5 ms·
> Uh what!? About every single Linux distro has .iso files available. That doesn't really mean much. The point is that there's practically only disadvantages t
by wadim 2y ago
> Uh what!? About every single Linux distro has .iso files available.
That doesn't really mean much. The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs and using image files instead would make more sense nowadays.
- smaudet 2y ago> The point is that there's practically only disadvantages to ISOs Except burning to "legacy" optical media. That can't be altered once burnt. If I could write it on a stone tablet I would (more durable). Also the author comes off as arrogant/rude, calling people who don't like ISO as "older members". Maybe I'm "old" no longer being a twenty something, but I'm also not (yet) "old".
- fuzzfactor 2y agoIf you wanted to operate using IMG files as reliably as ISO's, what standardization body would you trust the IMG files to conform with? I guess it depends on how sensible different levels of reliability are for your particular application.