Feature #10984

Test Rufus

Added by sajolida 2016-01-22 20:11:36 . Updated 2018-09-10 14:43:23 .

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Installation
Target version:
Start date:
2016-01-22
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Test
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

The homepage of Rufus (http://rufus.akeo.ie/) displays “Tails 1.8.1” in its opening screenshot. So it’s probably worth testing it.

Subtasks

Related issues

Related to Tails - Feature #8550: Make Tails Installer work on Windows Rejected 2015-06-22
Related to Tails - Bug #13206: Install by cloning sometimes silently fails from a stick installed with UUI Rejected 2017-09-29
Related to Tails - Feature #14447: Consider using Win32 Disk Imager to install from Windows In Progress 2017-08-24
Related to Tails - Feature #11825: Consider switching to Rufus instead of UUI for Windows users Rejected 2016-09-22
Related to Tails - Feature #15292: Distribute a USB image Resolved 2016-04-14 2019-01-29
Has duplicate Tails - Feature #7034: Test Rufus for manual installation on Windows Duplicate 2014-04-07
Blocked by Tails - Bug #7938: Universal USB Installer creates unbootable devices Rejected 2014-09-23
Blocks Tails - Feature #14448: Consider documenting Rufus as a workaround in case UUI doesn't work Rejected 2017-08-24

History

#1 Updated by sajolida 2016-01-22 20:20:55

I tried Rufus 2.6 Portable on Windows Vista and a Tails 1.8 ISO image.

  • Using the “ISO Image” resulted in no “Boot Tails” menu and a blinking cursor. I tried installing twice and got the same result.
  • Using the “DD Image” it worked as expected and I got a DD Tails.

But that’s a cool tool to replace dd on Windows :)

#2 Updated by sajolida 2016-01-22 20:21:08

  • related to Feature #8550: Make Tails Installer work on Windows added

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-25 18:13:36

> * Using the “DD Image” it worked as expected and I got a DD Tails.

> But that’s a cool tool to replace dd on Windows :)

Cool! I’m curious how the data installed on the target drive compares with the original ISO image.

#4 Updated by sajolida 2016-02-01 11:26:09

  • QA Check set to Info Needed

#5 Updated by sajolida 2016-02-21 19:06:03

  • Status changed from Confirmed to Resolved
  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)

> I’m curious how the data installed on the target drive compares with the original ISO image.

I’m not :)

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2016-02-22 16:32:06

>> I’m curious how the data installed on the target drive compares with the original ISO image.

> I’m not :)

Fair enough :)

But until someone does that, we can’t draw conclusions from this ticket, can we?

#7 Updated by sajolida 2016-02-23 13:45:02

  • Status changed from Resolved to In Progress

Hmm… depends on the goal of the ticket, which might be not have been clear enough indeed.

I initially thought (seeing their promising screenshot) was that Rufus was maybe doing the right GPT dance and could replace Tails Installer all the way. And this is not the case. I didn’t analyse that’s wrong on the USB stick but it doesn’t boot.

Now, if Rufus can be a replacement for dd, the most we can make out of it is to:

  • Replace UUI by Rufus in our instructions. I’m not sure that’s worth it given the fact that UUI hasn’t been that problematic over the years.
  • Use it as a replacement for dd on Windows if maybe-some-day we ship disk images instead of ISO images. To the light on this why not… but that does beyond my initial curiosity for testing it.

So I’m leaving this ticket open if someone wants to take over.

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2016-02-26 12:11:24

Understood, and given this context I now think we should close this ticket.

#9 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-24 06:08:07

  • has duplicate Feature #7034: Test Rufus for manual installation on Windows added

#10 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-24 06:10:13

  • related to Bug #7938: Universal USB Installer creates unbootable devices added

#11 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-24 06:10:38

  • blocked by Feature #11825: Consider switching to Rufus instead of UUI for Windows users added

#12 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-24 06:10:42

  • related to deleted (Bug #7938: Universal USB Installer creates unbootable devices)

#13 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-24 06:11:46

  • blocked by Bug #7938: Universal USB Installer creates unbootable devices added

#14 Updated by intrigeri 2016-09-25 02:56:40

> Blocked by Feature Feature #11825: Consider switching to Rufus instead of UUI for Windows users added

Did you mean s/Blocked by/Blocks/?

#15 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-25 10:15:04

  • blocks deleted (Feature #11825: Consider switching to Rufus instead of UUI for Windows users)

#16 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-25 10:15:12

  • blocks Feature #11825: Consider switching to Rufus instead of UUI for Windows users added

#17 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-25 10:15:58

> Did you mean s/Blocked by/Blocks/?

Fixed. It’s good that you’re always on the lookout!

#18 Updated by mercedes508 2017-01-11 13:52:27

  • Assignee set to intrigeri

I went through this ticket, and don’t get if there’s anything left to test according to replace UUI bye Rufus?

If, yes, assign it to me please.

#19 Updated by sajolida 2017-01-11 19:54:55

  • Status changed from In Progress to Rejected
  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

#20 Updated by sajolida 2017-01-11 20:00:03

  • Status changed from Rejected to Confirmed
  • Assignee set to mercedes508

Reopening after reading Feature #11825#note-8 and answering with Feature #11825#note-9. Sorry for the mess!

#21 Updated by jgallias 2017-04-28 04:16:08

sajolida wrote:
> Reopening after reading Feature #11825#note-8 and answering with Feature #11825#note-9. Sorry for the mess!

Add me to the list of people who needed to use Rufus because UUI wouldn’t work.

Thanks.

#22 Updated by sajolida 2017-04-28 12:51:06

Hi jgallias, good to know that we can get in touch with a user facing these issues.

I’ll let mercedes get in touch with you to analyze and document better what we need as explained in Feature #11825#note-9 (failures of UUI and successes of Rufus).

#23 Updated by Anonymous 2017-07-10 12:16:52

Ping @mercedes508?

#24 Updated by mercedes508 2017-07-10 19:12:54

  • Assignee deleted (mercedes508)

Well, last week I got several “UUI not working but Rufus fine”, but don’t get exactly what I should gather as input?

Is the point to reproduce exact same user conditions?

#25 Updated by sajolida 2017-07-10 22:16:34

  • Assignee set to mercedes508
  • QA Check set to Info Needed

Ok… hmm…

To be able to solve a problem (“UUI not working”) we must be able to see it, at least to know when its fixed. So what I need is to be able to reproduce the problem: find parameters and procedures that create a broken Tails through UUI.

Then only we will be able to know:

  • If we can fix UUI to always work.
  • What Rufus does differently and hopefully how to make Rufus work for more people than UUI (all the times I tried it didn’t work and I don’t want to be the first one to try again).

#26 Updated by sajolida 2017-07-11 07:40:00

As an alternative, I’m fine contacting myself these people to try to understand better why UUI doesn’t work for them.

Some other input you could gather is test Rufus yourself, see if it works and report about your setup and procedure.

#27 Updated by sajolida 2017-08-03 17:42:55

  • related to Bug #13206: Install by cloning sometimes silently fails from a stick installed with UUI added

#28 Updated by jgallias 2017-08-07 00:03:23

Latest Tails and UUI worked without issue from my Desktop.

I was able to update several different existing USB Tails drives using the
intermediary drive I created from UUI.

It would seem I am no longer having any issues with UUI, but it might be
good to still have Rufus as a fallback, as it seems like the only other
option when UUI fails for whatever reason.

Thanks.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:42 PM <redmine@labs.riseup.net> wrote:

> Issue Feature #10984 has been updated by sajolida.
>
> Related to Bug Bug #13206: Install by cloning sometimes silently fails from a
> stick installed with UUI added
>
> ————————————————————
> Bug Feature #10984: Test Rufus
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/10984#change-73414
>
> * Author: sajolida
> * Status: Confirmed
> * Priority: Normal
> * Assignee: mercedes508
> * Category: Installation
> * Target version:
> * QA Check: Info Needed
> * Feature Branch:
> * Type of work: Test
> * Blueprint:
> * Easy:
> * Affected tool:
> ————————————————————
> The homepage of Rufus (http://rufus.akeo.ie/) displays “Tails 1.8.1” in
> its opening screenshot. So it’s probably worth testing it.
>
>
>
> —
> You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to
> it, or are involved in it.
> To change your notification preferences, please click here:
> https://labs.riseup.net/code/my/account
>
—

—
John Gallias
john@johngallias.com
<john.gallias@gmail.com>
johngallias.com
keybase.io/jgallias

#29 Updated by sajolida 2017-08-24 16:30:52

  • related to Feature #14447: Consider using Win32 Disk Imager to install from Windows added

#30 Updated by mercedes508 2017-08-24 16:35:50

  • Assignee changed from mercedes508 to anonym

We should verify what does Rufus do when installing Tails ISO onto a USB.
So we can decide if that’s something we want document or to advice to users from help Desk PoV.

#31 Updated by mercedes508 2017-08-24 16:36:39

  • Assignee changed from anonym to sajolida

#32 Updated by mercedes508 2017-08-24 16:39:08

  • blocked by deleted (Feature #11825: Consider switching to Rufus instead of UUI for Windows users)

#33 Updated by mercedes508 2017-08-24 16:39:31

  • related to Feature #11825: Consider switching to Rufus instead of UUI for Windows users added

#34 Updated by sajolida 2017-08-24 17:50:50

  • blocks Feature #14448: Consider documenting Rufus as a workaround in case UUI doesn't work added

#35 Updated by sajolida 2017-08-24 17:51:55

Let’s make sure there’s no regression (like no UEFI boot if using new tools).

#36 Updated by Anonymous 2018-01-17 11:46:04

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to goupille

I would like to close this ticket as a duplicate as we decided not to switch in Feature #11825.
Furthermore @jgallias reported that they did not have problems anymore with recent versions of Rufus.

We decided to document Rufus as a possible fallback if UUI does not work: Feature #14448.
I think we should simply document there that we don’t know if UEFI will work and not spend more time on this.

@helpdesk: I’d still like to know if you have seen recent problems related to UUI? If not, please close this ticket as a duplicate.

#37 Updated by goupille 2018-01-17 19:50:17

> @helpdesk: I’d still like to know if you have seen recent problems related to UUI? If not, please close this ticket as a duplicate.

I think that every week, one or two users are reporting issues with starting a tails device installed with UUI, usually the issue is solved after advising the use of Rufus. however, I don’t know if the issue is related to UUI, or if the user didn’t follow carefully the documentation (e.g. Bug #13206)…

that’s said, I’m ok with closing this ticket

#38 Updated by goupille 2018-01-17 19:52:26

  • Status changed from Confirmed to Duplicate
  • Assignee deleted (goupille)
  • QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

duplicate of Feature #14448

#39 Updated by Anonymous 2018-02-03 16:58:54

I tested Rufus on Windows 7. Had to download supplementary Syslinux versions. This happens automatically after Rufus reported an error. Rufus’ UX is very complicated, not to name it horrible, there are too many options.. Rufus proposed me to choose between ISO install and DD install, once it detected that our ISO image is hybrided. I selected DD mode and I got a bootable USB stick (in legacy mode) and the checksums of sha1sum /dev/sdb1 and sha1sum tails-amd64-3.5.iso matched.

#40 Updated by sajolida 2018-02-18 10:29:47

  • Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
  • Status changed from Duplicate to In Progress
  • Assignee set to sajolida

Now that I have a UEFI laptop, I’ll test again Rufus to see if some of its options lead to a working USB with my UEFI.

#41 Updated by sajolida 2018-06-04 12:49:21

#42 Updated by sajolida 2018-09-10 14:43:23

  • Status changed from In Progress to Rejected
  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)

We now have a contract for Feature #15292 that will document Etcher instead, so I’m rejecting this.