Pros of Etcher

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• User-friendly interface with a simple, intuitive design
• Supports writing to multiple drives simultaneously

Cons of Etcher

• Larger file size and resource usage
• Slower write speeds compared to MediaWriter
• Less focused on Fedora-specific features

Code Comparison

MediaWriter (C++):

void WriterThread::run()
{
    if (m_image->status() == Image::READY)
        writeCompressedImage();
    else
        writeUncompressedImage();
}

Etcher (JavaScript):

function writeImage(drive, image, options) {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    const writer = createWriter(drive, image, options);
    writer.on('finish', resolve);
    writer.on('error', reject);
  });
}

MediaWriter is specifically designed for Fedora and uses C++, focusing on efficient image writing. Etcher, written in JavaScript, offers a more general-purpose solution with cross-platform compatibility. While MediaWriter excels in Fedora-specific tasks and performance, Etcher provides a more versatile and user-friendly experience across multiple operating systems.

Pros of Ventoy

• Supports multiple ISO files on a single USB drive
• Works with a wide range of operating systems and bootable images
• Allows for easy updating and adding of ISO files without reformatting

Cons of Ventoy

• Requires initial setup and installation on the USB drive
• May not be as user-friendly for beginners compared to MediaWriter
• Lacks specific integration with Fedora or other distributions

Code Comparison

MediaWriter (C++):

void WriterThread::run()
{
    if (!m_image->write(m_device)) {
        emit error(m_image->errorString());
    }
    emit finished();
}

Ventoy (C):

int VentoyFillMBR(int fd, uint64_t DiskSizeInBytes)
{
    int rc;
    uint64_t Part1Start;
    uint64_t Part1End;
    uint64_t Part2Start;
    uint64_t Part2End;

MediaWriter is focused on writing a single image to a device, while Ventoy manages multiple bootable images on a single device. MediaWriter's code is more straightforward for its specific task, whereas Ventoy's code handles more complex partitioning and multi-boot scenarios.

Pros of Rufus

• Supports a wider range of operating systems and image formats
• Faster writing speeds and more efficient resource usage
• More advanced features like bad blocks check and custom partition schemes

Cons of Rufus

• Windows-only application, limiting cross-platform usage
• Less user-friendly interface for beginners
• Lacks integration with specific Linux distributions like Fedora

Code Comparison

MediaWriter (C++):

void WriterThread::run()
{
    if (!m_image->write(m_device)) {
        emit error(m_image->errorString());
        return;
    }
    emit finished();
}

Rufus (C):

BOOL WriteImage(HANDLE hPhysicalDrive, HANDLE hSourceImage)
{
    BOOL bRet = FALSE;
    DWORD dwSize;
    BYTE buffer[BUFFER_SIZE];

    while (ReadFile(hSourceImage, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE, &dwSize, NULL) && dwSize > 0) {
        if (!WriteFile(hPhysicalDrive, buffer, dwSize, &dwSize, NULL))
            goto out;
    }
    bRet = TRUE;
out:
    return bRet;
}

Both projects aim to create bootable USB drives, but Rufus offers more flexibility and features at the cost of platform limitations, while MediaWriter provides a simpler, cross-platform solution with tighter integration for Fedora and other Linux distributions.

Pros of UNetbootin

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Supports a wide range of Linux distributions and other operating systems
• Can create bootable USB drives from ISO files or download distributions directly

Cons of UNetbootin

• Less frequently updated compared to MediaWriter
• User interface may feel outdated
• Limited customization options for advanced users

Code Comparison

MediaWriter (C++):

void WriterWorker::work()
{
    if (m_image->status() == Image::DOWNLOAD_FAILED) {
        emit finished(WriterWorker::FAILED);
        return;
    }
    // ... (rest of the code)
}

UNetbootin (C++):

void unetbootin::runinstusb()
{
    if (!installType.startsWith("USB"))
        return;
    if (targetDrive == "")
        return;
    // ... (rest of the code)
}

Both projects use C++ for their core functionality. MediaWriter's code appears more modern and structured, with better error handling and status management. UNetbootin's code is simpler but may lack some of the robustness found in MediaWriter.

MediaWriter focuses specifically on creating Fedora live USB drives, while UNetbootin supports a broader range of distributions and operating systems. MediaWriter offers a more polished and up-to-date user interface, whereas UNetbootin provides greater flexibility in terms of supported systems.