Should ISO format be retired?

[williwaw]

.

[geo_c]

Iso works as well for me as any other format if I just want to mount it and extract the files. If it's bootable then I have options like SG2D, which I incidentally don't find so fun to use really. I used to burn CD's back when that's all I knew how to do though. That's a bit of hassle. Time consuming, but it gives you a nice hard copy to tuck away. At the rate these OS's are being released, hard copies don't seem worth the effort. By the time I might need to break one out and start over, there's a newer update ready to go. And my newest laptop doesn't even have an optical drive.

I have one important thing to say about 'user space' -- Windows is a service.

[BarryK]

I have revised the web page "Why the ISO format has to die":

https://easyos.org/about/why-the-iso-fo ... o-die.html

And also the two blog posts it links to:

"Why ISO was retired"
https://bkhome.org/news/202112/why-iso-was-retired.html

"Why ISO was retired part-2"
https://bkhome.org/news/202112/why-iso- ... art-2.html

Softened the rhetoric just a little bit.

[mikewalsh]

@BarryK :-

Heh. Yeah, it's a contentious issue, all right.

I completely understand where you're coming from. The ISO standard IS ancient, and it IS a complete 'hodge-podge' of add-ons/upgrades/extras, etc, by this point in time.

For myself, the only reason I keep an optical drive is quite simple; it's not because I don't understand anything else, but because most distros insist on still using ISOs. I've always prided myself on being able to adapt to most new technologies when it's necessary, and am happy to try new ways of doing things; I couldn't care less how I get an OS to a working condition, so long as I CAN.....and understand the process by which I can get it there.

That's not to say that I will always LIKE each NEW way of doing things- or that it will necessarily suit me - but I'm usually willing to at least take a look. You never know TILL you try, do you?

Puppies are, of course, ultra-simple.....and that simple modularity makes them very flexible. It's a shame the same can't be said of most mainstream distros; even in the most forward-looking organisations, there still seems to be great resistance to change. I guess it probably boils down to that old aphorism; "If it ain't broke, why 'fix' it?"

We all tend to stick with tried & rested methods that we know will work. It's human nature. It's also unwise to force a new way of doing things onto your users, if you're not going to give them fair warning.

Mike.

[rockedge]

I find the .img format that rootfs systems come in are cumbersome to use. Can't just open it up. Sometimes nested compression of the rootfs in these .img setups...are horrible.

[wdt]

One easy way for error proofing is to zip the iso, a damaged zip errors out
I guess I'm dumb, I never have figured out how to use an img with vBox, this is my main complaint
For those who think an optical drive is necessary, most isos are hybrid, can be dd'd to usb stick
I object to the gigantic wastage of space this entails,,,
there are at least 3 ways to put multipale isos on a usb stick
(e2b, ventoy, refind)
If you said this must be installed to have a save (and can be to usb stick).........

[Clarity]

To me, as indicated before, the ISO is a container format that can be OR IS created to be a bootable format.

Its flexibility exceeds IMG as the above poster indirectly suggests.

Even though I know how to use both container formats, I have no element in me to push out the ISO format. Today's bootable ISOs come my way as hybrids offering everything in its use as a transport, or a file-bootable wia several Boot Helpers for iSO & IMG files, capable to create a bootable HDD/SSD/USB/SDcard/DVD/CD unit which can be attached to a PC and the unit will boot said PC.

IMG does NOT offer similar transport advantages and use that ISO offer. Thus the flexibility continues to be outstanding no matter which device or use it is directed for.

I do not share any dislikes that I find appropriate while ISOs continues its universal appeal, and benefits...excepting,,of course, the obvious.

Just helped someone with a new purchase from Lenovo. It has a DVD writer. This bit of information is still relevant as the world is not totally immersed in Laptops/tablets....yet.

[bigpup]

I look at it this way.

A .img format is a good way to offer an operating system to put on a USB stick.

The result is a completely setup USB stick that is basically a live install and everything is done.

What installer was used and if it did something wrong is not there as an issue.

Easy for someone that does not know how to do different installs to a USB stick.

ISO format seems to still be needed for doing any other type installs.

Unless Puppy wants to redo all the installer programs, in a Puppy version, to work with .img format releases.

I do agree, it seems easier to look inside an ISO, to access the files in it, by simply clicking on it.

I see no reason why a release of Puppy could not be offered in both formats.

Maybe a usb stick .img for people to easily make a boot-able USB stick, that will for sure be setup for Puppy and the way it boots.

An ISO for any other type installs.

[mouldy]

Rather than some endless battle over which is best, how about an easy way to convert img to iso or iso to img and anybody that wants one or other can have it without any creator forced to offer both? I looked but didnt find anybody addressing this possibility. Its more the "my way or the hiway" arguments which dont accomplish alot. Now would it be nice if there were one standard. Probably.

But until there is, a way to convert back and forth seems logical. With Puppy and Easy, as I stated before, manual frugal install is not difficult so learn the ins and outs of your preferred boot loader and do it that way.

I even just manually moved system files from full install Fedora to different drive. Got it to boot with Limine, but then it threw a hissy fit over logging in, wouldnt accept password for user or root. Probably way to change or disable such but since just experiment didnt invest lot time. Sure there is some hidden gotcha to prevent people doing exactly what I was trying to do. Honestly manual copy kind of install is lot faster than some of the built in installers.

[Clarity]

Here's a FACT

There is a primary reason why ISO files continue to be built and released by almost everyone associated with OSes in the world: Its

• functional,

• well understood,

• and flexible

• while not exhibiting any drawbacks to user uses

as a transport or as a format to write information onto EITHER DVD, USB, HDD, SD, SSD, etc. for use in PCs or music devices or video players or ...

If IMG had all of the same (which it does't) and was somehow better, the world of OS designers would have moved onto it. The world does NOT agree that ISO format has lost any luster against IMG or any other transport formats..

This post is presented not as a request for anything, as developers SHOULD follow whatever dreams they feel appropriate for what they deliver; rather tihs post is presented as what I have observed in the world of OSes as it exist, today, for the plethora of manufacted devices used across our spectrum of home use.

YET, there is one shining light in this discussion for booting distros which may have taken off from an argument in this community had on a past forum several years ago.
VENTOY has done something spectacular that puts this argument out of business. And its development emerged at a very time this topic became active in Puppyland.

Like SG2D, VENTOY has moved beyond everyone with its creation of an ability to NOT WRITE A BOOTABLE, individually to a device, ever again....yes...ever. The user creates a bootable unit once, then, forever more, he adds ISO files OR IMG files to his created bootable unit. The bootable unit will present and launch whichever ISO or IMG files found on his/her bootable unit. Or even, it will boot whatever already installed OS you would have, as well.

The ENORMOUS benefit: Simplicity for booting!

Imagine having a PC which you merely add ANY IMG or ISO file to it AND whenever you power-on, you select and boot wharever you want ... never needing to figure out how or what to write to

Ventoy has done this world a favor for bootable ISO files and IMG files on BIOS or UEFI systems and thusly solves this discussion for

• those who wants to focus on IMG or

• those who want to focus on ISO or

• those who want the best of both formats.

There are discussion on this forum for best practice(s) in using Ventoy, where, in those discussion is advice to overcome a minor PUP issue. Those discussions intend to be specific to the use and needs for successful booting of even the problematic forum's PUPs or DOGs.

Now, a user need not care about the delivered forumat for booting anymore. And there is a communty dedicated to Ventoy support as well as a GIT for SG2D.

If these solutions have come along to ease our lives in booting our PC, AND we know this, why should we care about the shipped format, ISO/IMG, a OS developer presents for our consumption?

[wiak]

I find the .img format that rootfs systems come in are cumbersome to use. Can't just open it up. Sometimes nested compression of the rootfs in these .img setups...are horrible.

Yes, .img formats could contain lots of different and nested compression formats so no easy way to work out how to always decompress them. Nevertheless I see a strong point for using the extension with initrd files such as some distros do. If we use the generic name initrd.img it means the grub.conf file doesn't need modified if we are using any of gz, xz, lz4, zstd to compress the initrd into the .img

That doesn't cause any problem since just using a single compression and that compression can always be determined quickly via command 'file initrd.img' and thus a single general utility script can easy be
written to decompress and later compress back up the initrd.img file. I'm thinking of adopting that approach for FR since too many little system scripts required for different initrd.XX possible types at the moment (though we are currently generally using .gz form).

Different for a whole distro rootfs image in the overall Linux world though so filemnt, for example, can't decompress what it doesn't know about - and as you say the actual root filesystem is often buried inside a whole pack of nested compression mechanisms for some reason or another. However, the iso format doesn't actually prevent the distro maker burying their root filesystem inside various complex nested compression img files prior to you finding the actual squashed filesystem if provided as such... I had to analyse the internals of the upstream iso to find out how to extract the actual root filesystem sfs for weedogit (now firstribit) script - usually it was just there in the iso, but sometimes in a buried image, which required a fair amount of coding to extract for firstribit use.

[BarryK]

I find the .img format that rootfs systems come in are cumbersome to use. Can't just open it up. Sometimes nested compression of the rootfs in these .img setups...are horrible.

I would like to see an example of one of those, if you can locate one easily.

But, you might be thinking of something different, ditto for wiak. EasyOS ships as a drive-image, not a rootfs-image.

The EasyOS drive-image file is very easy to open up, just click on it, just like you do for ISO files in the pups.

The mime-handling in rox launches /usr/sbin/mount-img, which can mount a drive-image with any number of partitions.

Let's see, I did post it somewhere on the forum, here it is again, with false ".gz" appended: