# Why FreeBSD ISO files are not more compatible?



## yurtesen (Sep 15, 2016)

I am wondering why the FreeBSD ISO files are not more compatible in a way that they can be written to USB drives easily with some tools? Instead we need an .img file to do that while this works with Microsoft or Linux images?

For example see what the author of Rufus tells about this:
https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/issues/809

Thanks!


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 15, 2016)

I don't understand. I have no problems writing an ISO to USB drives. Maybe I'm misremembering something since I haven't done it in a while.


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 15, 2016)

How do you write the FreeBSD ISO image to USB flash drive? I think you are mistaken because if it worked, it would make no sense to provide the IMG file?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 15, 2016)

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/bsdinstall-pre.html


----------



## cwf-ml (Sep 15, 2016)

That thread you quote seems clear to me.  The FreeBSD files are standards compliant in every way, and they work. There is no need for some 3rd party tool to be able to convert ISO to memstick, since the Project already delivers memstick image variants. 

The Rufus author, on the other hand, somehow deludes himself into the notion that all people have to use a Linux boot loader, and those who don't are somehow evil (and he talks a lot of unsupported trash about the BSD boot loader in the process). That mind set will get him nowhere.

What am I missing here?


----------



## Snurg (Sep 15, 2016)

I tried dding the FreeBSD .iso image to a memstick, and my computers didn't boot it. Dunno why.
Installing via a CD worked, however.
My computer is a HP workstation, so I am not sure whether it's because of low quality.
Knoppix Linux flawlessly boots from stick with all my computers.
So I guess the OP is right.
FreeBSD ISO files seem no longer USB stick compatible. At least not on all computers.


----------



## Phishfry (Sep 15, 2016)

Why would you try and put an ISO onto a USB drive when there are specific versions especially for this purpose?  mini memstick and full memstick USB versions. What more could you ask for? Why do you want to put an optical based disk image on a USB drive?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 15, 2016)

Snurg said:


> So I guess the OP is right.


You are the OP. The guy you linked to is who you are referring to. 

As I said I did two years ago, the FreeBSD handbook shows, and others have said, we have no issues with this. Phishfry brings up an interesting question.


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 15, 2016)

Because you can have 1 image which works on USB and CDROM/DVD. In either case CD/DVD are not used that often anymore unless you are installing something into a VM. Now FreeBSD has several images CDROM, DVD, USB, UEFI.
Reason 1
It makes things less complicated
Reason 2
Because everybody else does it (probably because of reason 1)


Edit: I guess the question is what is the advantage of separate things when you can have all in one?


----------



## Phishfry (Sep 15, 2016)

I think the first 10 words on wikipedia says it all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_image
_An ISO image is an archive file of an optical disc_.

They also mention lack of a standard and ISO9660.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 15, 2016)

FreeBSD is a professional operating system for professionals. If one is finding it a tough time figuring out how to install with a USB stick, then I would suggest they go with Windows.


----------



## cwf-ml (Sep 15, 2016)

Snurg said:


> I tried dding the FreeBSD .iso image to a memstick, and my computers didn't boot it. Dunno why.


Because they are El Torrito CDROM ISO images. No Linux CD distro will work if you do that, either.
If you want install FreeBSD from memstick, use the corresponding memstick image and put that on your usb.


> Knoppix Linux flawlessly boots from stick with all my computers.
> So I guess the OP is right.
> FreeBSD ISO files seem no longer USB stick compatible. At least not on all computers.



They never were. There is no such thing as "Stick compatible" ISO files. Rufus dissects and rearranges Linux CDs to make them work from MBR/FAT because it has enough understanding about how they and their boot loader (grub) work. It hat that knowledge because its author invested time to learn how they work and to write code handling them.  That same author is refusing to do likewise for BSD but instead expects BSD to be just like Linux. Which it isn't.

It isn't too hard to do that for BSD, too. Basically, you would need to unpack the el torrito floppy image into its parts, rearrange them in a ufs image on the cd, adapt some boot loader settings and then take the rest of the iso image and make them a second ufs image, too.

But hey, Mr Rufus doesn't want to do ufs, bsd boot loader or other such questionable things. He's quite content that Grub is everything we all ever need. So there's that.

What I don't understand is why his tool can not simply ask for the memstick version and copy that to the stick.  AFAICT Rufus does support dd....


----------



## Phishfry (Sep 15, 2016)

There is no UEFI FreeBSD version. The same bootloader is used on legacy BIOS systems along with UEFI.

But images for optical drives big and small and for memstick big and small do exist. It makes sense to me.


----------



## a6h (Sep 16, 2016)

For Windows: Win32DiskImager 0.9.5
For BSD, Linux, MacOS, Windows’s Bash (Windows 10 Version 1607: September 13, 2016):
`# dd if=FreeBSD-10.3-RELEASE-amd64-memstick.img of=/dev/da0 bs=1M conv=sync`

*.img for USB and Easy2Boot(multiboot USB)
*.iso for CD, DVD and "Disk image"/VM.
- end of story.

Idea and/or suggestion (freebsd-hackers mailing list)
The list of ideas and/or suggestions (FreeBSD Project "ideas" List)


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 16, 2016)

Phishfry look, there is memstick, mini memstick and uefi memstick 
http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.3/


----------



## Phishfry (Sep 16, 2016)

Well I stand corrected. You were right there. Release 10.3 required different versions for UEFI, Release 11 will not.


----------



## cwf-ml (Sep 16, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> As I said I did two years ago, the FreeBSD handbook shows, and others have said, we have no issues with this. Phishfry brings up an interesting question.



I beg to differ here.  Actually, there are a bunch of uses where more abstract support from 3rd-party tools might be nifty.  For instance, think installation libraries, multi-image install sticks and the like, used in large, living professional environments.

FreeBSD's installation process has - certainly in the past - had issues with compatibility. For instance, booting/installing with HP iLo always was a mess, success depending on iLo type, iLo firmware version, installation file type (more recent ilos support both memstick and ISO), and even file access type (iLo supports mount-from-client image or drive and mount-from-webserver). More recent ilos work with bringing the ISO in as a virtual USB device, and I've seen my share of installations hanging not finding that, being too fast or too slow for it to appear, and even completely balking at the device, even though FreeBSD in General always supported it.

Having one tool that reliably sorts out this crap and can match whatever the situation demands would have been helpful in many cases. But as things are, HP - like most other vendors - hide behind the it's too complicated anyway excuse.

So, no software ecology is so perfect that it would not, in any case, benefit from support by third party tools. "We don't need that, anyway" seems too easy an excuse to me.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 16, 2016)

I didn't say there was no use for such things. I'm questioning what the problem the other guy is having.


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 16, 2016)

Well if you go to freebsd FTP there are 20 AMD64 files, if you go to download ubuntu server, you have 1 file to download... 
http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.3/
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/server/install-ubuntu-server


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 16, 2016)

I wish all of our problems were this simple.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 16, 2016)

We do have a lot of installer files, and it is confusing to new users.  I personally don't see why we even need separate images for i386 and amd64, I know those can both be installed by one installer.

The Linux "ISO" images are actually a custom hybrid of CD and hard drive images.  I tried some FreeBSD hybrid images from Devin Teske a couple of years ago, but they did not work on VirtualBox.  That was a while back, don't know the situation now.  Anyone interested in improving this is welcome to join in.  Remember, too, that Ubuntu is a commercial enterprise, and has put a lot of money into their system.  FreeBSD is largely developed by volunteers, but some well-meaning person developing improved installer image creation, or sponsoring others to do so, would be welcome also.


----------



## kpa (Sep 16, 2016)

You will also notice that all of those "universal" ISO/memstick images are using a custom boot loader such as GRUB. Using GRUB or anything similar on the official FreeBSD images is not a workable solution for obvious reasons.


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 16, 2016)

What do you mean by using something similar to grub is not a workable solution? I am not saying grub but something which would provide similar minimal functionality for image only? It is not so obvious to me


----------



## aht0 (Sep 16, 2016)

yurtesen said:


> I am wondering why the FreeBSD ISO files are not more compatible in a way that they can be written to USB drives easily with some tools? Instead we need an .img file to do that while this works with Microsoft or Linux images?
> For example see what the author of Rufus tells about this:
> https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/issues/809
> 
> Thanks!


You could have Linux iso that you do not need any 3rd party tool for, just DD. OpenSUSE is using hybrid-iso format that you can simply DD to USB or spare SATA disk and it works as installation disk flawlessly. For that matter, "most Linuxes" are IMHO deep behind the curve.

The rant can go also opposite way. I used LiLi Linux Loader, some years a go I noticed how OpenSUSE version "supported" was there pretty ancient (12.1) and wrote the dev about it. He wrote back that he cannot bring it up to "date" with newer 13.2 because Novell changed the iso's format different from other linuxes. When I wrote back that he could just use windows port for DD utility for OpenSUSE and along with it, introduce FreeBSD/OpenBSD img/fs file support, I received no further response.

As is, FreeBSD img files tend to be smaller downloads than iso's. Happy as it is.
For example OpenSUSE iso is 4,5Gb+ and it does not matter if you are going to burn it on DVD or write it to USB. Single monster download.


----------



## Snurg (Sep 16, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> You are the OP.


No I am *not*. Please read more carefully.


aht0 said:


> You could have Linux iso that you do not need any 3rd party tool for, just DD. OpenSUSE is using hybrid-iso format that you can simply DD to USB or spare SATA disk and it works as installation disk flawlessly.


I believe to have read in some FreeBSD (probably outdated) handbook or FAQ instructions that one can just dd the FreeBSD .iso onto a stick.
Thus I assumed that it's a sort of hybrid iso. Maybe I was unattentive and didn't notice the memory stick images. Or these didn't work. Or was it because there are only netinstall but no full USB images? 
Whatever, I forgot. It's a while ago and I wasn't in the mood to investigate USB boot issues. I apologize.



drhowarddrfine said:


> FreeBSD is a professional operating system for professionals. If one is finding it a tough time figuring out how to install with a USB stick, then I would suggest they go with Windows.


Personally I doubt that it justifies accusing people of unprofessionality if they prefer to just burn a CD to get an installation done quickly instead of wasting time investigating potentially nontrivial USB boot problems which are of no importance to actual system operation.



wblock@ said:


> I tried some FreeBSD hybrid images from Devin Teske a couple of years ago, but they did not work on VirtualBox.  That was a while back, don't know the situation now.  Anyone interested in improving this is welcome to join in.


Is there a good starting point to read further about FreeBSD hybrid images?


----------



## kpa (Sep 16, 2016)

yurtesen said:


> What do you mean by using something similar to grub is not a workable solution? I am not saying grub but something which would provide similar minimal functionality for image only? It is not so obvious to me



GRUB is third party software (in ports(7)) and is GNU licensed, there's no way it will be imported into the FreeBSD base system and/or used as the boot loader on the official images.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 16, 2016)

Snurg said:


> No I am *not*. Please read more carefully.


Apologies for that.


Snurg said:


> instructions that one can just dd the FreeBSD .iso onto a stick.


The Handbook I linked to earlier shows that. It's not outdated.


Snurg said:


> I doubt that it justifies accusing people of unprofessionality if they prefer to just burn a CD to get an installation done quickly


What I was saying is that if people won't use FreeBSD cause they can't figure out how to use a USB stick then they shouldn't be using FreeBSD.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 16, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> What I was saying is that if people won't use FreeBSD cause they can't figure out how to use a USB stick then they shouldn't be using FreeBSD.


I understand what you are saying, but would rather make it as easy as possible to try FreeBSD and let people decided on the merits of the operating system, not installer attributes.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 16, 2016)

Snurg said:


> Is there a good starting point to read further about FreeBSD hybrid images?


These were the ones I tried, but I don't know the current status of that project: http://druidbsd.sourceforge.net/.


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 16, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> What I was saying is that if people won't use FreeBSD cause they can't figure out how to use a USB stick then they shouldn't be using FreeBSD.



It is not about not being able to use a USB stick. I use Rufus often and it is quite handy tool to write all sort of images to USB, I bet it is a tool that many people use quite often. I want to write FreeBSD IMG file and I need to start looking for another tool to use

When I am doing something, if I have to do something extra every step of the way, I would simply conclude this is not a good solution and choose the one which requires less work. It is bad for FreeBSD which already has a reputation of "difficult to use". Somebody hears FreeBSD is difficult to use, and yes they face difficulties right away when they start installing it...



kpa said:


> GRUB is third party software (in ports(7)) and is GNU licensed, there's no way it will be imported into the FreeBSD base system and/or used as the boot loader on the official images.



We are not talking about GRUB. The subject was "something similar to GRUB", why can't the FreeBSD boot loader support this, and it already supports booting from USB stick.



wblock@ said:


> Anyone interested in improving this is welcome to join in.  Remember, too, that Ubuntu is a commercial enterprise, and has put a lot of money into their system.  FreeBSD is largely developed by volunteers, but some well-meaning person developing improved installer image creation, or sponsoring others to do so, would be welcome also.



Welcome to join in how exactly? Is there an actual live project or plan for making the uber universal installer?


----------



## zirias@ (Sep 16, 2016)

This seems a lot about opinions. I personally doubt a "hybrid image" is worth the effort for a simple reason: Optical storage media is (slowly) dying. For a "from scratch" installation of an OS, an USB image will be _the_ standard way. So in the long run, just abandon the ISO images.

For now, a hybrid image could maybe save some (a little) bandwidth _and_ leave the first-time user with less options about what to download, so it might be "nice to have". It should be a simple trade-off decision whether this is valuable enough for investing the time -- as already noted, the thread title is somehow "wrong", the FreeBSD ISO files _are_ "compatible", iso9660 + ElTorito is just not meant for USB drives.


----------



## zirias@ (Sep 16, 2016)

yurtesen said:


> It is not about not being able to use a USB stick. I use Rufus often and it is quite handy tool to write all sort of images to USB, I bet it is a tool that many people use quite often. I want to write FreeBSD IMG file and I need to start looking for another tool to use


Sorry, but this doesn't make ANY sense. As I understand this tool, it works by knowing the inner workings of some boot loaders (including grub) in order to "emulate" the behavior of an optical drive with iso9660 file system. I'd call that a "trick". If this trick doesn't work with FreeBSD, it's not the fault of FreeBSD's boot loader.


----------



## Snurg (Sep 16, 2016)

yurtesen said:


> Is there an actual live project or plan for making the uber universal installer?


Well, hybrid installers have been state-of-art in Linux environments for quite a while now.

I am not sure whether it is a good thing to have about _twenty_ images for standard Intel based PCs to choose from http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/10.3/
So I think that DruidBSD or similar approaches could be useful to reduce that mess somewhat and make things easier for SystemdOS and RedmondOS refugees.


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Sep 16, 2016)

yurtesen said:


> When I am doing something, if I have to do something extra every step of the way, I would simply conclude this is not a good solution and choose the one which requires less work. It is bad for FreeBSD which already has a reputation of "difficult to use".



Obviously "less work" means "not reading the documentation people have already put a lot of work into." The documentation that tells you which is the right tool for the job. (Hint: It isn't Rufus.)


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 16, 2016)

Which brings us back around to what I said earlier. The problem that this thread started with is a problem for Rufus, not a problem with FreeBSD. While it's been brought up that it would be nicer to have an installer figure it which iso to use, maybe it is, but that's pretty much a one time thing and then you know which one to download. 

That Linux does this doesn't matter. There are millions of Linux distros, it seems, but there's only one FreeBSD.


----------



## Phishfry (Sep 16, 2016)

Working in a machine shop I see lots of people attempting to insert a square peg into a round hole.
It often ends up with a sledge hammer and torch and lots of cursing.


----------



## zirias@ (Sep 16, 2016)

Hehe. The analogy somehow ends when you see that there _are_ "hybrid" boot images, kind of being round and square at the same time. But of course, such "deep magic" is quite some work, and what exactly is the benefit? (I answered that above, but, is it _worth_ the hassle?)


----------



## Phishfry (Sep 16, 2016)

I would like to see a BSD version of Yumi with pfSense and FreeNAS on one menu. FreeBSD of course.
http://www.pendrivelinux.com/yumi-multiboot-usb-creator/


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 17, 2016)

yurtesen said:


> Welcome to join in how exactly? Is there an actual live project or plan for making the uber universal installer?


At present, not that I'm aware.  There is some previous work.  Come to think of it, I think the FreeNAS installer is a hybrid image.



Zirias said:


> Optical storage media is (slowly) dying. For a "from scratch" installation of an OS, an USB image will be _the_ standard way. So in the long run, just abandon the ISO images.


This makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Snurg (Sep 17, 2016)

wblock@ said:


> Come to think of it, I think the FreeNAS installer is a hybrid image.
> 
> 
> Zirias said:
> ...


I am not that sure about this. USB sticks have some issues: easily tamperable, prone to bit errors and usually no intrinsic data integrity check (parity, crc).
Optical media will still be relevant for at least a decade for these and some more reasons, I guess.
Thus I really hope some guru will look at DruidBSD and the FreeNAS installer and port its "magic boot technique" back to FreeBSD.


----------



## max21 (Sep 17, 2016)

If ISO files was to die, would that mean the end of Virtualbox for FreeBSD users?  Virtualbox has no support for USB for a FreeBSD guest and I think that is by design.  If Linux was based on FreeBSD efforts, surely Oracle has the technical expertise to add this ability for a FreeBSD Virtualbox guest …   I wonder why new users keep ruling out simplicity just to encourage FreeBSD to be like Windows and Linux?  Their criticism convinced the developers to replace (_not improve upon_) the original sysintaller which now create a linux-style partition (with bits stepping upon the MBR like Ubuntu, etc), and to realize the next plot is for FreeBSD to stop supporting ISO files so that a FreeBSD vBox guest cannot transfer files from ANY kind portable media.  Anyway, I don’t trust this new magic that only provide virtual MBR existence.  That is Virtual gone too far.  You might enter one old standard FreeBSD command and POOF partitions are gone.  I bet we all seen something like that once since 9x.  A big maybe; now you know why!


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 17, 2016)

max21 said:


> ISO files was to die, would that mean the end of Virtualbox for FreeBSD users?


Whoa, that is a strange conclusion.  A USB image, which is just a hard drive image, works the same way ISO files work with VirtualBox.  An actual physical USB stick is not involved.


----------



## debguy (Sep 17, 2016)

a few posters said the CD image does boot from thumb - but this was ignored.  a poster above said BSD does have .img for thumb and "what else do you want?"  - everyone else seemed to ignore this.  the original poster was not questioned as to what boot code he had on the thumb (ie, how was this image dd'ed?  did the boot code get where it needed and did the bios support booting thumb using ?el torito? ... no one asked)

here are some sparse facts that can be found on wikipeida or other study areas....

fact: CDs and flash do not boot - that depends wholey on bios
        and wholey what brand computer you bought

fact: CD's can be UDF, and not support case sensitive filenames
        think: camera or other compatibility - think widely supported
        some OS's still run their unix that way (Apple, until very recently)
        (there's many a reason CDs arent just a stored image of ZFS !)

fact: CD's have inner layout which drivers have to support
        to read (ie, linux ext2) what filesystem was written to CD:
        they are NOT ide as advertised and require drivers
        how to write boot records is special (ie, el torito)
        and does NOT work like writing boot record to IDE (dd it?  no)

fact: CD is widely supported across OSes in many forms and shapes
        .img on stick - no, depends, mostly newer support, etc.

fact: el torito boot CDs was only for intel !

fact: there are newer CD booting standards

fact: the bios decides what boot code is allowed from what media
        (emulators aside)
        not all bios supported the same boot code on thumb and CD
        the bioses would only accept 1 kind - infact i'd think you were
        pulling my leg if you said they had stuck to any "standard" since

thumb drives <> USB are much more like ide drives than CDs are

BUT YES YOUR RIGHT, those engineers who refuse to conform to anything for sure for any length of time: are a total pain in the xxxx

hope that helps.

as i said i think several answers were given to OP and were simply not check on by OP or others


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 20, 2016)

debguy, you apparently didnt read the whole thread. Because I can't really make any sense of what is your point or point of your "facts"

To summarize, my original post was asking why FreeBSD can't make an ISO image and a boot method which can be easily converted to USB image etc. for example with tools using Rufus.
The reason as far as I understand is that it cant do it now is because when you make a flash in windows you need to use fat/fat32/exfat etc. to store files. But freeBSD cant boot from those filesystems as far as I gather? It has to be able to mount one of those filesystems as root / filesystem. Currently the .img file has a UFS filesystem which users DD into the usb drive.

Anyway, the reason was because other OSes usually give out 1-2 images which can form into anything you want. While FreeBSD has 20+ files per release. (now both UEFI and non-UEFI files also). It makes little sense to make something so cumbersome....

Anyway, as I expected, it was perhaps a question which was better to not ask. Just keep getting annoying responses like if you cant use a usb stick img dont use freebsd. OMG I am sorry that I even asked it


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Sep 20, 2016)

yurtesen said:


> The reason as far as I understand is that it cant do it now is because when you make a flash in windows you need to use fat/fat32/exfat etc. to store files. But freeBSD cant boot from those filesystems as far as I gather?



A FAT32 ESP is part of the UEFI standard. The fact is that Rufus is a non-standard hack that seeks to make things convenient for some. And that's what this whole debacle sprang from...



yurtesen said:


> Anyway, the reason was because other OSes usually give out 1-2 images which can form into anything you want. While FreeBSD has 20+ files per release. (now both UEFI and non-UEFI files also). It makes little sense to make something so cumbersome....



"Cumbersome" means "hard to manage or work with." As in, "This multi-architecture, multi-boot-scheme, non-standardized *.iso file is such a complicated mess that maintaining the code for it is *cumbersome*." As you'll  no doubt notice, whether something seems cumbersome is largely subjective. What's happened in this thread, yurtesen, is that you've come into a community without really understanding its culture, made a bunch of unfounded assumptions about it, and judged it negatively based on those assumptions. That's what people are reacting to. Your apparent experience with Ubuntu (if I read your earlier post correctly) has reinforced the common, but false notion that "simple" is the same thing as "convenient" or "easy." They are not the same. Here, people are willing to sacrifice a little convenience for the sake of keeping individual things simple, and keeping those individual things simple makes everything a little bit easier for everybody rather than making it much easier for some, and much harder for others. It's a difference in outlook---not necessarily a better or worse one, but a very different one.


----------



## yurtesen (Sep 20, 2016)

ANOKNUSA Can you please tell how rufus is doing anything non-standard? it makes fat filesystem on usb stick it sounds like more standard than freebsd .img file containing ufs filesystem to be copied to usb stick? Can you please clarify?

You are completely wrong and your assumption is unfounded. First of all you seem to assume making such iso image which can be copied to USB will require constant maintenance. But it does not. You do it once and everybody who uses FreeBSD benefits (benefits overweight the work required). I imagine at some point somebody probably said 'why do we need to support cdrom, everybody has a floppy drive' 

You think keeping up scripts for making 20 different image files is easier which is strange.... Compared to making/keeping fewer images, but more compatible ones which would on the contrary require less work...

Besides there is nothing non-standard about Linux or Windows ISO files. I can write them to CD/DVD and boot on any CD/DVD drive. That is by definition standard.

If you can't evolve you will only get extinct. You can keep finding excuses for not evolving, sure, it is your prerogative


----------



## Snurg (Sep 21, 2016)

ANOKNUSA said:


> ... come into a community without really understanding its culture ... Your apparent experience with Ubuntu (if I read your earlier post correctly) has reinforced the common, but false notion that "simple" is the same thing as "convenient" or "easy." They are not the same. Here, people are willing to sacrifice a little convenience for the sake of keeping individual things simple, and keeping those individual things simple makes everything a little bit easier for everybody rather than making it much easier for some, and much harder for others. It's a difference in outlook---not necessarily a better or worse one, but a very different one.


*It is not only about convenience, but also about efficiency.*
Think about the extreme difference between Ubuntu and maybe Gentoo or Archlinux.
The first one is extremely efficient in regards of the time required to set up and configure a standard system. The latter ones are extremely time-consuming, or, in other words, expensive and thus ineffective.

You somehow contradict yourself in this sense. For example, for the sake of simplicity, convenience and easiness, there is the FreeBSD installer which saves us the many simple installation steps Gentoo or Archlinux users have to do manually. *It's just a matter of efficiency.*
Honestly: Would you enjoy installing FreeBSD if you had to do it the time-consuming, tedious and thus ineffective Gentoo way?



yurtesen said:


> First of all you seem to assume making such iso image which can be copied to USB will require constant maintenance. But it does not. You do it once and everybody who uses FreeBSD benefits (benefits overweight the work required).


I believe this is correct. Basically it would mean an *one-time-task* to create two additional to the existing about 20 makefile targets (for 32-bit and 64-bit images) and to create a simple bootup menu selection script which allows you to choose from the various basic boot options (base or full offline installation with a few of the most-used metapackages offered, netinst, ...)



yurtesen said:


> You think keeping up scripts for making 20 different image files is easier which is strange.... Compared to making/keeping fewer images, but more compatible ones which would on the contrary require less work...


Some Linux distros offer both approaches. Two main installer images (32 and 64 bit) that can be burned onto CD or a memstick. For those who want a more specialized type image there is still the option to download such if the need arises. This makes things much easier for the users' majority.
*You see, this discussion is is not about no longer offering specialized images, but about offering general-purpose images, too.
So that people administering several different computers/servers just can use one-fits-all image. Instead of -objectively unnecessarily- being burdened with maintaining different boot/install images even for the same OS release.*




ANOKNUSA said:


> That's what people are reacting to.


Inflexibility and resistance against changes are commonly observed when evolutionary pressure enforces changes.


yurtesen said:


> If you can't evolve you will only get extinct. You can keep finding excuses for not evolving, sure, it is your prerogative


Not evolving makes dependent of niches to survive in.
*Honestly: Can we afford to neglect caring about efficiency forever until FreeBSD has become a fringe OS?*


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 21, 2016)

I'm pretty sure installation using images and USBs are not going to make FreeBSD a fringe OS. Nor do I think making FreeBSD do things "just like Linux" will do that either. It's not the reason Netflix chose FreeBSD. Nor Whatsapp or nginx.


----------



## JustinClift (Sep 22, 2016)

As a data point, the .iso files for FreeNAS (based on FreeBSD) can be written to either CD or USB thumb drive:

http://doc.freenas.org/9.10/install.html#preparing-the-media

Note - I have no idea how they've approached it, etc.

But, if someone has the time and desire to make the official FreeBSD .iso's work for both methods too, then investigating the FreeNAS approach is probably not a bad idea.


----------



## kpa (Sep 22, 2016)

JustinClift said:


> As a data point, the .iso files for FreeNAS (based on FreeBSD) can be written to either CD or USB thumb drive:
> 
> http://doc.freenas.org/9.10/install.html#preparing-the-media
> 
> ...



They are probably using a third party bootloader such as GRUB that allows the images to boot on both CD/DVDs and on USB memory sticks. FreeBSD has chosen not to rely on third party bootloaders as already noted in this thread.

What is also not pointed out clearly enough is that those hybrid images do violate existing standards and you can not be 100% sure that they work every single system out there.


----------



## Datapanic (Sep 23, 2016)

There is a script out there called fbsd-install-iso2img.sh that will convert a FreeBSD iso to an img file that can be dd'ed to a thumb that can boot up FreeBSD for install.  https://people.freebsd.org/~syrinx/fbsd-install-iso2img.sh


----------



## tingo (Sep 23, 2016)

Datapoint: I have used fbsd-install-iso2img.sh a couple of times in the past. It works.


----------



## outpaddling (Jan 8, 2018)

To add some clarity to an old thread, the isohybrid format used by many other operating systems will not boot from a USB stick on older hardware.  The separate ISO and memstick images provided by FreeBSD therefore support a wider range of hardware options.  E.g. I install FreeBSD from a USB stick on some old PowerEdge servers we use for development and testing, but have to use a CD/DVD to install CentOS, which is provided only in isohybrid format.


----------



## Chris_H (Jan 19, 2018)

Just for fun, and since the OT has largely been derailed. I'm posting an old script I used to use for _convenience_, when I had a single CD/DVD already available. Which saved me the time, and space of getting an .img too. It also saved me the time of remembering all the commands to accomplish the task. This sh(1) script will put, convert the FreeBSD install ISO onto a USB stick / drive. Make adjustments as needed for your own usage / requirements / needs.

```
#!/bin/sh -
#
# fbsdiso2usb
# PURPOSE: Use this to transfer the FreeBSD install disc1.iso files
# to a bootable USB stick/drive so it can be used to install from.
# First fetch the FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE-*-disc1.iso to your hard
# drive in /usr/. Then execute this script from the command line
# fbsdiso2usb

# NOTE This script must be run as root and your USB stick/drive
# must be plugged in before running this script.
# WARNING assumes you have no other md(4), or da(4) in use.
# Check these before use!

echo ' '
echo '* * * * Preparing disc1.iso for usage * * * * *'
echo ' '
cd /usr
mkdir dis
mdconfig -a -f /usr/9.0-RELEASE-*-disc1.iso md0
mount -v -t cd9660 /dev/md0 /usr/dis
echo ' '
echo '* * * * Preparing target USB stick * * * * *'
echo ' '
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da0 count=2
fdisk -vBI /dev/da0
bsdlabel -B -w da0s1
newfs -O 1 /dev/da0s1a
mount -v /dev/da0s1a /mnt
echo ' '
echo ' '
echo '* * * * Copying disc1.iso files onto the USB stick * *'
cd /usr/dis
find . -print -depth | cpio -dump /mnt
echo ' '
echo 'Finished! cleaning up...'
cd /usr
umount -v /mnt
umount -v /usr/dis
mdconfig -d -u 0
rmdir dis
echo ' '
echo ' '
echo "# # # Script finished # # #"
```

HTH

--Chris


----------



## SirDice (Jan 19, 2018)

```
mdconfig -a -f /usr/9.0-RELEASE-*-disc1.iso md0
```
That's definitely an old script, 9.0 was quite some time ago


----------



## 3guesses (Mar 14, 2018)

Hi,

I'm new to FreeBSD (or at least I would like to be, if I could get it to install) and having read this thread I'd just like to offer a viewpoint from a prospective newbie.

I use various OSes on various PC hardware and I use a single 64GB USB stick to perform installations, run diagnostics etc.  This USB stick was configured using WinSetUpFromUSB which allows me to add multiple ISOs to the USB stick, and then I am presented with a menu to choose which ISO I want to boot as if the equivalentCD/DVD had been inserted.  This is incredibly convenient compared to having 20+ separate USB sticks or CDs/DVDs, one for each installer/tool.  Unfortunately, the only package I have found that doesn't work with it is FreeBSD.  Anyway, I overcame my disappointment and decided to try to make a decidated USB install stick for it from the .img file using Win32DiskImager as detailed in the Handbook.  However, this appears to create a USB stick with a GPT partition schema.  I'm not sure if this is the reason, but my PC simply ignores booting from this USB stick.  The result is I have been unable to boot the FreeBSD installer.

So the conclusion from my experience is that the suite of FreeBSD installation options do not cover all hardware set-ups, and if the ISO were compatible with WinSetUpFromUSB it would make/have made my life a hell of a lot easier; but having read this thread I do recognise that there is a lot of resistance to making such a change, although I don't pretend to understand what the reasons for that resistance are.

Generally speaking, in life you don't get extra points for doing things the hard way.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 14, 2018)

3guesses It is not up to FreeBSD to make WinSetUpFromUSB work. It is up to this Windows software company to make their software work with FreeBSD. It is them you need to bring your problems up with.

As far as the installation not working with all hardware setups, no operating system works with all hardware setups, but we don't have a clue what yours is but, suffice to say, a lot of people install FreeBSD using a USB stick without issue and without "the hard way".

You need to understand that FreeBSD is a professional operating system for professionals. Dedicated hobbyists also love running FreeBSD and don't seem to have the same issues you are having.


----------



## ShelLuser (Mar 15, 2018)

First time I came across this thread and I find it both quite amusing and seriously depressing at the same time.

I mean... All FreeBSD does is follow the current standards for the image files (both memory stick images and ISO images). How one imagines this to become "more" compatible if it's already on-par with those standards is mind boggling for me to be perfectly honest.


----------



## 3guesses (Mar 15, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> 3guesses It is not up to FreeBSD to make WinSetUpFromUSB work. It is up to this Windows software company to make their software work with FreeBSD. It is them you need to bring your problems up with.



I have brought it up with them.  Their response was that FreeBSD does not include what is needed in the boot scripts.  I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I was then directed to this thread.  But if WinSetUpFromUSB works with all other ISOs then clearly it is WinSetUpFromUSB which is at fault as you assert.



drhowarddrfine said:


> As far as the installation not working with all hardware setups, no operating system works with all hardware setups, but we don't have a clue what yours is but, suffice to say, a lot of people install FreeBSD using a USB stick without issue and without "the hard way".



I'm using an Intel D945GCLF motherboard.  I did make a post in the installation problems forum but got little help.



drhowarddrfine said:


> You need to understand that FreeBSD is a professional operating system for professionals. Dedicated hobbyists also love running FreeBSD and don't seem to have the same issues you are having.



As I said, if FreeBSD worked with WinSetUpFromUSB it would make my life easier and, from readng this thread, I guess a number of other people's too.  But if it makes you feel better keeping it restricted to an elite few then good for you.


----------



## 3guesses (Mar 15, 2018)

ShelLuser said:


> First time I came across this thread and I find it both quite amusing and seriously depressing at the same time.
> 
> I mean... All FreeBSD does is follow the current standards for the image files (both memory stick images and ISO images). How one imagines this to become "more" compatible if it's already on-par with those standards is mind boggling for me to be perfectly honest.



As I said in my previous reply, if WinSetUpFromUSB works with all other ISOs then those ISOs must be doing something different to FreeBSD.  I guess there are standards and there are de facto standards - ones that actually work.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 15, 2018)

3guesses said:


> Their response was that FreeBSD does not include what is needed in the boot scripts.


Sounds like they don't want to change their boot scripts but, as you said, we don't know what that means.



3guesses said:


> I did make a post in the installation problems forum but got little help.


There aren't that many people on this board so It can take time for someone with knowledge of that to appear. If it's a problem with that board, it's a different issue than if it's a problem with installing.



3guesses said:


> if WinSetUpFromUSB works with all other ISOs then those ISOs must be doing something different to FreeBSD.


True. It could be they only work with Windows and Linux but strictly with systemd which is Linux only.



3guesses said:


> if it makes you feel better keeping it restricted to an elite few then good for you.


FreeBSD does no such thing. If interested hobbyists and amateurs can make this work, so can you.

Did you follow instructions in the Handbook?

Your only issue is with this Windows software you are trying to make work, not FreeBSD. It is WinSetUpFromUSB that apparently is unwilling to help by passing you off onto us where we have no control over or knowledge of it and can do nothing about it.


----------



## giahung1997 (Mar 16, 2018)

outpaddling said:


> To add some clarity to an old thread, the isohybrid format used by many other operating systems will not boot from a USB stick on older hardware.  The separate ISO and memstick images provided by FreeBSD therefore support a wider range of hardware options.  E.g. I install FreeBSD from a USB stick on some old PowerEdge servers we use for development and testing, but have to use a CD/DVD to install CentOS, which is provided only in isohybrid format.


Thanks. You said what I would said but better content. The OP asked why FreeBSD doesn't use hybridISO format. Many previous commenters just misunderstood


----------



## Crivens (Mar 16, 2018)

Chris_H, why use md and cpio when you can simply untar the .iso?


----------



## giahung1997 (Mar 18, 2018)

Crivens said:


> Chris_H, why use md and cpio when you can simply untar the .iso?


Because you don't have to untar it


----------



## tobik@ (Mar 22, 2018)

Partially good news for everybody who wants hybrid ISOs: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14799

Call for testing here: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-March/068926.html


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Jul 18, 2021)

With D14799 still needing review, I'm curious because (in my experience, the past three years or so) a USB drive written from a FreeBSD-provided .iso usually *is* bootable. At least, with AMD64.

Not me alone; <https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/81124/post-520434>



> … I copied the FreeBSD...dvd1.iso to USB disk and it works. …


----------



## a6h (Jul 18, 2021)

grahamperrin said:


> With D14799 still needing review, I'm curious because (in my experience, the past three years or so) a USB drive written from a FreeBSD-provided .iso usually *is* bootable. At least, with AMD64.
> 
> Not me alone; <https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/81124/post-520434>


It may depends on machine. IIRC ISO-on-USB worked on one of my machine -- Don't take my word for it, I could be completely wrong. Check the difference between these two files:

src/release/amd64/make-memstick.sh
and
src/release/amd64/mkisoimages.sh

Maybe some "block size" related issue? I'm not sure.


----------

