Talk:List of tools to create bootable USB

"ULUMFW" (now "cd2usb") and other non-notable, command-line scripts
I don't believe obscure command-line scripts are noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia. Literally anyone with a bare minimum knowledge of shell scripting or windows batch scripting can hack together a primitive command-line based installation script like "ULUMFW" in less than 100 lines in a single day. We need to set the cutoff somewhere, otherwise we'll end up with an article overflowing with the hundreds of "isotostick.sh", "usbcopy", and pendrivelinux shell scripts and batch files, their distro-specific variants, and work-alike scripts. The consensus for listing standards, based on the existing collection of tools, appeared to be notable (as in has WP:RS and several thousand google search results), GUI-based, sophisticated programs. I'd like someone to affirm this, or otherwise establish a reasonable cutoff that doesn't turn Wikipedia into a dumping ground for links to hundreds of obscure scripts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.242.7.19 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Also, just to add the relevant Wikipedia Policy: WP:LINKFARM: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." 18.242.7.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC).
 * cd2usb is one of the few windows tools that supports ubuntu and persistence files, it is hosted by notable sites like softpedia and brothersoft, it is also included on Super OS, a notable distro with a wikipedia article, so I think it should be included. SF007 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that! "Portable Linux" is another tool without noteable references anywhere, but it's creator Rudd-O is adding links on this page to promote it. DO NOT WANT! 85.176.238.58 (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Tool" needs a definition
The term "tool" needs a definition. CD2USB is a full-fledged Windows application that requires nothing else once it is installed. On the other hand, dd is a "true" tool -- it doesn't do anything particularly useful alone but is required to do all sorts of other things and these other things require additional tools. A good (marketable) name will imply something desirable but no rule exists that requires a name to mean something in particular.

CD2USB does not do what the name seems to imply. That is, it does not convert a CD (ISO 9660) to a USB "equivalent". It may well convert a CD with a particular set of files in it to a bootable Ubuntu USB image and it may even go on to actually write the image to the USB device. Well-known operating systems (Unix, Linux, BSD, VMS, AIX, HP/UX, COS, IRIX, and others) require several "tools" to carry out the needed steps. The Ubuntu application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb-creator is an application, just as Windows CD2USB is an application. There is nothing wrong with this. But comparing them with a tool is like comparing a full-fledged machine shop with a screwdriver.

The "information age" was a number of years ago. Wikipedia content will become the useful repository of verifiable information if we stick to the relatively strict guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. If a name implies a use, then the name implies a use. Writing (not reporting) about what an application really does is where Wikipedia can have the most value.

A table similar to this would be helpful if included in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_USB and it has the neccesary columns added to it. But it should not be a stand-alone entry.

Kernel.package (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that stuff like "cd2usb" and "dd" are different in nature, but I don't have an answer for you. If you want, feel free to change "tool" to "application". Merging to the Live USB article also seems a good idea. --SF007 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Other tools, etc.
There must be a lot of these, given that of the 4 I've tried, only UNetbootin was on the list. Others: Also, I could be wrong but I don't think Wubi counts. Wubi is for installing Linux inside a Windows file system for easy setup and removal that doesn't disturb the Windows installation.
 * MultiBootISOs
 * YUMI
 * Novicorp WinToFlash

And yeah, putting dd on the list is silly, though it should be mentioned and link to some page of instructions for doing something manually or through a short script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.208.222 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing Description for Operating System Support list
There is no description of what "Operating System Support" or what the criteria is for this list. Will the authors of this list please add a qualifying statement below the section heading to identify the relevance of this list? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing description of Function, Purpose, Relevance
I am frustrated because these lists do not make any distinction between Live USB with a complete OS, a limited special purpose utility, or an OS installation utility. There is no description of the purpose / function of the software items listed. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk)

dd for Windows not included
Is it honest to show dd as if it was for Linux only, and omit chrysocome.net's dd for windows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.48.50 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Operating system support, how is "host, target, and only yes" defined?
What does it mean, when a tool says "Windows = host/target"? Does it mean, the tool can create an installable windows bootmedium or does it mean the tool is available for windows, in other words, runs on windows? --37.209.89.166 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiboot
Every multiboot tool would have its own page (article).--Lagoset (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WintoFlash
I'm going to run system restore after using this. Not sure what adware/malware it installed... Would be nice if someone list that over here.

The windows xp usb it made did work though.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.198.181 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

YUMI
YUMI doesn't have its own article on this wiki, and admittedly most of the sources describing it are of low quality. The tool itself seems to be quite functional.

I've added it back into the list, but if it's better omitted, I'm in no position to object. Please do let me know why, though--I'm still learning. --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tools to create Live USB systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205150525/http://subrosasoft.com/software/freeware/dasboot-2-0 to http://subrosasoft.com/software/freeware/dasboot-2-0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Only tools listed on Wikipedia are included" : ?!?
The article specify that "This is a list of utilities for creating a live USB. Only those listed on Wikipedia are included."

It really doesn't seem to be a good idea, in my opinion. There are several tools that are very useful when I write this comment (in 2023), but which do not have a Wikipedia article, so they just can't appear in this list...


 * For example, in this article, for "Universal USB Installer (UUI)", it is specified "If you are looking to add multiple Live Linux distributions, System Diagnostic Tools, Antivirus Utilities, and Windows Installers, you should use YUMI Multiboot Software, instead." So YUMI is a more powerful tool than UUI. But we just can't add it in the list, just because YUMI doesn't have its own Wikipedia article... It's weird for me.


 * And in the other hand, there are tools that have a Wikipedia article, like "LinuxLive USB Creator (LiLi)", but that are not maintained anymore, but have a Wikipedia article, so these tools appears in the list...

This rule of listing only tools that have a Wikipedia article is bad. I had begun to improve this article, adding some tools, adding new informations that can be useful (like Persistence support), and I was ready to add more informations (like UEFI support, or Secure Boot support). But @MrOllie reverted some of my changes, in accordance with the rule above-mentioned.

With this rule, I won't modify this article anymore, it doesn't make sense for me. It won't be very up to date... Sincerely, Lostinthiswhirlpool (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. 'Has a preexisting Wikipedia article' is the most common list inclusion criterion used on Wikipedia, particularly on lists of software. I'm sorry that you disagree with it so much you don't want to work on the list any more, but the criterion serves an important role in keeping Wikipedia on-mission as an encyclopedia and not a place to make directories of software. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)