Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Enright wrote:
On 8/8/06, Hugh McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: on my system at least, cdrecord seems to win in the always-important
not burning coaster DVDs stakes though, unlike cdrw, which dies at the
start for some reason. So I'm
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 11:17 pm, Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Overall I have to agree that cdrw wins on ease of use with cdrw -i
file.
Kind of surprising that it doesn't even require cdctl or cdadm to make it
work. (pulling tongue out of cheek;-)
If Sun
Eric Enright wrote:
On 8/8/06, Hugh McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: on my system at least, cdrecord seems to win in the always-important
not burning coaster DVDs stakes though, unlike cdrw, which dies at the
start for some reason. So I'm grateful for this, but it would certainly
be nice
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opinion:
Personally I detest with a passion the CLI that cdrecord has despite it
being technically good at actually doing the writing. I like the
simple interface that cdrw provides.The simple cdrw CLI could be
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
(I hesitate to intrude in this heated discussion, but.)
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I am not sure whether you did read the man page for cdrecord in depth
The very fact you have to read the cdrecord man page in depth is the issue.
[...]
but it seems that you don't
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
On Monday 07 August 2006 10:24 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
This is really strange, so you like the hard to memorize options from cdrw?
Well, it does not support many of them tell me how you would design a
program that supports nearly 100 options without using long options.
I would change
On Monday 07 August 2006 10:46 pm, Darren J Moffat wrote:
I've only ever needed to use one option: -i to specify the image name.
Occasionally I use -l to list but that is usually for demo purposes
rather than actually using it.
Funny you mention the -l option. That was helpful when many
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 10:24 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
This is really strange, so you like the hard to memorize options from
cdrw?
Well, it does not support many of them tell me how you would design
a
program that supports nearly 100 options without using long
Martin Bochnig wrote:
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
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 10:46 pm, Darren J Moffat wrote:
I've only ever needed to use one option: -i to specify the image name.
Occasionally I use -l to list but that is usually for demo purposes
rather than actually using it.
Funny you mention the -l option. That was
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Think about it, programs like X-ripper, Arson, or K3b are proof that most
users might not be good at remembering 170 options for a program.
Nobody needs to do this (nor is reading the man-page actually required more
than once): The cdrecord-CLI itself does provide
On Monday 07 August 2006 11:17 pm, Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Overall I have to agree that cdrw wins on ease of use with cdrw -i
file.
Kind of surprising that it doesn't even require cdctl or cdadm to make it
work. (pulling tongue out of cheek;-)
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86
Nobody needs to do this (nor is reading the man-page actually required
more than once): The cdrecord-CLI itself does provide _enough_
self-documentation.
Looks like you missed a smiley there,
Why??
if you haven't then I'm sorry you
are so narrow minded
I do have a problem with that.
Hugh McIntyre wrote:
Overall I have to agree that cdrw wins on ease of use with cdrw -i
file. But the good news may be that almost the only issue with
cdrecord is the need to specify dev=a,b,c. And to use -scanbus before
this to find the device.
I too hate to jump in to the detailed
Joerg Schilling wrote:
The very fact you have to read the cdrecord man page in depth is the
issue.
This is strange, it seems that you did not realize that it is not possible
to use cdrw without reading it's man page. The CLI from cdrw seems to be
even worse than the one from cdrecord.
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is definitely not. I guess that you just did read the man page for cdrw
many times but did not do the same for cdrecord.
Well I did use it without ever reading the man page (and neither you are
I can prove otherwise :-)). I know that with some
Joerg Schilling writes:
Well we will just have to disagree on that, for me cdrw(1) is very
simple and its list of options is just right
for me; even though I hardly use any of them.
For me cdrw is very non-intuitive. Cdrecord on the other side works completely
intuitive and it does not
I'm done, I'm going to continue using cdrw(1) because it does what I
need and doesn't confuse me.
I will never use cdrw because it confuses me.
Cdrecord is easier to use.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED](uni)
Can we move this discussion off to a smaller distribution? (Maybe just
Joerg, Alan, Darren and James?) It has moved from a clearly
opensolaris-wide topic (Nexenta!) to a rehash of CDDL-vs-GPL and now has
degenerated into a usability design review and marketing bake-off
between two CD/DVD
On 8/8/06, Hugh McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: on my system at least, cdrecord seems to win in the always-important
not burning coaster DVDs stakes though, unlike cdrw, which dies at the
start for some reason. So I'm grateful for this, but it would certainly
be nice not to have to
Joerg Schilling writes:
Well we will just have to disagree on that, for me cdrw(1) is very
simple and its list of options is just right
for me; even though I hardly use any of them.
For me cdrw is very non-intuitive. Cdrecord on the other side works
completely
intuitive and it does not
Hugh McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, people may complain what about the scan time on a system with
hundreds of drives. I think the same complaint may have been raised
during cdrw development, but the ease of use argument won out, as well
as well in that case, specify dev=
If
Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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!
Do not forget mkisofs and cdda2wav.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the hard to memorize options of cdrw, I use all of about 3 in the
absolute worst scenario, and I usually don't specify speed or device, it
actually knows without me telling it.
-i = image
-p = speed
Why is there a need to use the non-intuitive
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that I even suggested that cdrw(1) be reimplemented using the
cdrecord library/binaries.
This isn't about how good the individual programs are at putting the
bits onto or getting them off of CD/DVD media. For me this *is* ONLY a
UI issue.
Can we move this discussion off to a smaller distribution? (Maybe just
Joerg, Alan, Darren and James?) It has moved from a clearly
opensolaris-wide topic (Nexenta!) to a rehash of CDDL-vs-GPL and now has
degenerated into a usability design review and marketing bake-off
between two CD/DVD
Matt Ingenthron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here in the El Segundo office, the service guys have wrappered cdrecord
with a script to avoid the scanbus and device stuff on a shared system
for writing discs. Despite that, I still use cdrw, because it works and
I'm so lazy I don't even bother
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
Well we will just have to disagree on that, for me cdrw(1) is very
simple and its list of options is just right
for me; even though I hardly use any of them.
For me cdrw is very non-intuitive. Cdrecord on the other
Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I want to burn a bloody DVD then I should type :
cdrecord foo.iso
This is whyt cdrecord allows you to do since a long time.
If you like to know it exactly: longer than cdrw exists
This is why I cannot understand why people claim that they have
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No disrespect to Jörg, but FWIW I wholeheartedly concur. (I really don't
like the -longoptionname nomenclature, as used by find(1)).
This is really strange, so you like the hard to memorize options from cdrw?
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is really strange, so you like the hard to memorize options from cdrw?
The only cdrw options I've used are -i, -M, and -C (and -i is by far the
most often one I use).
They are hard to memorize even if there are only a few of them.
-C is not needed
Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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!
Do not forget mkisofs and cdda2wav.
Joerg
Of course not.
I
Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course not.
I just wasn't 100% sure they were invented and written by you.
mkisofs and cdda2wav are not written and invented by me but that are part of
cdrtools and I am currently the only official maintainer of both programs.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
cdrw is dead and cdrecord is now also in /bin, so where is your problem?
According to whom is cdrw dead ?
I have been told that cdrw will not be extended (developed any further)
and I have been told that a bug in cdrw that
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 05:37 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If the problems with cdrw are not fixed, then the state could be
called similar to dead.
So, in other words it's dead by your admission.;-)
I am just forwarding information I got from the
On Monday 07 August 2006 11:56 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I am just forwarding information I got from the removable media group
in the way I did understand the information.
Yes, but some of your claims are misleading or unclear to me. IOW, are they
not going to fix a bug for the Pioneer drives
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 11:56 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I am just forwarding information I got from the removable media group
in the way I did understand the information.
Yes, but some of your claims are misleading or unclear to me. IOW, are they
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
cdrw is dead and cdrecord is now also in /bin, so where is your problem?
According to whom is cdrw dead ?
I have been told that cdrw will not be extended (developed any further)
and I have been told that
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No disrespect to Jörg, but FWIW I wholeheartedly concur. (I really don't
like the -longoptionname nomenclature, as used by find(1)).
This is really strange, so you like the hard to memorize options from cdrw?
Well, it does not support many of them tell
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opinion:
Personally I detest with a passion the CLI that cdrecord has despite it
being technically good at actually doing the writing. I like the
simple interface that cdrw provides.The simple cdrw CLI could be
implemented as a wrapper
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Sunday 06 August 2006 06:23 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I also tried to inform people on the fact that there is still a lot of FUD
against the CDDL and OpenSolaris.
I would like to see some help with trying to correct wrong statements on
OpenSolaris and the CDDL from other people. If I am
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to see some help with trying to correct wrong statements on
OpenSolaris and the CDDL from other people. If I am the only person to do
this, the people who spread FUD have an easy living while spreading the
clain that the CDDL is not
Joerg Schilling wrote:
cdrw is dead and cdrecord is now also in /bin, so where is your problem?
According to whom is cdrw dead ?
Facts:
There is no ARC case to remove it from Solaris.
There is not even an ARC case to mark it as Obsolete.
The ARC case that added cdrecord to Solaris does not
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:40 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The current problem with Debian is that they disregard their ethics rules
and act with arbitrariness. Some people dislike anything but the GPL and
apply pressure on authors
I must say that as a previous Debian user for quite a number of years, Nexenta
really kicks! Even though I haven't run a Debian server for close to 3 years,
old habits are hard to break as they say! There's a few things I don't have at
the moment due to lack of pkg support, but hopefully that
I must say that as a previous Debian user for quite a number of years,
Nexenta really kicks! Even though I haven't run a Debian server for
close to 3 years, old habits are hard to break as they say ! There's a
few things I don't have at the moment due to lack of pkg support, but
hopefully that wi
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:18 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must say that as a previous Debian user for quite a number of years,
Nexenta really kicks! Even though I haven't run a Debian server for
close to 3 years, old habits are hard to break as they say ! There's a
few things I don't have
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, you got that piece of $#!T dselect installer, or looks like it, and
that's the part that reminds me of the statement, Debian - it ain't your
Mother's OS. But I think it was good to see that POS installer, because I
had forgotten that any installer
Alan DuBoff wrote:
I must say that as a previous Debian user for quite a number of years, Nexenta
really kicks! Even though I haven't run a Debian server for close to 3 years,
old habits are hard to break as they say! There's a few things I don't have at
the moment due to lack of pkg support,
Alan DuBoff wrote:
I must say that as a previous Debian user for quite a number of years, Nexenta
really kicks! Even though I haven't run a Debian server for close to 3 years,
old habits are hard to break as they say! There's a few things I don't have at
the moment due to lack of pkg support,
On Friday 04 August 2006 05:38 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As long as Debian distributes rotten (by Debian) versions
of cdrtools and as long as Debian tries to hide newer versions
from Debian, I would not praise Debian too much
That's certainly your choice. From my perspective I see them as
On Friday 04 August 2006 07:30 am, Stephen Lau wrote:
The Sun RealPlayer package installs fine in Nexenta... (I've done it)
Nice, this will be on my list of software to add.
Don't forget punchin :)
No, I won't. The point is that some of these things are not as easy to install
to Nexenta as
On Friday 04 August 2006 07:31 am, Stephen Lau wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
I must say that as a previous Debian user for quite a number of years,
Nexenta really kicks! Even though I haven't run a Debian server for close
to 3 years, old habits are hard to break as they say! There's a few
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 04 August 2006 05:38 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As long as Debian distributes rotten (by Debian) versions
of cdrtools and as long as Debian tries to hide newer versions
from Debian, I would not praise Debian too much
That's certainly
On Friday 04 August 2006 12:26 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I have the impression that you confuse the problem with Debian (which seems
to become non-free project) and Nexenta.
Please note: The Nexenta people suffer from the same problems with Debian
as I do
No, I don't feel there's
Alan DuBoff writes:
Given the known problems with cdrw, it is most unlikely that there is any
case where cdrw works but cdrecord has problems.
I have no idea. Do I ever get a bad burn? Sure, I toss them in the trash.
I think that the point here is that if there are any cases where cdrw
On Friday 04 August 2006 01:55 pm, James Carlson wrote:
I think that the point here is that if there are any cases where cdrw
works, and cdrecord does not, then bugs should be filed against that.
If you see cases like that, you should file bugs.
At the time Joerg told me it was incompatible
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cdrecord was a part of sfw, I guess. Is it included on a Solaris distribution?
I haven't used it for a couple years it seems, so not sure if it's on the
distribution or not, it used to be a part of the companion cd.
The cdrecord from the companion CD did
61 matches
Mail list logo
