Istalling linux to USB instead of making a Live USB?

Basically: This live USB thing is annoying. Can't I just install ubuntu onto an external drive? IS there any reason I shouldn't install it on a 128 GB thumb drive?

>>>/g/fglt
>>>/g/sqt

>>60099739
Why the hell do they use those pics?

Searched linux earlier and thought those were just random shitposting.

>>60099717
Usb sticks are Flash Memory
Flash Memory has limited read/writes

An Operating System uses up a lot of this while it's on (because of tmp files, swap, basically all of /var/)

This can reduce the Lifetime of the USB Drastically

>>60099717
Not only will you ruin the flash drive quickly but it will be incredibly slow if you want to be able to save data and have it be there next time you boot up the system, I tried it wit Kali, won't work, extremely laggy.

>>60100019
this
i've run a os of of sd cards for a couple of years because autist and one sd card doesnt last more than half a year reliably i found depending on use i.e.

>>60099437
Yes it will work fine

>>60100019
>>60100067

This problems exists with SD cards on Android phones, using the 'Adoptable Storage'?

>>60100177
Yes, it even applies to the internal NAND flash. It's just less likely to be an issue on a phone partly due to the average user not doing much writing and the OS is also optimized for flash.

>>60099437
Persistence is usually limited to 1-4gb. It's slow as shit also. Just setup a VM, it's quick and easy.

>>60100019
Most SSD's are also NAND flash

Therefore, you shouldn't buy a laptop with an SSD or install an OS on a desktop SSD

You basically shouldn't use an SSD

That's what you're saying

>>60100789
A desktop SSD will support TRIM, and have gigs of overprovisioning and sane wear leveling. None of this applies to SD cards and the typical USB flash drive.

>>60099437
This kills the USB dongle

>>60100060
>I tried it wit Kali, won't work, extremely laggy.
Depends entirely on how fast your drive is. I run Mint from a Sandisk Ultra Fit, and it's faster than the same setup from my HDD. That's from a USB 2.0 port, even.

/g/ keeps parroting the limited writes meme, but I never see anyone post benchmarks or cite reputable sources on that. What little research I've done seems to suggest that the number of write cycles on modern NAND is large enough that you're unlikely to wear out a drive with real world use.

Even if that's a concern, there are steps to reduce the amount of writes you make, like disabling swap and mounting with noatime.

I did that with kubuntu on a fast stick. Worked just fine.

Used to do it with a 64gb flashdrive, eventually everything would slow to a crawl or shit would randomly break. Don't bother, USB3 isn't fast enough to run an OS well, thunderbolt SSD is the only viable option.

Maybe with a super lean GNU/Linux OS it could be done long term, nothing graphically intensive and don't expect to handle any decently sized files.

>used to run Fedora for years on an 8gb usb2.0 flash drive
>never gave me problems
>regardless of what computers i used it on (old winXP machines at school, various laptops, etc.)

>run ubuntu budgie on a samsung 64gb usb3.0 drive now
>now paranoid of problems

>>60100115

This, just make sure to format the flash drive properly, it needs to have bootable flags and the partition has to be primary.

Don't expect it to be very usable due to low write speeds.