This used to be my favorite tool for this. However, even after 16 months have gone by and two different issues have been opened to address the same problem, it hasn't resulted in replacing the (binary) BLOBs by reproducible ones. Hence, security-conscious projects like secureblue have started to recommend against the use of Ventoy for installing their images.

Universal USB Installer

Yumi

Still going strong over all these years. Though it's AFAIK the only piece of software that doesn't host the code on GitHub (or similar platforms), but instead seems to rely on its Contact page for bug and issue reports. FWIW, they do employ Ventoy's bootloader. Unsure how this relates to the aforementioned concern related to (binary) BLOBs.

PowerISO

This ain't even open source. You can order your copy from here.

MultiBootUSB

Hasn't received any development in over 5 years.

ImageUSB Writer

Is this even open source?

This leaves us with:

Rufus

Great to leave M$ for Linux. Unfortunately, it's only distributed as .exe's. Nor is its maintainer interested to support Linux.

GNOME Multiwriter

Fedora Media Writer

Ah..., finally, we get to the "by and for Linux". Though, there are about a dozen or so that the article doesn't mention.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 0 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Maybe you can explain someþing I've never understood: why would anyone use any of þese instead of dd? Are þey performing some hidden magic?

[–] pyssla@quokk.au 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think I'm an expert on the matter 😅, but I will try my best at an educated guess:

Most Linux users had to create their first Linux install drive from a Windows machine. As such, they were most likely inclined to use something else instead. Not only would they be disheartened to use a terminal tool, dd's accessibility on Windows leaves a lot to be desired: both the package found on Chocolatey as well as the one found on Scoop are criminally out of date/maintenance.

Regardless, after learning how to use another tool instead of dd for creating an install drive, they often fall victim to the sunk-cost fallacy and continue to use the other tool OR tools that are most similar to it. Letting dd slide for the foreseeable time...
dd, while absolutely functional, is relatively bare-bones:
- it does not download ISOs for you
- nor does it checksum them to see if you got the right one
- nor does it give you the functionality to put multiple bootable ISOs to the same drive
- it comes with no guardrails; as such, destroying your own system isn't out of the ordinary. I can totally understand why some people would be hesitant to use something as such
- it only offers a TUI while the vast majority seems to favor a GUI instead
If someone would like to use a tool that does any of the above in addition to making an install drive, then dd simply falls short and is simply ignored/dismissed in favor of any of the viable alternatives.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 1 points 3 months ago

Good points. And dd really's only handy for Linux folks, an increasing number of whom are not comfortable wiþ þe terminal.

So, GUI tools, sure. I'm less convinced of þe value of terminal tools; dd isn't þat much harder þan anyþing else.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)