Re: Some suggestions for changes to w.d.o/CD/faq entries
On Monday 09 January 2012 20:23:30 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> George Danchev wrote:
> > Again, with proofreading (i.e. our former checkreading) we address the
> > user action of deliberate reading of an appropriate amount of bytes from
> > the burnt media (think 'dd'). This has nothing to do with the "Defect
> > Management" mechanism, which DVD-RAM and BD-RE drives perform
> > internally.
>
> To my understanding, Andrei objected a sentence about Defect Management,
>
> in the initial post:
> > ... > Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:26:32 +0200
> > ... > http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/index.en.html#record-unix
> > ... > "In order to get full nominal speed (but without ...[1]) on BD-RE
> > add ... > option stream_recording=on."
> > ... > [1] I have no idea what checkreading is supposed to mean and vim
> > spell ... > checking is complaining about it.
>
> The "checkreading" that is currently mentioned by the sentence:
> "Add option stream_recording=on to get on BD-RE full nominal speed
> without checkreading."
> is the internal Defect Management of the drive (which i dislike).
Oh my, I was think of the user-driven proofreading as performed by:
a) isoread && dd; b) check_debian_iso script
Thomas, you are correct, Andrei addressed the sentence which is correlated to
the drive "checkreading".
Okay, Andrei objected the term "checkreading", and it is indeed not
appropriate, regardless of whether it is performed by the drive itself or by
the user, therefore "proofreading" is suggested instead.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: