• pyssla@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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leaves a lot to be desired: both the package found on Chocolatey as well as the one found on Scoop are criminally out of date/maintenance.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.

    • Ŝan@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days 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.