Hmm, what method did you use to back it up? It sounds to me like something got corrupted, though perhaps someone more experienced could identify a different issue. What I usually do to clone LUKS partitions is use a liveUSB (so no files change while backing up), then use cryptsetup to create a new LUKS partition on the backup drive if it's a new drive (otherwise for incremental backups you can skip this step), then unlock both drives and rsync to the backup drive. This is also usually faster than pure cloning, as cloning would also copy the (encrypted) empty space in the partition, and for incremental backups, rsync will only copy the changed data so it's much faster.

This would also have the benefit of preventing corruption on transfer, because rsync uses checksums to verify the file was properly reconstructed in the new location, whereas something like dd won't have the granularity to check per-file checksums (especially if used to clone a whole encrypted partition).

Need more info:

• How did you encrypt it in the first place
• What command are you using to try and mount it now?
• Do you have any other identifying LUKS info about the volume? (sudo blkid /dev/whatever)

I once had a similar issue, caused by the keyboard layout in the os installer (when I defined the password) being different from the keyboard layout used for unlocking the drive. I quickly leaned to type my password in qwerty on my azerty keyboard and all is fine now.

Another similar thing I'm thinking about is trying with caps lock, as you may have had it on when defining the password

Their only chance there was the late 90s to early 2000s. MS is one company compared to the totality of mega corporations using Linux and MS also uses a lot of Linux. More money at play in the server market than the general desktop OS market. Linux is the server OS

The US government increasingly uses Linux. Other countries pick up Linux at a faster rate than the US. A higher percentage of people use MacOS today than 20 years ago

My expectation: nothing. At least, nothing on the OS side. I don’t think windows is very important to microsoft strategically.

Nowadays, the way to capture audiences is not so much via a proprietary OS, but via proprietary apps.

And in that sense, microsoft is proceeding exactly as expected: more and more of the windows ecosystem either exists on the web, or is available on linux and macos too.

I can see a future where windows only exists for backwards compatibility, but otherwise:
- dotnet apps run on linux (via dotnet core)
- edge runs on linux
- powershell runs on linux
- visual studio code runs on linux
- most of the rest of microsoft’s suite runs in the web

So what does microsoft need to do once windows collapses in the desktop space? Imo not much, really. Those people and companies that are tied to microsoft products will still be. Only, they might be running them on linux.

Edit to add: I am gonna place a bet that we’re gonna see an official microsoft linux distribution by the end of 2035

Just my guess here, but...

The desktop/laptop sort of form factor is associated in people's minds with unlocked bootloaders. People expect to be able to install Linux on them if they want to. Tablets, game systems, and other sorts of consumer electronics, not so much. I'm thinking Microsoft will do what it can to push hardware manufacturers and the software industry as a whole more in the direction of the kinds of devices that consumers already expect to be locked down like tablets or game systems that are "streaming" game systems. And that way, the bootloader will prevent folks from switching to Linux.

Honestly, ms won't do anything.

unofficial statement out of Microsoft have Linux VMs overtaking the Windows VMs in Azure.

Why should they worry about losing a once off $1100 sale of a Server 2025 license when they can sell you a 2 CPU 8Gb ram Azure VM for $150 a month? Or $113/m commited for 3 years ($4000 total)

Embrace, extend, extinguish.

SQL Server runs on Linux. Azure supports Linux. The next step is to extend into their own distro, get everyone using it, then drop support for mainstream Linux.

Will it work? Maybe. They'll have to make Microsoft Linux more attractive than Debian and Red Hat.

Well there is the 9/11 change that may be happening soon: techrights.org/n/2025/08/26/Th…

Its possible a LOT of linux machines wont work after this date.

Windows is only 12% of Microsoft's revenue, and between Mac, Linux and ChromeOS, it really doesn't have a monopoly anymore on desktop (about 70%). On top of that, desktop usage in general is decreasing, and is already less than 50% of all web traffic.

What I'm saying is that I think it's safe to say something else will likely "kill" Windows long before Linux ever becomes a serious threat to it.

Some others have already said the "embrace, extend, extinguish" but here's my take on it. Pair it with Secure Boot and TPM 2.0

• Embrace: Secure Boot can already work with Linux, how lucky! This gives them not exactly control, but authoritative denial over your boot process and hardware.
• Extend: This is the part that remains to be seen. If they feel threatened enough by the shift in the gaming landscape, mind you not over losing out on sales or the hearts of gamers or anything, but again control, they may begin to make Linux offerings. A concession to allow an honest to god, thick Office client on Linux would certainly appeal to some. Adobe gets in on that action to back them up with Photoshop and Activision with Call of Duty, etc.
• Extinguish: TPM 2.0. One of the less talked about features of this is remote attestation ("Remote attestation allows changes to the user's computer to be detected by authorized parties. For example, software companies can identify unauthorized changes to software, including users modifying their software to circumvent commercial digital rights restrictions." - DRM). We're already seeing this with CoD on Windows. They'll allow you to run much requested Windows software on Linux, even provide direct support possibly, but at the cost of not precisely control but authoritative denial. Which still works out to be control in most ways since if you want to use the software and they are to remotely attest, they can also insist that part of that attestation is you running some sort of telemetry or not running software they disagree with.

The reason I think this route is highly likely is because it plays well with uninformed consumers. To the untrained eye it looks like they're giving ground and actually allowing for broader support of their software while effectively gaining control over the environment once again and removing the biggest benefits of running FOSS on your system.