Re: xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?
I demand that Brett Parker may or may not have written...
> On 26 Feb 15:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
>>>> legally distributed.
>>> Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
>>> half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
>>> sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
>> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and
>> legal. Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the
>> fork that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>> See my bug report from December 2006.
> Is this the one that doesn't actually give any details but does just
> randomly say the above? i.e. insubstantiated claims, and further spreading
> of FUD?
Indeed it is he. He makes for an interesting diversion for a few days (if the
posting rate isn't too high) before it tails off into the same old "wodim is
full of bugs and is illegal! cdrecord is perfect! Use it and gain the
Blessing of St. Joerg!"[1] rant, at which point we all switch off and ignore
him.
[snip]
>> It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in
>> working CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100
>> Bug Reports against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian,
>> Ubuntu and Redhat, none of the reports applies to the original software.
(... idly wonders how many of those 100 are duplicates, but can't be bothered
to check...)
> Interesting - so, in your (somewhat naive) opinion - the *only* cd burning
> software worth mentioning is your very own pet project... weird that you
> would be so biased on that isn't it?
> Does this mean that you're also blissfully unaware of the cdskin and
> libburn projects?
... yes, this thread is following the usual track. I fully expect any
response from St. Joerg to say something like
"But they're not cdrecord; they are not The Original Software. All ye who use
them commit the gravest of sins; and all thy CDs and all thy DVDs shall all
be defective; and ye shall burn forever in the Light of the Perfect Laser
which the Eye of Schilling issueth and the Software of Schilling
controlleth."
[snip]
>> It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
>> even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known
>> bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
>> unmodified source.
> But it is your duty to claim that anything other than your software is a
> grave travesty and continue spreading unfounded claims? And I have to
> *believe* you that they're all fixed? Maybe it's just that no body files
> bug reports with you...
I wouldn't be surprised to find that he reads the bug trackers of Debian, Red
Hat, Ubuntu etc. then goes off and does some bug fixing.
[snip]
>> Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
>> bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?
> I'm interested in where you're finding the showstopping bugs - looking at
> the bug reports page for wodim, I can see 9 Important bugs - that's not a
> whole lot of bugs, really. And most of them can probably be closed now that
> lenny has been released and a newer version of cdrkit is in it.
That's easy. It's a bug in wodim, therefore it's a showstopper. :-)
>> If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
>> undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.
> Err, the fork is perfectly distributable.
He repeats it in the hope that somebody will believe him. It happens
occasionally (I've seen it), and my opinion is that the one so gulled by him
is, for want of a better word, uninformed. [2]
[snip]
>> What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there
>> is mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently
>> work for Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform
>> yourself based on neutral information
Did that.
>> instead of the attacks from this person.
The attacks continued.
"You are uninformed."
"Inform yourself."
"cdrecord is the master of all. All other software *must* *be*
*exterminated*. Go forth, my informed ones, seek it out and destroy it.
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! *EXTERMINATE!*" [3]
[snip]
>> The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:
>> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
> No, that wouldn't be a third step - and as you appear to just be trying
> to get google juice for that URL by repeatedly pasting it in to a public
> archived mailing list, you may end up losing out.
Hmm, so I shouldn't quote ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/? Why not?
I like quoting ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/. (Muhahaha.)
[snip]
> "Thanks",
<AOL>.
(Now where did I put that popcorn...)
[1] I might be exaggerating. Slightly. Just a smidgeon. Hardly worth
mentioning at all, really.
[2] Actually, I'm not sure that I *want* a better word there.
[3] He wishes. (Allegedly.)
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | user of wodim | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | and growisofs | Army
| + Output less CO2 => avoid boiling weather. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.
Never insult an alligator until you've crossed the river.
Reply to: