3 ms·

> ISOs make little sense over a regular disk or filesystem image for just about every use case except burning to optical media ... Uh what!? About every single

> ISOs make little sense over a regular disk or filesystem image for just about every use case except burning to optical media ... Uh what!? About every single Linux distro has .iso files available. And it typically makes way more sense to dump the .iso to a USB stick than to an optical media because it speeds up the installation big times. That's the case for Ubuntu for example. And an example as to why optical media are kinda falling into irrelevancy: some distro like Ubuntu ship an ISO that doesn't even fit on a DVD anymore. It is an ISO meant to be dumped to a USB stick, not an optical media. Now of course the downsize is that there is something very nice when you burn an .iso to a write-once optical media: once you've verified that the disk's cryptographic checksum is correct, you know the disk's content won't change so there's no need to recheck it (at least not for security purposes). With USB stick that's not the case. > I know nothing about Ventoy, though. ...

wadim 2y ago
> Uh what!? About every single Linux distro has .iso files available. That doesn't really mean much. The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs and using image files instead would make more sense nowadays.
- smaudet 2y ago
  > The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs Except burning to "legacy" optical media. That can't be altered once burnt. If I could write it on a stone tablet I would (more durable). Also the author comes off as arrogant/rude, calling people who don't like ISO as "older members". Maybe I'm "old" no longer being a twenty something, but I'm also not (yet) "old".
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  If you wanted to operate using IMG files as reliably as ISO's, what standardization body would you trust the IMG files to conform with? I guess it depends on how sensible different levels of reliability are for your particular application.

wadim 2y ago

> Uh what!? About every single Linux distro has .iso files available. That doesn't really mean much. The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs and using image files instead would make more sense nowadays.

smaudet 2y ago
> The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs Except burning to "legacy" optical media. That can't be altered once burnt. If I could write it on a stone tablet I would (more durable). Also the author comes off as arrogant/rude, calling people who don't like ISO as "older members". Maybe I'm "old" no longer being a twenty something, but I'm also not (yet) "old".
fuzzfactor 2y ago
If you wanted to operate using IMG files as reliably as ISO's, what standardization body would you trust the IMG files to conform with? I guess it depends on how sensible different levels of reliability are for your particular application.