> > In some cases this is probably not easy to over come, find for example > > just seems to need a lot of options because of what it does. A CD/DVD > > writing program on the other hand probably doesn't need to be that > > complex. Personally if I felt all these options really did need to be > > set I'd have the command itself take a 'profile' - and maybe some higher > > level things that use cdrecord(1) actually do that. > > If you lioke to support more than the rudimentary things cdrw allows you > to do, > you need many options. > > cdrw only writes Track At Once. > > cdrecord allows you to e.g. write in raw mode and in case you belive that > this is > not needed, you would need to throw away all Lite-ON drives because they > write defective CDs unless you use the raw mode. > > cdrw is just a program that is on the feature support level, cdrecord has > been > 10 years ago. For this reason, it does not make sense to claim that you > believe > that cdrw is simpler in usage.... > > Joerg
I (as a daily [and multiplatform] year-long cdrecord(-ProDVD) user) absolutely agree to what Joerg has said! If "cdrw is better than cdrecord[, because it has less and easier to understand options]", then this would be logically equal to saying "life is easier after one is finally dead[, because you have probably less problems then]". Sorry to say that, but it is true. Prove the opposite. Nobody may be able to. Plus: cdrecord is more than just the 'cdrecord' binary itself. Don't forget the other tools (including 'readcd') and libs (libscg) shipping with it. 'readcd' is very important! Summary: If one needs to perform more complicated tasks, than just burning a pre-made iso, or burning the holiday photo album, then the schily tools are _essential_. Period. Why don't people see this? Martin _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
