antix17:

# /etc/fstab: static file system information
#
# Created by make-fstab on Sat Jul 11 08:52:37 EDT 2015

# <file system> <mount point> <type> <options> <dump/pass>

UUID=ab172d74-d0d9-45a1-8b51-2611c6a539df / ext4 defaults 1 1
UUID=0841d91d-5dcc-4fc1-99ee-11257a2b9855 swap swap defaults 0 0
UUID=ab172d74-d0d9-45a1-8b51-2611c6a539df /mnt/sys/Antix-15 ext4 auto,exec,users,rw 0 0

/dev/sdc3 /mnt/data ntfs-3g auto,exec,users,rw 0 0
/dev/sdc2 /mnt/apps ntfs-3g auto,exec,users,rw 0 0
UUID=7E701FE8701FA5C5 /mnt/sys/Windows ntfs-3g auto,exec,users,rw 0 0
UUID=68c02545-221d-49bd-ba85-0045c670828f /mnt/media ext4 auto,exec,users,rw 0 0

#shares op nasty
//nasty/media /mnt/nasty/media cifs username=dd,password=xxxxx,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm 0 0
//nasty/data /mnt/nasty/data cifs username=dd,password=xxxxx,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm 0 0
//nasty/web /mnt/nasty/Web cifs username=dd,password=xxxxx,iocharset=utf8,sec=ntlm 0 0

/dev/cdrom /media/cdrom iso9660 noauto,exec,users,ro 0 0
/dev/cdrw /media/cdrw iso9660 noauto,exec,users,rw 0 0
/dev/dvd /media/dvd udf noauto,exec,users,ro 0 0
/dev/dvdrw /media/dvdrw udf noauto,exec,users,rw 0 0
/dev/sr0 /media/sr0 auto noauto,exec,users,ro 0 0

And this is the result of running blkid:

/dev/sda1: LABEL=”media2″ UUID=”68c02545-221d-49bd-ba85-0045c670828f” TYPE=”ext4″ PARTUUID=”304f4518-01″
/dev/sdb1: LABEL=”rootantiX17.1″ UUID=”9e72bdbb-b308-4d0c-adf8-95bf7cca9544″ TYPE=”ext4″ PARTUUID=”8e783a29-01″
/dev/sdc1: LABEL=”Sys” UUID=”7E701FE8701FA5C5″ TYPE=”ntfs” PARTUUID=”00000001-01″
/dev/sdc2: LABEL=”Apps” UUID=”4E42BDA2399B3504″ TYPE=”ntfs” PTTYPE=”dos” PARTUUID=”00000001-02″
/dev/sdc3: LABEL=”Data” UUID=”042F889220B256CB” TYPE=”ntfs” PTTYPE=”dos” PARTUUID=”00000001-03″
/dev/sde1: LABEL=”antiX19″ UUID=”39bdad5f-0949-43eb-bbce-713ddd636655″ TYPE=”ext4″ PARTUUID=”7378c34d-01″
/dev/sde2: LABEL=”swap” UUID=”0841d91d-5dcc-4fc1-99ee-11257a2b9855″ TYPE=”swap” PARTUUID=”7378c34d-02″

As you can see, both / (the Antix17 root partition) and /mnt/sys/Antix-15 (the old Antix15 root partition) have the same UUID in fstab (which still baffles me, as to how this is possible) which is not actually assigned to any partition, according to the blkid output.

I solved the problem by booting into the rather shaky new Antix19 system and from there editing the Antix17 /etc/fstab so that it contained the correct UUID’s. The next reboot into Antix17 was 100% normal again.

[Member seaken64]

I usually use “free”. And I’m not usually too worried about accuracy, but in the relative comparison from one setup to another. If I stay with “free” on all the comparisons I get a good idea of the relative effect of my setups. And I always take readings under the same circumstances between each session – i.e. idle at bootup, or with SeaMonkey only loaded with the same web page loaded on a single tab, etc.

Seaken64

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by seaken64.

[Member andfree]

Hi, and thank you both.

rokytnji wrote:

Sounds like a corrupted iso download. No mention of file integrity check done on downloaded iso,

I always use the “md5sum” command to check any file before installing it. There was not a mismatch.

seaken64 wrote:

I’ve had some difficulty with installing version 19 on a couple of my old computers. But it has all been resolved and I now have antiX-19 running great.

I’ve had some problems with antiX-19 on a couple of old computers, too. But, in those cases, it was something different; a delay or hang problem, appearing most of the times I booted with wifi turned on or ethernet cable connected. Moreover, the iso installed on those laptops was antiX-19 (not antiX-19.1). I got over those problems by replacing the 4.9 kernel with the 4.4 one. I have written about all of this.

seaken64 wrote:

I would try setting it up with a Live USB or a frugal install.

I didn’t notice this behavior while running the Live USB, but perhaps I didn’t give it enough time. Maybe I’ll try a frugal install and write again about the issue when I have the time.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by andfree.

I am truly on board with another way of using technology to get things done besides MicroSoft. I’ve been avoiding the establishment search engines, browsers, mainstream software, etc. for years.
We’ve gotten to this point due to having an older desktop lock up from a corrupt MBR issue I figured out this week. The research educated me on Linux and the lower resource OS’s like AntiX. I’ve learned to correct boot issues (thx Hirem’s BD), Wipe HDD’s, install OS’s, create and rename partitions, make bootable USB’s for installing ISO’s, and…. ok, it’s been an educating week!

I love AntiX with the Live USB experience I had yesterday. I look forward to installing it on my wife’s laptop that is painfully slow and old’er. I also want to add it to my Desktop as a 3rd OS to run my music recording as the machine is the center of a home studio. (lower resources to run giving more for room automation)
BUT….. for the life of me I cannot get the installed hard drive copy of AntiX to boot with the way I have loaded other systems. I’ve used grub2win for the ease of use and can run Bohdi through the multi bootloader screen. I’ve learned to add to the grub2win boot menu selecting, for example, Ubuntu as the format for Lubuntu. I select Dorian type for AntiX and the correct partition for booting, but no luck.

If there’s an easier workaround I’d like some benevolent help. I understand there’s much more info to include here but not one to pile on from the start.

1to1 thing? or….

Thanks for your consideration.