Feature #7034

Test Rufus for manual installation on Windows

Added by sajolida 2014-04-07 07:10:20 . Updated 2016-09-24 06:07:53 .

Status:
Duplicate
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Installation
Target version:
Start date:
2014-04-07
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Test
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Installation Assistant
Deliverable for:

Description

Some people pointed out that Rufus worked better than Universal USB Installer in some cases.

That info might be worth being kept in mind, and Rufus is worth being tested.

<http://rufus.akeo.ie/>

So: in Windows, try to create a Tails USB using Rufus, and report :)

Subtasks

Related issues

Is duplicate of Tails - Feature #10984: Test Rufus Rejected 2016-01-22

History

#1 Updated by sajolida 2014-06-29 14:22:19

  • Category set to Installation

#2 Updated by sajolida 2015-01-07 14:11:44

  • blocks Feature #8581: Analyse and simplify the installation and upgrade workflows added

#3 Updated by BitingBird 2015-01-31 20:21:06

  • Description updated
  • Starter changed from No to Yes

#4 Updated by sajolida 2015-02-02 14:09:21

  • blocked by deleted (Feature #8581: Analyse and simplify the installation and upgrade workflows)

#5 Updated by sajolida 2015-02-02 14:09:30

#6 Updated by sajolida 2015-02-02 14:10:47

#7 Updated by sajolida 2015-02-02 18:18:08

  • Status changed from Confirmed to Resolved
  • Assignee set to intrigeri
  • Priority changed from Low to Normal
  • QA Check set to Info Needed
  • Starter deleted (Yes)

I tried this and it works. I didn’t find any blocker against using it. Here are some pros and cons with respect to UUI:

Pros:

Rufus is served from HTTPS (https://rufus.akeo.ie/). But this can be mitigated in the case of UUI by Feature #8828.

Rufus has some cryptographic signature of some sort that makes Windows happy when opening it. You still get a screen like https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/installation/manual/windows/01-run.jpg but it’s an info and not a warning.

Cons:

Rufus asks for the download of extra files to be able to do syslinux 6.03 while it only has syslinux 5.10. The download and install works, but that requires an extra network activity before being able to do the job.

We’ve been using UUI for years without much troubles. Rufus is new for us.

The interface of UUI has less options and it is more clear where you have to enter the ISO. See:

* Rufus: https://rufus.akeo.ie/pics/rufus_en.png

* UUI: https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/installation/manual/windows/05-browse-iso.png

The Rufus website says that it is faster. I didn’t notice any big difference while installing the same key with UUI. Both were a bit less than 2 minutes on a SanDisk USB 3.

intrigeri, do you have more info than “worked better than Universal USB Installer in some cases” to push in favor of Rufus?

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2015-02-02 18:49:46

> Rufus asks for the download of extra files to be able to do syslinux 6.03 while it only has syslinux 5.10. The download and install works, but that requires an extra network activity before being able to do the job.

Sounds like a blocker to me. Regardless of the installer being used, it has to use the syslinux binary we ship in the ISO, not some version it downloads itself (probably in scary ways, BTW), that will sometimes be desynchronized with ours, leading to hard to debug and weird boot errors that the frontdesk won’t be able to handle.

> intrigeri, do you have more info than “worked better than Universal USB Installer in some cases” to push in favor of Rufus?

Nope.

#9 Updated by sajolida 2015-02-03 10:56:05

  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

#10 Updated by intrigeri 2015-03-06 06:59:42

See Feature #8802#note-6 for a testing report of Rufus on Mac.

#11 Updated by sajolida 2015-05-19 19:21:00

  • Affected tool set to Installation Assistant

#12 Updated by sajolida 2016-09-24 06:07:53

  • Status changed from Resolved to Duplicate

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