Linux HowTo: A Windows ISO image from Linux to a USB stick [closed]

Original Source Link

I’ve got Windows in an ISO image and want to put it on a USB stick so I can then install window. I want to do this from Linux.

Use WinUSB:

WinUSB is a simple tool that enable you to create your own usb stick windows installer from an iso image or a real DVD.

This package contains two programs:

  • WinUSB-gui: a graphical interface which is very easy to use.
  • winusb: the command line tool.

Supported images: Windows Vista, Seven, 8 installer for any language and any version (home, pro…) and Windows PE.

1

Use UNetbootin. It works with Windows bootable ISO, too.

  1. Open the ISO file with your program of choice, I prefer 7Zip.
  2. Make the primary partition on the thumb drive ACTIVE
  3. Copy all of the files present in the ISO onto the USB stick
  4. Boot from the USB

WoeUSB is a tool for creating a bootable USB flash drive used for installing Windows. Native UEFI booting is supported for Windows 7 and later images. WoeUSB is an updated fork of the WinUSB project.

Some third-party installers feature Windows installation images (/sources/install.wim) greater than 4GB making FAT32 as target filesystem impossible. NTFS filesystem support has been added to WoeUSB 3.0.0 and later.

Installation

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:nilarimogard/webupd8 
sudo apt update  
sudo apt install woeusb

This will install the WoeUSB graphical interface and the WoeUSB command line tool. WoeUSB supports both UEFI and BIOS for FAT32/NTFS/ExFAT USB flash drives.

To install the WoeUSB command line tool snap package in all currently supported versions of Ubuntu and other common Linux distributions that support snap packages such as Arch Linux, CentOS, Debian, elementary OS, Fedora, KDE Neon, Kubuntu, Manjaro, Linux Mint, openSUSE and Red Hat Enterprise Linux run these commands:

sudo snap install --edge woe-usb  
sudo snap connect woe-usb:removable-media

To launch the woe-usb snap package command line tool run the following command:

/snap/bin/woe-usb.woeusb

If you get a permission denied error click the Permissions button on the woe-usb screen in Ubuntu Software and toggle the permissions options from OFF to ON as shown in the below screenshot.

woe-usb Permissions

The WoeUSB GUI is easier to use than the WoeUSB command line tool. Click the radio button to the left of where it says From a disk image (iso), browse to the location of the Windows .iso file, under Target device select a USB flash drive, open Disks application and check that the Device name in Disks matches the Target device in WoeUSB (it should be something like /dev/sdX where X is a letter of the alphabet), and click the Install button to install to create a bootable Windows installation media on the USB flash drive.

enter image description here

Windows USB drive from Ubuntu failing repeatedly
WoeUSB Issues

Tagged : / / /

Making Game: A Windows ISO image from Linux to a USB stick [closed]

Original Source Link

I’ve got Windows in an ISO image and want to put it on a USB stick so I can then install window. I want to do this from Linux.

Use WinUSB:

WinUSB is a simple tool that enable you to create your own usb stick windows installer from an iso image or a real DVD.

This package contains two programs:

  • WinUSB-gui: a graphical interface which is very easy to use.
  • winusb: the command line tool.

Supported images: Windows Vista, Seven, 8 installer for any language and any version (home, pro…) and Windows PE.

1

Use UNetbootin. It works with Windows bootable ISO, too.

  1. Open the ISO file with your program of choice, I prefer 7Zip.
  2. Make the primary partition on the thumb drive ACTIVE
  3. Copy all of the files present in the ISO onto the USB stick
  4. Boot from the USB

WoeUSB is a tool for creating a bootable USB flash drive used for installing Windows. Native UEFI booting is supported for Windows 7 and later images. WoeUSB is an updated fork of the WinUSB project.

Some third-party installers feature Windows installation images (/sources/install.wim) greater than 4GB making FAT32 as target filesystem impossible. NTFS filesystem support has been added to WoeUSB 3.0.0 and later.

Installation

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:nilarimogard/webupd8 
sudo apt update  
sudo apt install woeusb

This will install the WoeUSB graphical interface and the WoeUSB command line tool. WoeUSB supports both UEFI and BIOS for FAT32/NTFS/ExFAT USB flash drives.

To install the WoeUSB command line tool snap package in all currently supported versions of Ubuntu and other common Linux distributions that support snap packages such as Arch Linux, CentOS, Debian, elementary OS, Fedora, KDE Neon, Kubuntu, Manjaro, Linux Mint, openSUSE and Red Hat Enterprise Linux run these commands:

sudo snap install --edge woe-usb  
sudo snap connect woe-usb:removable-media

To launch the woe-usb snap package command line tool run the following command:

/snap/bin/woe-usb.woeusb

If you get a permission denied error click the Permissions button on the woe-usb screen in Ubuntu Software and toggle the permissions options from OFF to ON as shown in the below screenshot.

woe-usb Permissions

The WoeUSB GUI is easier to use than the WoeUSB command line tool. Click the radio button to the left of where it says From a disk image (iso), browse to the location of the Windows .iso file, under Target device select a USB flash drive, open Disks application and check that the Device name in Disks matches the Target device in WoeUSB (it should be something like /dev/sdX where X is a letter of the alphabet), and click the Install button to install to create a bootable Windows installation media on the USB flash drive.

enter image description here

Windows USB drive from Ubuntu failing repeatedly
WoeUSB Issues

Tagged : / / /

Linux HowTo: Are there benefits to a lightweight linux for a new computer?

Original Source Link

I have a new laptop. It is an Intel Core i5, 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM. I will use it for some programming and modeling in Python and 3D CAD/CAM.

I want the PC to be as fast as possible and I don’t care much about looks. I will also use it to browse the web. So I have been advised to “install a lightweight linux distro and it will fly on your new computer, because the OS is designed for old machines”.

But, is that reasoning correct?

I know lightweight distros are usually used for old hardware. But, the fact that a distro is less resources-hungry, does it necessarily and automatically mean that it will run faster in a machine with higher specs?
Being ignorant in hardware and OSs, I presume the answer might not be always a clear “yes”. I fear a lightweight distro, because it is prepared for low power/low specs, might not use the full potential of my hardware. Does it make sense? I mean, if lightweight distros would use the full potential of new hardware and make computers fast as hell, why would anyone want to use any heavyweight distro?

So before installing the lightweight distro I thought I ask you guys for opinions.

The difference between light-weight and heavy-weight is defined by the kind and number of tools that are installed by default. The tools are started at boot and define the user exeperience. It’s mainly a personal choice. I’ve been using heavy-weight distributions for years and never had any complaints about performance. Performance is always a interpretation-thing.

Any light-weight installation can be converted into a heavy-weight installation by installing extra tools. Any heavy-weight installation can be converted into a leight-weight installation by remove unnecessary tools.

I fear a lightweight distro, because it is prepared for low power/low specs, might not use the full potential of my hardware.

That’s not correct. All distros are capable of making use of available resources (assuming drivers for your hardware are available).

I mean, if lightweight distros would use the full potential of new hardware and make computers fast as hell, why would anyone want to use any heavyweight distro?

“Heavy” software isn’t heavy for the sake of it. It’s heavy because features it implements require more resources. You can use a lightweight alternative at the cost of missing out.

For example XFCE is a very light desktop environment and runs great even on very limited hardware, but it looks dated and isn’t really that user-friendly (unless you consider what Windows 98 was like the peak of user-friendliness). On the other side of the spectrum are Gnome and KDE. Gnome’s UI is kind of unusual and appears to be optimized for touchscreens at first sight, but once you get use to it you can be very productive. Large UI elements are easy to click, rich animations naturally guide your eyes towards areas that are of interest in the context of action that you’re performing. KDE is also heavy, but it’s known for its extreme customizability.

A lot of software has lightweight alternatives, but they achieve that lightweightness by lacking some features of their heavier counterparts. Sometimes they are sufficient for your needs, but if they’re not, you’ll be wasting time on workarounds or installing heavier alternatives anyway.


My rule of thumb based on personal experience is: if your hardware is capable of running a regular (ie. “heavy”) distro, go for it. You won’t notice the performance difference, but you’ll be more productive. If the performance is insufficient, consider lighter alternatives, but keep in mind that the more steps you have to do manually to get them working as intended, the harder to maintain the distro will be. All moving parts are potential points of failure.

There may be so-called “light-weight” distros, which come with a light-weight default package selection out of the box when installed. However, you can remove lots of unnecessary packages in a normal distros and replace your desktop environment with a less resource-hungry one. So you may be able to make any distro “light-weight” by aggressive package management. For instance, Ubuntu Server is basically the same thing as regular Ubuntu, except by default, there are no desktop environments installed, amongst other things. You can install all of the packages of regular Ubuntu if you want them. Or turn Ubuntu into Ubuntu server by uninstalling the desktop environment and other packages. In other words, the only significant difference is what is installed by default.

It is also worth noting that often distros are somewhat characterised by their package managers. The Arch Linux package manager, pacman, appears significantly faster when installing packages than apt from Ubuntu. If your PC has limited I/O performance, I would recommend Arch. For instance, I used Arch on a Raspberry Pi which boots off a micro SD card (SD cards are not really designed for random I/O workloads), and the difference is night and day when installing packages, when compared with Ubuntu.

To explicitly answer the question:

I will also use it to browse the web. So I have been adviced to “install a lightweight linux distro and it will fly on your new computer, because the OS is designed for old machines”.

But, is that reasoning correct?

There may be some distros which come out of the box configured to be light-weight, so the reasoning may be correct. However, as I said, you can make a normal distro lighter with package management.

Even the oldest Intel Core i5 is not incredibly old, and 8GB RAM is not incredibly small. You did not mention graphics hardware. But I do not think your computer is that old that where will be that much difference between distros. Your biggest limitation is the mechanical hard disk, so a fast package manager may be desirable. Although a warning, as fantastic as Arch Linux is, I would not recommend it if you have little Linux experience. Occasionally things break because of the continuous release model, and you need to know how to fix problems or know how to identify the problem package and downgrade them.

Tagged : / /

Making Game: Are there benefits to a lightweight linux for a new computer?

Original Source Link

I have a new laptop. It is an Intel Core i5, 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM. I will use it for some programming and modeling in Python and 3D CAD/CAM.

I want the PC to be as fast as possible and I don’t care much about looks. I will also use it to browse the web. So I have been advised to “install a lightweight linux distro and it will fly on your new computer, because the OS is designed for old machines”.

But, is that reasoning correct?

I know lightweight distros are usually used for old hardware. But, the fact that a distro is less resources-hungry, does it necessarily and automatically mean that it will run faster in a machine with higher specs?
Being ignorant in hardware and OSs, I presume the answer might not be always a clear “yes”. I fear a lightweight distro, because it is prepared for low power/low specs, might not use the full potential of my hardware. Does it make sense? I mean, if lightweight distros would use the full potential of new hardware and make computers fast as hell, why would anyone want to use any heavyweight distro?

So before installing the lightweight distro I thought I ask you guys for opinions.

The difference between light-weight and heavy-weight is defined by the kind and number of tools that are installed by default. The tools are started at boot and define the user exeperience. It’s mainly a personal choice. I’ve been using heavy-weight distributions for years and never had any complaints about performance. Performance is always a interpretation-thing.

Any light-weight installation can be converted into a heavy-weight installation by installing extra tools. Any heavy-weight installation can be converted into a leight-weight installation by remove unnecessary tools.

I fear a lightweight distro, because it is prepared for low power/low specs, might not use the full potential of my hardware.

That’s not correct. All distros are capable of making use of available resources (assuming drivers for your hardware are available).

I mean, if lightweight distros would use the full potential of new hardware and make computers fast as hell, why would anyone want to use any heavyweight distro?

“Heavy” software isn’t heavy for the sake of it. It’s heavy because features it implements require more resources. You can use a lightweight alternative at the cost of missing out.

For example XFCE is a very light desktop environment and runs great even on very limited hardware, but it looks dated and isn’t really that user-friendly (unless you consider what Windows 98 was like the peak of user-friendliness). On the other side of the spectrum are Gnome and KDE. Gnome’s UI is kind of unusual and appears to be optimized for touchscreens at first sight, but once you get use to it you can be very productive. Large UI elements are easy to click, rich animations naturally guide your eyes towards areas that are of interest in the context of action that you’re performing. KDE is also heavy, but it’s known for its extreme customizability.

A lot of software has lightweight alternatives, but they achieve that lightweightness by lacking some features of their heavier counterparts. Sometimes they are sufficient for your needs, but if they’re not, you’ll be wasting time on workarounds or installing heavier alternatives anyway.


My rule of thumb based on personal experience is: if your hardware is capable of running a regular (ie. “heavy”) distro, go for it. You won’t notice the performance difference, but you’ll be more productive. If the performance is insufficient, consider lighter alternatives, but keep in mind that the more steps you have to do manually to get them working as intended, the harder to maintain the distro will be. All moving parts are potential points of failure.

There may be so-called “light-weight” distros, which come with a light-weight default package selection out of the box when installed. However, you can remove lots of unnecessary packages in a normal distros and replace your desktop environment with a less resource-hungry one. So you may be able to make any distro “light-weight” by aggressive package management. For instance, Ubuntu Server is basically the same thing as regular Ubuntu, except by default, there are no desktop environments installed, amongst other things. You can install all of the packages of regular Ubuntu if you want them. Or turn Ubuntu into Ubuntu server by uninstalling the desktop environment and other packages. In other words, the only significant difference is what is installed by default.

It is also worth noting that often distros are somewhat characterised by their package managers. The Arch Linux package manager, pacman, appears significantly faster when installing packages than apt from Ubuntu. If your PC has limited I/O performance, I would recommend Arch. For instance, I used Arch on a Raspberry Pi which boots off a micro SD card (SD cards are not really designed for random I/O workloads), and the difference is night and day when installing packages, when compared with Ubuntu.

To explicitly answer the question:

I will also use it to browse the web. So I have been adviced to “install a lightweight linux distro and it will fly on your new computer, because the OS is designed for old machines”.

But, is that reasoning correct?

There may be some distros which come out of the box configured to be light-weight, so the reasoning may be correct. However, as I said, you can make a normal distro lighter with package management.

Even the oldest Intel Core i5 is not incredibly old, and 8GB RAM is not incredibly small. You did not mention graphics hardware. But I do not think your computer is that old that where will be that much difference between distros. Your biggest limitation is the mechanical hard disk, so a fast package manager may be desirable. Although a warning, as fantastic as Arch Linux is, I would not recommend it if you have little Linux experience. Occasionally things break because of the continuous release model, and you need to know how to fix problems or know how to identify the problem package and downgrade them.

Tagged : / /

Linux HowTo: What is the underlying difference between linux distros

Original Source Link

The question is not as simple as the title suggests. I am not a newbie in tech at least as per my experience. But not much experience in Linux.

The basic difference is the UI between all linux distros. So one should choose any distro just based on just the UI.
What makes a distro different than the other? When every linux software works on any distribution then why is it suggested at so many places to choose Ubuntu instead of elementary OS.? Even if Ubuntu software store has more apps but those apps can still be installed on eOS. apt get install should install any package available in Ubuntu in eOS too.

Can someone explain how a distro differs from another distro. Exclude UI, stability, personal preference etc.

Mainly capability of a distro. For example how Ubuntu is more capable than say eOS or any other example. How their capabilities differ?

Your lost starts off with a lot if incorrect assumptions/assertions,

  The basic difference is the UI between all linux distros.

No, in many cases this is not a factor, and many distros will allow you to install different guis. Also, the question faces people installing servers that don’t have a GUI at all.

  When every linux software works on any distribution then why is it suggested at so many places to choose Ubuntu instead of elementary OS.?

This is not practically true – most popular software will work on most general purpose distros, but things like kernels and libraries can make it hard to impossible to install some software on some distros.

The biggest differences between distros are the people behind them, the level of support, package management, environment management and support. Really the only significant difference between VentIS and RHEL is support.

Distros like Ubuntu and its variants may have lots of packages and be easy to use with a GUI, while systems like RHEL are about long term compatibility – focussing more effort on stability and longevity.

That’s not to say any 1 distro us the best – I run Ubuntu on my desktop and CentOS on some of my servers. Of-course when it comes to derivatives of the most popular distros there is less to differentiate them.

The main differences are in the package management (e.g. rpm, deb) and the way some of the configuration is stored (e.g. Fedora and derived distributions like RedHat and CentOS keep most of the startup related configuration in /etc/sysconfig).

Most of the rest of the differences are relatively minor and down to package selection and package versions.

In terms of capabilities, the only factor here is the ease of availability of a particular package, i.e. whether you can just yum/apt install a package or whether you might have to compile it from source yourself. Any Linux software can be compiled for any distro, though, so in absolute terms, there is no difference in capabilities.

Tagged : / / /

Making Game: What is the underlying difference between linux distros

Original Source Link

The question is not as simple as the title suggests. I am not a newbie in tech at least as per my experience. But not much experience in Linux.

The basic difference is the UI between all linux distros. So one should choose any distro just based on just the UI.
What makes a distro different than the other? When every linux software works on any distribution then why is it suggested at so many places to choose Ubuntu instead of elementary OS.? Even if Ubuntu software store has more apps but those apps can still be installed on eOS. apt get install should install any package available in Ubuntu in eOS too.

Can someone explain how a distro differs from another distro. Exclude UI, stability, personal preference etc.

Mainly capability of a distro. For example how Ubuntu is more capable than say eOS or any other example. How their capabilities differ?

Your lost starts off with a lot if incorrect assumptions/assertions,

  The basic difference is the UI between all linux distros.

No, in many cases this is not a factor, and many distros will allow you to install different guis. Also, the question faces people installing servers that don’t have a GUI at all.

  When every linux software works on any distribution then why is it suggested at so many places to choose Ubuntu instead of elementary OS.?

This is not practically true – most popular software will work on most general purpose distros, but things like kernels and libraries can make it hard to impossible to install some software on some distros.

The biggest differences between distros are the people behind them, the level of support, package management, environment management and support. Really the only significant difference between VentIS and RHEL is support.

Distros like Ubuntu and its variants may have lots of packages and be easy to use with a GUI, while systems like RHEL are about long term compatibility – focussing more effort on stability and longevity.

That’s not to say any 1 distro us the best – I run Ubuntu on my desktop and CentOS on some of my servers. Of-course when it comes to derivatives of the most popular distros there is less to differentiate them.

The main differences are in the package management (e.g. rpm, deb) and the way some of the configuration is stored (e.g. Fedora and derived distributions like RedHat and CentOS keep most of the startup related configuration in /etc/sysconfig).

Most of the rest of the differences are relatively minor and down to package selection and package versions.

In terms of capabilities, the only factor here is the ease of availability of a particular package, i.e. whether you can just yum/apt install a package or whether you might have to compile it from source yourself. Any Linux software can be compiled for any distro, though, so in absolute terms, there is no difference in capabilities.

Tagged : / / /