Re: [CentOS] ISO burning challenge -- pilgrims progress

2007-12-31 Thread William L. Maltby
It's to bad you couldn't continue the prior thread. Would have been better to have everything in one thread. http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-December/091666.html On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 00:04 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote: First the Storix drive works just fine under DSL 4.2.1 on

Re: [CentOS] ISO burning challenge -- pilgrims progress

2007-12-31 Thread Robert Moskowitz
William L. Maltby wrote: It's to bad you couldn't continue the prior thread. Would have been better to have everything in one thread. OK. I see your point here. http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-December/091666.html On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 00:04 -0500, Robert Moskowitz

Re: [CentOS] ISO burning challenge -- pilgrims progress

2007-12-31 Thread William L. Maltby
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 12:16 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote: William L. Maltby wrote: snip Over with DSL, I learned that they DON'T use the form: dev=/dev/scd0, but rather something like dev=0,0,1 where the 0,0,1 was learned via cdrecord -scanbus. So I have been doing the -scanbus

[CentOS] ISO burning challenge -- pilgrims progress

2007-12-30 Thread Robert Moskowitz
First the Storix drive works just fine under DSL 4.2.1 on my Libretto. So the drive is fine, the media is fine. And cdrecord on DSL reports the media to be Manuf. index: 27 Manufacturee: Prodisc Technology Inc. I have all of ONE system with Centos 4 on it. A Trixbox 2.2; I added cdrecord