MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Message

#171 Post by **JayM** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:38 am

bpr323 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:29 am Totally agree on Lenovo whoring to MS, but I've never had a failed boot on Debian or Arch - can't remember what they use - "calamares"?

That's the installer which has nothing to do with booting the live or installation medium. If you have specific issues with booting MX 19b3 on a specific computer please post the (here I go again) specific information about that computer and exactly what problem you're having. That may help to polish the MX-19 release and prevent others with the same system from not being able to even boot their installation medium.

#172 Post by **bpr323** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:42 am

JayM wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:38 am
bpr323 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:29 am Totally agree on Lenovo whoring to MS, but I've never had a failed boot on Debian or Arch - can't remember what they use - "calamares"?
That's the installer which has nothing to do with booting the live or installation medium. If you have specific issues with booting MX 19b3 on a specific computer please post the (here I go again) specific information about that computer and exactly what problem you're having. That may help to polish the MX-19 release and prevent others with the same system from not being able to even boot their installation medium.

I've uploaded my minstall.log a few pages back - is there anything useful Devs can glean off it? I'm not a coder myself, just a tester :)

#173 Post by **JayM** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:43 am

bpr323 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:37 am Awesome! Can't wait for 19b3.1 (or final :)
Could you please advise - is there an e2e CLI install either from splash or from live desktop?
Any tips like pre-partitioning the ssd (including flags and labels, etc before trying the USB install?
What's the advantage of MX USB creator over Etcher? Is it possible to create a snapshot ISO that one can just burn with Etcher and install without a little song and dance? :)

IIRC Etcher doesn't work very well with MX. See my howto for burning bootable full-featured USB sticks of MX.

#174 Post by **asqwerth** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:47 am

Arch does not have an installer. You are probably referring to Arch-based derivatives.

As for why not Etcher, etc, I don't know the technical aspects, but it's probably due to how MX/antiX's live system is set up to give such expanded functionality beyond other distros' live functionality. If you want to burn an MX/antiX iso so that it works and/or you can utilise it properly and fully, you have to follow the instructions on how to burn it.

#175 Post by **chrispop99** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:55 am

bpr323 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:26 am What do you mean "permanently in UFFI mode"?

I leave that setting enabled in the BIOS, as opposed to changing it to 'Legacy'.

Chris

#176 Post by **bpr323** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:56 am

asqwerth wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:47 am Arch does not have an installer. You are probably referring to Arch-based derivatives.

As for why not Etcher, etc, I don't know the technical aspects, but it's probably due to how MX/antiX's live system is set up to give such expanded functionality beyond other distros' live functionality. If you want to burn an MX/antiX iso so that it works and/or you can utilise it properly and fully, you have to follow the instructions on how to burn it.

Yes, I was using AcroLinux, and came back to MX b/c I needed to clone the "golden" image to 3 other laptops in my family. MX and Antix are the only distros that make installable snapshots.
Don't care much about persistance etc. for "linux on a stick" - not my thing. Set and forget

#177 Post by **bpr323** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:59 am

May I rephrase my question - looking at my MX19b3/b2.1 minstall.log - have I done anything stupid that has caused my problems with GUI install?

#178 Post by **bpr323** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:01 am

Here's the file again

minstall.log

#179 Post by **SwampRabbit** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:04 am

asqwerth wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:47 am As for why not Etcher, etc, I don't know the technical aspects, but it's probably due to how MX/antiX's live system is set up to give such expanded functionality beyond other distros' live functionality. If you want to burn an MX/antiX iso so that it works and/or you can utilise it properly and fully, you have to follow the instructions on how to burn it.

The MX-18 Manual recommends using Rufus, is this still the case for MX-19 USB creation under Windows?

#180 Post by **bpr323** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:15 am

JayM wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:38 am
bpr323 wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:29 am Totally agree on Lenovo whoring to MS, but I've never had a failed boot on Debian or Arch - can't remember what they use - "calamares"?
That's the installer which has nothing to do with booting the live or installation medium. If you have specific issues with booting MX 19b3 on a specific computer please post the (here I go again) specific information about that computer and exactly what problem you're having. That may help to polish the MX-19 release and prevent others with the same system from not being able to even boot their installation medium.

I can repeat my install process step by step and post screenshots and logs here - just not sure which logs you'll need.
Which scenario would you prefer - base 19b3 ISO or from NUC snapshot burnt with MX live usb creator?
I need to get to the bottom of this and create a fail safe procedure to resolve 2 major issues:
a) no UFI boot / no boot at all, and
b) GUI install from live desktop that successfully installs Grub on ESP
Or should I wait for the minstall.conf fix?

MX Linux Forum

MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback

Re: MX-19 Beta 3 Feedback