"it's not clear that there was any real issue with the DD approach. Just perhaps a misunderstanding."
How I wish people in this forum applied the same leniency to the ISO/File copy approach used by Rufus, instead of being insta-loaded to blaming it for anything and everything that goes wrong, even when it has nothing to with it.
And that's the root of my problem here. If there is a problem with a DD created media, people will spend time analysing why there might be an issue and try to understand what caused it, instead of defaulting to blaming the manner in which the media has been created or spewing complete bullshit about how Rufus is "silently corrupting" the media (how convenient for an adjective, because then you don't have to explicitly point the finger at what exactly it is doing to corrupt the media, and where exactly that happens).
Up to CentOS 8.2, the file copy/ISO copy method employed by Rufus was a perfectly valid method of installing CentOS, that was supported by the installer. People appeared to use that just fine, and, despite what many here are hell bent on arguing, from the lack of echoes I received on either the issue tracker or through e-mail, I am confident that whatever issue some had with this method during their installation had little to do with the fact that they were using ISO copy (which is something that can be a lot more convenient than DD copy, especially as UEFI boot makes that quite attractive). And yet, instead of promoting a nuanced
"it's not clear that there was any real issue with the ISO approach. Just perhaps a misunderstanding.", as people are doing
when the situation is reversed, boy are suddenly things different, and is the blame shifted entirely to the manner in which the media was created if it turns out that the user did not use DD, even as, up until 8.3, the installation process was, again, fine with supporting a non DD created media.
And, for the record, my current understanding is that the reason why ISO copy/File copy started to fail in CentOS 8.3, has something to do with
this commit, that introduced a regression with regards to defaulting to using the autodetected media when it is provided, which is what ISO mode does.
Sadly however, because the default stance I am seeing from these forums is to just bash the file copy method to a FAT32 drive (which, by the way, does not require using a utility like Rufus if your target is a UEFI system, and can accomplished just as easily entirely manually), instead of trying to properly analyse what might have happened with media detection between 8.2 and 8.3 in order to help CentOS users who may want to have a greater
choice than just
"one method (DD) to rule them all", because it has not yet been reported to Red Hat that they have actually introduced a regression in their installer, you end up with the usual self serving circle of
"The defaults of Rufus are bad, don't use that ever", even if, if you are as nuanced in your approach as not wanting to defaulting to pinning the blame on DD when you see a DD issue, you should agree that the actual situation with regards to ISO mode situation is a lot less clear cut than
"Rufus is simply doing bad job".
In short, I'd appreciate if folks here realized that defaulting to pointing the finger to one utility, when that utility has actually helped people creating CentOS bootable media without much trouble for years (there was one small issue when CentOS 7 was introduced, that had to do with space conversion in labels, but which was relatively
quickly fixed, and until 8.3, I have not been made aware of any specific issue that led to problems with CentOS installation), would instead spend some of that energy doing what I just did (and what I will argue the previous poster also appears to advocate), which is trying to analyse what exactly might be creating the issue, and, possibly report it to the appropriate place (which may actually be with the OS maintainers), if turns out to be a
regression.
Who knows, you might actually end up helping CentOS users, by providing them with a greater choice with regards to the methods they can use to create installation media, regardless of whether the one they end up using might be the one you would
prefer them to use...