Night Wing wrote: ⤴
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:50 pm
Maybe it's me and I somehow missed it in the Release Notes, but Xfburn is not installed by default in Mint 19 (Tara).
My guess was that, in the interest of saving on bandwidth, bytes, and b... b... b... work, lol, Clem chose to not include an application that most users probably either remove or ignore after installing K3B.
I mean, sure, there are probably two, maybe even three people that still use xfburn - but probably not a great many
more than that, realistically. I didn't even realize that xfburn was still being actively developed, and was surprised when I learned otherwise. The fans in the audience will be pleased to know that it is (or at least was, late last year) - version .5.5 was released just six and a half months ago.
According to the developer:
xfburn is still a new program, and does not yet do all common burning related
...which was news to me, since I thought the application had been in existence for years, since Mint 14 at least (but I could be wrong). I guess if I'd set out, ten years ago, to assemble a motorcycle and it was still mostly in boxes in the garage - or at least still lacked some features that would make the motorcycle complete (like two working brakes
), I might tell people that "It is still a new project." Out of embarrassment, if nothing else.
The README states that xfburn still
does not have multi - session support. Still cannot save/load "compositions," do verification, copy discs, et cetera. It also states that the application is currently in "maintenance mode" as the developer does not have a lot of time. (Which happens, I know, such is life.)
So - IMHO - it's probably sort of like soda pop. You have Coca Cola (k3b) with like 93% of the market share. Maybe 99.9965%, lol, since it's k3b, but I think Coke only has around 93%. Then there's Pepsi (Brasero, maybe?) with 6.5%. All the other disc-burning apps/methods out there, well... they share that remaining .5% of the market. Add to that the fact that there does not seem to be as many people actually burning optical media as there used to be...
...and it is as if a significant percentage of the population is no longer consuming soda pop at all - and ask yourself just how likely it is that the next random restraunt you walk past... will have Fanta
on their menu, lol.
Not that there's anything wrong with choosing to use xfburn - or to drink Fanta, for that matter - but the biggest reason I can see for choosing to have it preinstalled is "because most Xfce setups have it." And that's a silly reason, IMHO (since, again, it's still in our repos).
Night Wing wrote: ⤴
Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:28 pm
Getting back on point, how do the "ones in fashion" install their Mint iso's to their computers hard drives if they don't use a DVD? Do you download the iso and install on it a USB drive? Then use the USB drive and install to your computer(s) hard drives if you have more than one hard like I do with my desktop tower computers. If not, tell me how because I'm all "eyes".
I'm about as far from "fashion" as one can get (I did have some fun with a model once, though
), so that question probably wasn't directed towards me, lol. But, since my optical drive is permanently pooched and my laptop does not have an option to boot from USB, I do all my (fresh) linux installs to my laptop's hard drive... from
that same hard drive.
The process is remarkably easy (after someone walked me through it using the smallest steps imaginable, of course
). You basically end up with the situation of powering up your computer, reaching the grub boot menu - and seeing the downloaded live linux .ISO appear in the grub menu as if it were an installed thing. It's still just an .ISO, so there's no persistence or anything. OtOH, it makes for the most responsive (quickest) "live linux experience" I've had - much
faster than if the .ISO were burned to DVD or a USB flash drive. Other than that, everything proceeds as per normal. (Remember to NOT delete the partition that you have the .ISO on when going through the installation process, though, lol.)
Take a look at post number... Well, the Powers That Be here have decided, in their infinite wisdom, that we have zero use for post numbers within a thread
. But look in this thread:
Page 2, for a post by WinterTroubles, in which he quotes text from austin.texas; specifically, about using grml-rescueboot
. Between those two helpful people, I (slowly and painfully) came to understand how to do this thing. You can read the next few posts in that thread to see that there was... much fear on my part, worry that I'd screw things up badly. Everything went fine.
My original setup was two separate versions/partitions of linux Mint (sharing the same swap partition). I like to keep two supported versions so that if there's ever a catastrophic issue with one, I'll probably still be able to get online and beg for help fixing it. This made things simpler for me, because I could download the .ISO that I wanted to install on partition "B" onto partition "A" and the installation process wouldn't overwrite that .ISO file. Then repeat, swapping destination partitions and the other one is done, too.
you only intend to (ever) have one installed version of linux at a time on your computer, you might not have a handy partition that you can "park" your downloaded .ISO on. If this is the case, I highly recommend creating at least a small additional partition so that you can do this thing I have (probably badly) described. Both for the convenience (if you have no blank disc or flash drive handy) and speed (when compared with the two more traditional installation methods) - but also because the live .ISO will remain listed in your grub menu (and remain bootable
) unless/until you delete that .ISO. Call it really cheap insurance against powering up your computer one day and not being able to use it because of a serious problem; just reboot and choose the .ISO, that should at least allow you to get online and attempt to troubleshoot the issue (assuming it's not hardware-related).
I think you might have been able to install Mint using the above method in the time it took me to hunt up the thread I referenced above and type in this post
- it really is fast
all41 wrote: ⤴
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:39 pm
I see there are better prices than I looked at.
Still rather pricey per gb though.
I wonder how they can predict data retention of 1000 years
, and what would be the targeted market for such longevity.
I don't know, but I'm guessing
... That the data on those "1,000-year" discs wouldn't survive nine seconds in my microwave oven any better than any other DVD/CD that's ever gone in there for a little deconstructive therapy. Although I do wonder if the nice "mini lightning" lightshow would look any different.
If using a low-wattage microwave, you might need to run it for 11 seconds. But 9 seconds has always worked for me. Curiously, I have only ever managed to achieve ONE "mini lightning" event per disc, regardless of how much longer I let the ol' magnetron run. Maybe it's like the old overheating joke about electronics, lol? (Every electronic component actually runs on smoke - and once one releases its tiny store of smoke into the atmosphere, it no longer functions.) Only with neat visible electricity instead of smoke, IDK.
BtW, using your microwave for only nine to eleven seconds
to make an optical disc permanently unreadable (unless you happen to have a scanning electron microscope in your toolbox, along with a good bit of time) doesn't hurt the microwave oven a bit. Been doing it for, IDK, 15+ years now.
However, if you decide to throw a wadded up piece of aluminum foil in there to see it bounce around, or a fluorescent tube bulb in order to see it light up, well... you're on your own there....