I realise this is not an issue with 4mlinux alone, but it is not an issue that I have found in many distros either. I'm hoping the maintainer can explain it.

Typically I use isohybrid (when someone else hasn't already) and the dd command to create bootable media. This results in an error (invalid boot catalogue) and no effort to search out why this happens or when it should be expected is very clear on the matter.

Instead of using a simple and generic command like dd, the solution seems to be to use a 3rd-party tool like unetbootin. My question is: why is that even necessary? Since this seems to be happening to a handful of distros at least, please don't think I'm trying to be critical of 4mlinux. But this is something I'd like to understand for both curiosity and project development.

Just because that has always been minor problem for me. There have always been much more urgent issues to fix.

.

1 members found this post helpful.

That works. Thank you. If you ever find out more I'd love to know (if you don't, I know what it's like to want to fix lots of things and ultimately put other stuff first.)

HTH (and thank you - it was your question that got me started learning about the boot process).

Hi,

I am happy to announce that, starting from 4MLinux 32.2, all the 4MLinux ISO images will be hybridized, meaning that they will be ready to use with the "dd" command to transfer them to USB sticks.

PS.
Thanks @jaimet for reminding me of this issue !

.

@zk1234 Did you succeed in hybridizing ("making hybridized"?) all the 4MLinux ISO images? I'm asking, because I have just downloaded 4MLinux-36.0-core.iso (md5sum: 4b8a...) but I'm still getting:

And what is wrong with this output ?

.

That is correct info for that file, which is what you asked for.


(When I was making bootable .iso images, I would add a boot catalogue as a matter of course, but I don't think it is a must for a CD/DVD.)