On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Mike Castle wrote: > > > I believe this whole class of problems is why tools like Rufus > > > (https://rufus.ie/) were developed. > > [email protected] wrote: > > Wait a moment, and to clear any misunderstanding: I'm talking > > about the content of the installation media being shredded > > while being used. I can't imagine what a difference it could > > ever make whether you wrote that media with dd, bit-bang or > > whatever other method? > > I think "shredding" is too hard. I'd call it "splashing about". > > About the difference: > Pete Batard, the author of Rufus, writes in > > https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/wiki/FAQ#user-content-Why_doesnt_Rufus_recommend_DD_mode_over_ISO_mode_for_ISOHybrid_images_Surely_DD_is_better > > "Another nail in the coffin of "DD is better", is that you cannot > add runtime content validation, which is something that Rufus can > add to any UEFI based media (through UEFI MD5SUm) to enable boot-time > check that your media has not been corrupted, which, given the > unreliable nature of flash based USB drives, is arguably much better > than a once-off write-time check. Writing an ISOHybrid in DD mode can > never give you that. "
Ah, thanks for doing the reading for me. As I assume "dd" here is just a strawman: rufus has some magic extra bootloader thingy which checks fingerprints of chosen files at boot. Good for them, but this is part of image construction -- dumping that image bitwise to media is, at its root, just another dd. So the rufus people should rather criticise the construction of the boot image, that would be adequate, not the "dd" itsef, right? Or perhaps that's Microsoft thinking, where the browser (in former times [1]) or "AI" (nowadays) is part of the "operating system"? Confusing things doesn't make them clearer, methinks. Cheers & thanks for the patient clarification [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Internet_Explorer -- tomás
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
