Search Results for 'boot from iso'

[Anonymous]

run live-usb-maker to clone the running system onto second usb drive (will it have the persistence boot options…)

Yes.
and there’s no need to invoke “dd” manually.

From your running antiX system (can be livesession), if you attach another USB pendrive and run live-usb-maker, choose the iso file as the source and target the second pendrive…

…OR just choose to have live-usb-maker clone the running system…

when the process completes (only takes a few minutes) you can shutdown, then immediately boot using the freshly-created pendrive. During first boot (or later, at your discretion) you can elect to setup persistence right from the boot menu. If it’s a legacy BIOS boot, you’ll also have “F8 save available”.

*IIRC, if cloning a persistent running system, the latest verion of live-usb-maker even provides the option to also clone the persistence rootfs and/or homefs file(s).

(edited to add, after proofreading: To be clear, if you setup persistence during first boot, persistence save can be performed during shutdown of that first session. Additionally, if you have elected “dynamic” persistence and “semi-automatic” save mode… in addition to save at shutdown, you can invoke the “persist-save” command at will during the session ~~ whenever you choose, as often as you choose.)

ps:

In addition to standard apt/dpkg commands, you’ll have a menu-ed utility named “cli-aptiX” (uppercase X) available, along with a cli version of the antiX ControlCenter, named “antiX-cli-cc”. FYI, plenty of other antiX specialty utilities are provided. Most of ’em reside under /usr/local/bin/

Helper apps are provided to easily adjust the console font. Check out:
man console-font-select
man console-width-select
(they’re available directly, or via the antiX-cli-cc menu)

It’s been a while since I last booted the “antiX core edition”. I can’t recall whether ufw firewall is provided, and autostarted by default. I guess you know to launch sysv-rc-conf and check/tweak the autostarted services.

[Member smolin]

Thank you for the suggestion! So the process would look like

– dd vanilla iso to usb
– boot from usb
– fdisk to create a partition for persistence
– reboot
– mkfs new partition
– reboot with F5 to set up persistence
– modify live system as desired
– reboot to save persistence
– insert a second usb drive
– run live-usb-maker to clone the running system onto second usb drive (will it have the persistence boot options…)
– ???
– profit!

(I notice from https://github.com/antiX-Linux/live-usb-maker that there’s a command-live version which is useful because I’m not installing X or any GUI on this system)

Thanks again!

How do I make a LiveUSB boot to persistent mode without intervention?

What I’ve done so far:

– downloaded antiX-17.4.1_x64-net.iso
– wrote to USB with dd (was this a mistake? see below)
– booted and used fdisk to add a new partition after the ones created from the ISO
– rebooted (to make kernel aware of new partition) and formatted with mkfs.ext4
– rebooted and used F5 to select “root” persistence
– used apt to add “atop” package to prove persistence
– rebooted to save changes to persistence

All well and good, but on boot I have to watch and hit F5 at the right time to have it apply the persistence to the live image, and I need it to boot using the persistence mode by default, without user interaction.

Now I see in the Help info on the boot screen that there’s a missing option F8 to save boot defaults, that doesn’t appear because I used ‘dd’ to write the ISO to USB drive. If not dd then how to write the ISO to USB? I have access to MacOS and Linux computers.

Thanks for your help.

[Member eugen-b]

Sorry for posting my reply about antiX-19.b1 here, but the isn’t any topic for it yet. (I hope you will move this post there.)
* With the boot parameter toram when loadin the ISO with Grub directly (haven’t tried a live USB, yet) I get the error:
Create toram tmpfs at /live/to-ram (1115 MB)
/bin/mount -t tmpfs -o size=1115m,noatime tmpfs /live/to-ram
Will copy files from /live/iso-file/antiX to /live/to-ram/antiX. Please be patient ...
cp -a /live/iso-file/boot /live/iso-file/EFI /live/iso-file/version /live/to-ram
Copy failed. Cannot do toram
Error: /init: line 219: prog_cp: not found
initrd.log is attached.

* Fluxbox with papirus-antix looks great!
* All menu entries open, Applications -> System Tool not tested (too many).
* Personal -> Personal Help Video gives an error, screenshot attached.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by eugen-b.

Attachments:

1. 

   personal-menu-help-video-ERROR.jpg
   

1. initrd.log_.txt

[Member olsztyn]

anticapitalista wrote:

Now I’ve taken a look, let’s mention a few things for clarity.

32 bit based Debian net-install (it seems) originally built on wheezy, but upgraded to stretch.
Openbox ‘desktop’ so no icons on desktop.
RAM usage (in an installed vbox environment) is just under 100MB.

antiX-19-full ie buster based 64 bit running ‘live’ running IceWM (F6 option) but no rox or spacefm desktop
RAM usage = 82MB

apples to oranges?

IMHO:
One can continually search and sometimes discover ever ‘lean and mean’ linux implementations in raw RAM numbers comparisons. I have done this too but having extensively evaluated various distros eventually settled on the most dexterous, most flexible – AntiX. It has everything that is useful and important and none of the useless fat.
As I am AntiX on many my laptops, mostly in Live USB or Frugal one of them is an ‘ancient’ T23 with browser continually running connected to WiFi Enterprise and for apples to apples comparison it is 32bit – RAM usage is hovering around 220M.
I have not found a linux distro matching AntiX in the following criteria:
– Flexibility
– Incredible Live creation and cloning customize options
– Extensive Persistence options
– Flexible Boot options

However I do not care about fancy and wasteful desktops and other fat. Space Fluxbox has everything that is of value to me for desktop… So unless ProbOS evolves to the point of exceeding the flexibity and dexterity of AntiX I do not see this announcement of any relevancy to warrant any AntiX comparisons as yet…

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

[Member Klaas Vaak]

Well now, that is quite a reply, and I must admit I am a bit overwhelmed by the kick-ass approach with the kind guidance one.

Anonymous wrote:

What we got here is a very unhealthy situation, where somebody without basic knowledge about eMMC, UEFI, partitioning … takes a ‘broken by design OS’, starts it somehow, let it do something, without understanding the consequences and then produces itself a problem that should have never happened in the first place, if one would have been informing itself when it was time to do it. The result is a situation that can’t be solved in this thread except in two cases: 1. a blind shot in the dark (== pure luck); 2. start from the beginning.

What do you mean by a ‘broken by design OS’???
As for the rest of that paragraph, I agree that I am no expert, never pretended to be, and that I may have done something wrong, even though I followed the directions in the GUI during installation. I have also followed such directions with other distros and have not ran into any major problems.
I apologise if my choice of the unprofessional word “baked” hurt your sensitivities. I did not realise that even a newbie could upset to such an extent an experienced AntiX/Linux user who holds this distro so dearly to his heart.

Now, the possibility to use the different boot modes like UEFI and CSM combined with different ways of how the ISO files were made (MBR, UEFI, Hybrid) and different ways of how different ‘bakers’ are writing the ISO’s on a USB drives, results in a chaos, if one doesn’t exactly know what one’s doing — which is obviously your case.

I used a standard burning app, Etcher, and I followed the instructions in the GUI.

Proper ‘baking’ software, ‘baking’ proper OS would (in your specific case) result in a USB pen drive which would offer you 2 (two) different boot options: MBR (CSM) and EFI/UEFI.
Obviously, if you have a UEFI based HW (like yours) but, your USB DOES NOT show the both options, then something went wrong — either ‘baker’ or the ISO-maker screwed it.

I was not offered these options, and, despite not having been offered it with other distros either, their installation went fine. In fact, I understand I had to decide before installation whether to use MBR or UEFI in order to set it in the BIOS. In all cases I opted for a UEFI installation, and only disabled the Secure Boot.

As of a solution for you, there a few possibilities:

1. If you have some Windows 10 bootable media laying around, you might try starting Windows installation.
The point is not installing Windows itself but the fact that, Windows installer might help restoring eMMC.
At some point, Windows installer will show you the existing partitions and that’s where you should delete all partitions that show up.
https://ibb.co/LkHmZTM
Afterwards, you create one single NTFS partition and shutdown the computer without installing.
With a little luck, Windows reinitialized and repaired/restored the eMMC ‘automagicaly’ and you know exactly where you are — you’ve got GPT initialized eMMC.

2. If you have properly created USB (as discussed above), you simply boot from USB and choose the EFI/UEFI (NOT MBR!) option on start and Ubuntu/Mint will automatically start in the proper mode and will be able to install correctly.

No, that is not possible with Mint as it cannot detect eMMC, as reported by others too.

I do want to thank you for all your research and the links you provided, and, once again, I apologise if I gave the impression there is something wrong with AntiX – there is nothing wrong with it, in principle I am very happy with it, but I don’t understand what I did wrong when in all other cases my Linux installations went fine.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Klaas Vaak.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Klaas Vaak.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Klaas Vaak.

[Anonymous]

What we got here is a very unhealthy situation, where somebody without basic knowledge about eMMC, UEFI, partitioning … takes a ‘broken by design OS’, starts it somehow, let it do something, without understanding the consequences and then produces itself a problem that should have never happened in the first place, if one would have been informing itself when it was time to do it. The result is a situation that can’t be solved in this thread except in two cases: 1. a blind shot in the dark (== pure luck); 2. start from the beginning.

There are simply too many things to consider in this case: UEFI/CSM, Secure-Boot modes, ‘Other OS’ options, eMMC, OS that uses hacks instead of a ‘standard way’ of installing …

Easy explained, eMMC is simply a SD-Card inclusive Card-Reader which is soldered on the mainboard.
The main difference between normal SD-Card and eMMC is that one can boot from eMMC (–> mmcblkXbootX)but, not from the SD.

If you are wondering about mmcblk0boot0 and mmcblk0boot1, you can start reading here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/mmc/mmc-dev-parts.txt
http://trac.gateworks.com/wiki/MMC
They are not partitions as in the usual sense but the place (or part of?) where UEFI (the firmware, not the ESP) puts the “boot partition”(s).
Read about eMMC specs (search for ‘white papers’ that explain technology behind) if you want to know more about them.
The user part is mmcblk0.

Now, the possibility to use the different boot modes like UEFI and CSM combined with different ways of how the ISO files were made (MBR, UEFI, Hybrid) and different ways of how different ‘bakers’ are writing the ISO’s on a USB drives, results in a chaos, if one doesn’t exactly know what one’s doing — which is obviously your case.

Proper ‘baking’ software, ‘baking’ proper OS would (in your specific case) result in a USB pen drive which would offer you 2 (two) different boot options: MBR (CSM) and EFI/UEFI.
Obviously, if you have a UEFI based HW (like yours) but, your USB DOES NOT show the both options, then something went wrong — either ‘baker’ or the ISO-maker screwed it.

In a perfect case, if your HW was installed in UEFI mode, you would have a GPT partitioning (that’s always the case with every YOGA + Windows).
If you are reinstalling or dual-booting, you would choose the UEFI option from your USB drive and NOT MBR option since that one would result in ‘mixed mode’.
That’s a Linux problem — it allows something that it shouldn’t be allowed in the first place.

If you want to find out more about it, you can start with these links and then continue ‘binging’, ‘googleing’, ‘searxing’ or whatever.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEFI
https://askubuntu.com/questions/221835/how-do-i-install-ubuntu-alongside-a-pre-installed-windows-with-uefi
https://opensource.com/article/19/5/dual-booting-windows-linux-uefi
https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=219231
https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Other-Linux-Discussions/confusion-about-UEFI-BIOS-and-GPT-MBR-compatibility-issues/td-p/1556526
https://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/hybrid.html

Two things to keep in mind — certified UEFI distributions will show the needed options in their installers:
https://heise.cloudimg.io/width/778/q75.png-lossy-75.webp-lossy-75.foil1/_www-heise-de_/select/ct/2018/23/1541481050338744/contentimages/image-1540195440458058.jpg

Lenovo had some broken BIOS versions which, when used together with some broken OS (almost all Linux distributions except Ubuntu/Ubuntu based and evtl. Fedora), resulted in:
https://heise.cloudimg.io/width/712/q50.png-lossy-50.webp-lossy-50.foil1/_www-heise-de_/ct/imgs/04/1/1/6/7/7/2/0/22_-eed7e1ec66ae867f.png

For German speaking people here, willing to make use of their credit-cards, there’s a very good explanation of Linux/UEFI/CSM problem and a proper way of installing, tipps and …
https://shop.heise.de/katalog/c-t-23-2018

As of a solution for you, there a few possibilities:

1. If you have some Windows 10 bootable media laying around, you might try starting Windows installation.
The point is not installing Windows itself but the fact that, Windows installer might help restoring eMMC.
At some point, Windows installer will show you the existing partitions and that’s where you should delete all partitions that show up.
https://ibb.co/LkHmZTM
Afterwards, you create one single NTFS partition and shutdown the computer without installing.
With a little luck, Windows reinitialized and repaired/restored the eMMC ‘automagicaly’ and you know exactly where you are — you’ve got GPT initialized eMMC.

2. If you have properly created USB (as discussed above), you simply boot from USB and choose the EFI/UEFI (NOT MBR!) option on start and Ubuntu/Mint will automatically start in the proper mode and will be able to install correctly.

When the Live DVD/USB starts you can tell immediately where it’ll end up by its Start Screen (as you could see on the screenshots in one of the links above).
If the BIOS is set up to boot the CD in UEFI mode: https://pix.toile-libre.org/upload/original/1347445084.png
If the BIOS is NOT set up to boot the CD in UEFI mode, or if the disk is not 64-bit: https://pix.toile-libre.org/upload/original/1347445119.png

—

If that failed or you did something wrong again, you might try:

Get STANDALONE version of GParted (Ubuntu-based version, NOT Debian-based!), ‘bake’ it with Rufus under Windows and try to ‘destroy’ ALL partitions so you can reinitialize in the desired mode — either MBR or GPT (preferably GPT).

https://gparted.org/download.php
https://rufus.ie/

If that failed too, you might consider getting help of some IT-Specialist which understands the whole problematic.
However, that could easily cost more than your device itself.

[Member Klaas Vaak]

Xecure wrote:

I have experienced a similar thing to you. I booted Linux Mint 19.1 Xfce in the same conditions I did with antiX and Xubuntu, and the first option in the menu did not boot. I waited for over 15 minutes, and the only thing it did was display the Linux Mint logo and a four dot animation. I restarted and selected the compatibility mode, as you did.
Once booted, I tried Gparted to see what drives were detected, and to my surprise, only the USB device was detected! I proceeded to the install program to confirm that it wasn’t only Gparted, but the installation media could not detect the eMMC device. I made a google search and someone else shared the same experience.
,/blockquote>

Thanks for confirming that others had the same problem with Mint and an eMMC. I agree that that is a serious shortcoming.

I recommend you try Xubuntu instead, as I have already installed a flavor of Xubuntu on this device in the past.

OK, my story is a bit longer. After failing to install Mint I tried to install Xubuntu (this was before I contacted this forum), but I got the same flashing black screen with some text and numbers at the start, so I did not pursue it.

I can only congratulate the antiX team for creating a so easy to boot and install system. Linux Mint can go crying away with their thousands in donations, as they have an inferior product in comparison to what the antiX team has achieved.

I will reserve my judgment on that till I get this sorted out, because not being able, it seems, to remove AntiX does not ring right either.

Sorry for a not-quite-right formatting of this reply.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Klaas Vaak.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Klaas Vaak.

[Member Xecure]

Klaas Vaak wrote:

I tried from the live environment, but GP only detects the stick it is on, it does not detect the eMMC drive.

It is amazing to me to see that Linux Mint cannot detect the eMMC drive in a computer with a UEFI firmware. But it seems to be true!

I have experienced a similar thing to you. I booted Linux Mint 19.1 Xfce in the same conditions I did with antiX and Xubuntu, and the first option in the menu did not boot. I waited for over 15 minutes, and the only thing it did was display the Linux Mint logo and a four dot animation. I restarted and selected the compatibility mode, as you did.
Once booted, I tried Gparted to see what drives were detected, and to my surprise, only the USB device was detected! I proceeded to the install program to confirm that it wasn’t only Gparted, but the installation media could not detect the eMMC device. I made a google search and someone else shared the same experience.

I was going to proceed to test if I could make it all work changing the options in the “BIOS utility”, but I thought it is not worth it. antiX can boot perfectly on UEFI, why cant this too? This only proves the superiority of antiX to me.

I recommend you try Xubuntu instead, as I have already installed a flavor of Xubuntu on this device in the past.

I can only congratulate the antiX team for creating a so easy to boot and install system. Linux Mint can go crying away with their thousands in donations, as they have an inferior product in comparison to what the antiX team has achieved.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Xecure.

antiX Live system enthusiast.
General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.

[Anonymous]

@manyroads,

Very nice example/tutorial on your website link with xfce and the live iso.
I used it as a guideline during my current “mean and lean” build.
It’s a 32-bit net build up with xfce4, 4.19.43 kernel on 17.4.1-stretch repos.
the xfce desktop boots in the 145-150mb range. Even with my stats, weather, net,
battery loaded on the bottom panel.

[Moderator BobC]

I will look around, if I recall it was a thread on the forum, and Dave was helping me, and I made tar files. I still have them, somewhere, but need to look for them. If nothing else it might provide a hit list of obvious places needing to be changed.

But before you actually spend the effort to do that, maybe a better way is via the control panel’s “Package Installer” off the system tab you could have them do a normal Antix install, and then use the package installer (or menu option that runs it) to load in the OpenBox system, and then select either OpenBox or one of the others at the login screen at boot. Its not as seamless, but would avoid some of the the integration issues where the supporting components need to be different. There are 2 XFCE packages there. Is one yours?

Anyway, I’d be happy if you are able to save any effort by looking at or using anything from what I created.

PS: Here is the thread. I can find at least the last of the tar files if you want it and can’t get it here.

https://antixlinux.com/forum-archive/search-and-request-for-openbox-t5411.html

PPS: I looked at how the packageinstaller works, and there are .pm files for each package listed in /usr/share/packageinstaller-pkglist. Perhaps looking at the ones for XFCE and LXDE will be useful. I think that same program exists over on MX as well. I noticed there was a postinstall section, and perhaps you could bring in your custom configs there with a wget, git or something of that nature. Then it would be easy to reimplement it again for a different version or even distro. I guess the other good option *IS* to use AntiX’s live USB creation ability to create a completely separate ISO. So many reasonable options. We are like kids in a candy store! Just trying to help…

PPPS: Adding the last version of the tar file if the website will allow

• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by BobC. Reason: added old thread link
• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by BobC.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by BobC.

Attachments:

1. 

   package-installer.jpg
   

1. tar-file7.tar.gz

[Forum Admin BitJam]

manyroads wrote:

No I did not change the kernel.

This is a second generation build
1. alpha1 to alpha 2 (built snapshot 1) “works”
2. snapshot 1 some Desktop edits (build snapshot 2) “does not work”

Note: what kernel(s?) should work… I can reinstall/install them perhaps?!?!

If you did not change the kernel then the “overlay” module should be available so the problem is likely in the snapshot procedure, not in the kernel.

There should be a couple of new tools in antiX-19 that will help us diagnose this. Perhaps you could try these two commands

sudo isomount $SNAP_SHOT_FILE
unpack-initrd -f /mnt/iso/iso1/antiX/initrd.gz

The first command should mount the snapshot iso at /mnt/iso/iso1. The 2nd command will create an “initrd” directory and unpack that snapshot initrd.gz file into it.

We can then look for all of the kernel modules in the initrd. There should be 70 or 80 of them. You can list them all with:
find initrd/lib/modules -name "*.ko" -printf "%f\n" | sort

You can count them with:
find initrd/lib/modules -name "*.ko" -printf "%f\n" | wc

And you an look for the overlay module with:

find initrd/lib/modules -name "*.ko" -printf "%f\n" | grep overlay

As a double-check, you can make sure you kernel compiles overlay as a module:
cat /boot/config-$(uname -r) | grep -i overlay
Here I get the output:
CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS=m
which means overlay is compiled as a module so that module needs to be in the live initrd for the live initrd to boot.

Context is worth 80 IQ points -- Alan Kay

[Anonymous]

@ manyroads,

I still have to check booting your other iso and getting back.

[Anonymous]

thx bitjam,

It was a 32-bit boot…I checked my 32-bit iso and isomount, isoumount, and chroot-rescue
worked flawlessly. 🙂 pretty cool stuff to play with.
Now for 19-a2 this is a clean install on my little e-machine.
I was pleased with the new changes in the installer, asking for the
grub, name, and passwords while it was copying instead of waiting till the
end. My ethernet was automatically working OOB and after a apt-get update/ apt-get upgrade
and switching to the patched kernel it seems to run great despite being a really
low-end 64-bit cpu and only 1GB ram.
very nice.

[Member PPC]

anticapitalista wrote:

PPC wrote:

Yesterday, for the first time antiX 19 A2 refused to connect to my wifi network. Connman detected the networks, I entered the wifi password, it said it was connected but I had no network. After my second reboot, network started working fine again…
Suggestion to the devs: to make life easier for new users trying to connect to their network, antiX may come with a quick start icon for connman near the clock (take at look at my screen grab https://www.antixforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/screenshotA2.jpg). This allows “fast” convient access to network setting without having connman always in ram (ok slower than having connman gui running, but not by much, and it consumes no RAM).

P.

In my tests, enabling connman-gtk to task bar adds c40MB to RAM according to ps_mem.py

Sorry anticapitalista, I belive my idea didn’t come across like I wanted.
BobC came close to understand what I mean- I just have a normal “quick launch” icon near the clock, connman is NOT running in the tray, the icon is just placed near the clock, but it’s just a normal icon like those that are near the start menu. I find that just placing the icon there tricks me (and I hope, most users), because i’m used to see the network indication running there since my windows days. If I click that icon, then it launches connman, if I send connman to the tray, then I’ll have the real connman “tray icon” running there, along side my “connman quickstarter icon”. I also like placing the usb eject button and the exit button near the clock, but they are also just normal icons… I did the same with the volume control once. I didn’t have volumeicon running (saving some megs of precious RAM), just a icon that looked like it. Clicking it launched the volume control application of my choice.
I believe using a connman icon like this could be a efficient use of ram- users would have no need to have connman-gtk running in the tray all the time, saving system resources…
In the screen grab I shared, all icons you see (except for volumeicon) are just normal quick launch icons, as you can see in the RAM readout in Conky, that’s a efficient use of RAM, and the bar has most of what a user needs in everyday life, without needing to use the menu (I even have a search icon than runs dmenu to search and execute installed apps- which would be, in my opinion a great addiction to antiX).

P.