Brasero won't recognise Ubuntu doenload iso format

Asked by Michael Andrews

I currently use Ubuntu 12 LTS. I have tried to download Ubuntu 16 LTS but Brasero won't recognise the format of the downloaded ISO file.
I tried manually selecting ISO9660 (the only ISO option given), but the resulting disk cannot be accessed. So I guess this was the wrong format!

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Ubuntu Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Manfred Hampl
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said :
#1

Did you MD5 test the ISO you downloaded?
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToMD5SUM

Revision history for this message
Michael Andrews (botanic88) said :
#2

Thanks for your quick reply. I have now tested the ISO file with md5sum and the resulting string is very different from the one specified for the download.

Apparently the string should be:
9e4e30c37c99b4e029b4bfc2ee93eec2 *ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-i386.iso

0r
17643c29e3c4609818f26becf76d29a3 *ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso

I have tried both downloads (several times) and neither is correct.
What can I do?

Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said :
#3

Redownload the file. It has corrupted during the download. If you use torrents then the torrent protocol will do checks for you

Revision history for this message
Michael Andrews (botanic88) said :
#4

I have downloaded the file several times and each time I get the same checksum string. So if it's getting corrupted then it's getting corrupted in exactly the same way each time.

This is puzzling!

Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said :
#5

What MD5sum are you getting?

Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said :
#6

You could try another burning application. I've never had success with Brasero and us XFBurn if I burn disks (extremely rare these days for myself)

Revision history for this message
Manfred Hampl (m-hampl) said :
#7

What program are you using to download the .iso file, and from which source?

Do you want the 32bit ("i386") or 64 bit ("amd64") version?

Revision history for this message
Michael Andrews (botanic88) said :
#8

I will try to answer all the queries about my problem.

I am downloading from ubuntu.com/downloads.
I have tried various versions (including 64 bit and 32 bit) and get the same problem with each one.
I download by clicking 'download' on the ubuntu site. I imagine that my web browser (Firefox) does the downloading.
I don't normally experience any downloading problems but I mainly download pdf files.

When I have downloaded the ubuntu 16.04.1 desktop version two files go into my Downloads folder:
ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso and
ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso.part

I md5sum this from a terminal by typing 'cd Downloads' then 'md5sum ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso'
Doing this results in the following string:
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
This is very different from the string given by ubuntu which is as follows:
17643c29e3c4609818f26becf76d29a3 *ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso

Can anyone tell me whether the md5sum command takes both the downloaded files together. The 'iso' file is 0 bytes whereas the 'iso.part' file is 2.5Mbytes.

I suppose I could try another disk burner, but the problem appears to be in the downloading: the verification strings don't match.

If I get desperate I will have to buy a ubuntu installation disk!

Revision history for this message
Best Manfred Hampl (m-hampl) said :
#9

A 0 byte ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso and a ubuntu-16.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso.part file in your Downloads folder indicate that the download is not complete, or has aborted.

I recommend that you delete these two files and re-try the download.

Revision history for this message
Michael Andrews (botanic88) said :
#10

Thanks for that Manfred.

I should have realised that the download would take a long time (there was no kind of progress information).
So I have now done it and it worked!

I'm not certain whether I need the 64 bit version or the 32 bit one. My processor is as follows:

Intel® Core™ i3 CPU 560 @ 3.33GHz × 4

I might just down load both versions and try them!

Revision history for this message
Michael Andrews (botanic88) said :
#11

Thanks Manfred Hampl, that solved my question.

Revision history for this message
Manfred Hampl (m-hampl) said :
#12

Both versions (32 and 64 bit) should work with your hardware. You can choose any.