Re: Why burnfree is off by default?
Volker Kuhlmann <hidden@paradise.net.nz> writes:
> I am able to distinguish stability with the stubbornness to insist on
> serving the stone-age first. One could express this also in terms of the
> least common Unix denominator, as the problem is not so rare. Nobody
> cares what burning CDs was like 10 years ago, and whether cdrecord came
> before burnfree. But of course setting defaults to suit a handful of
> people to match their 10-year old expectations instead of catering for
> 98% of today's(!!) users is your prerogative.
This is pointless. You have the switch, you can use the switch, you are
told how to use it, and after all you aren't writing the code.
The old observation still holds: he who writes the code gets to set the
rules. cdrecord separates mechanism from policy, so stop whining and
acting so helplessly.
> It's not an important aspect of cdrecord though, as for most of
> today's users k3b fixes the problem anyway (I think, I don't use it
> myself). That doesn't however stop me from saying that by my own
> technical judgement, cdrecord's burnfree default is silly, when
> someone asks about the topic.
You have a right to your opinion, but it isn't going to change
anything. You can waste energy on getting the defaults changed, or you
can invest some energy to write a /etc/default/... file.
--
Matthias Andree
Reply to: