Joerg Schilling schrieb: > Bill Davidsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Try to learn that hald on Linux is broken and acts on wrong status changes. >>> >>> >> Nothing is ever your fault. Instead of learning from the applications >> which burn CDs and DVDs without being root, your software has problems >> with hald and you refuse to accept that changing the hald config fixes >> the problems and others can work with hald as is, and insist hald is at >> fault. >> > > besides the fact that you _need_ root privileges in order to do the tasks > cdrecord does, Not true.
1. You tend to mix up the goal and the way to get there. Your goals are: being permitted to open a device, send raw commands, lock pages into memory, and use real-time scheduling, perhaps more. There is not only one way there. Your way there is to require super user permissions, which means that at the same time you get permission for all privileged operations at the same time. It goes without saying that from a programmer's POV super user permission is an easily solution, since that's universal (not system-specific) thus you need not port this part to different operating systems. 2. You mix up cdrecord's ambitions and those other applications may have. Other applications may decide to restrict their offerings when they cannot obtain all privileges. For instance, an application that cannot obtain realtime permissions and cannot lock pages into memory may refuse to write media that do not allow single-block overwrites. Such applications can still write DVD-whatever. Or, if the user requests reduced quality and enables Burnproof/Justlink/whatever, can still write a CD without realtime scheduling. HOWEVER your wording often reads as though the decisions you made for cdrecord were the only possible ones. That's true for cdrecord and for software that you write, but not for other applications, or other programmers. > I am of course willing to help the hald people to fix their software. > After a bit of behind-the-scenes discussion with Thomas of scdbackup fame, I start wondering if Linux's device access model is up to the task. Let's collect some facts first, before we start pointing fingers at anyone. How do operating systems (Solaris/openSolaris, *BSD, Linux) provide EXCLUSIVE access to a device? I'd naively tend to believe that if MyCdWriteApplication has /dev/blahwriter0 open for exclusive access, no other application should be able to bypass that exclusive reservation. Yet Thomas claims he's seen such things happen. I'm not sure if that's a user-space or kernel-space problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
