boot.iso vs netinst.iso vs efiboot.img

[Chris Murphy]

On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

> liveusb-creator is graphical, hence the recommendation. At the time
> these docs were originally written, it was probably equal to
> livecd-creator in functionality.
> 
> livecd-creator is considerably more flexible than dd; it allows you to
> set up persistent storage and to use a stick without wiping existing
> data it contains. At the time the docs were originally written, it's
> likely dd was less reliable than it is now, and probably still had
> problems it no longer does (remember when a dd'ed DVD would not find the
> packages on the stick and would act as a netinst image, for instance).
> 
> It would be fine to bring all of these more into line with modern usage,
> I think.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810112

And it's so close to working.

So do you have a preference on recommending boot.iso vs Fedora-18-x86_64-netinst.iso? I'm leaning to recommending that everywhere boot.iso and efiboot.img are recommended, to recommend netins ISO instead.


Chris Murphy