Re: Why burnfree is off by default?
Matthias Andree <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Volker Kuhlmann <email@example.com> writes:
> > So you think it's better to produce a definite coaster, as opposed to a
> > CD which will probably work? I don't.
> That's a matter of preference. I still have it on by default and do a C2
> scan (I have no drive capable of C1 scans) if I see that the buffer had
> run empty (which rarely happens, sudo cdrecord ...).
Cdrecord did exist a long time before Burn-Proof has been developed.
In former times, machines have been slow and RAM was tight. Still
noone complianed about coasters.....but it seems that people did read
Nowadays, where there is Burnproof, people complain about coasters because
they listen to incompetent people who tell others _not_ to run cdrecord
in a way on Linux that allows cdrecord to lock in core and to raise priority.
As a result, people get coasters :-(
> > According to Jörg, the feature is off by default to ensure continuity
> > and compatibility with <whatever I've forgotten and don't care about>.
> > In my opinion, not a competent reason.
> Aside from your right to your own opinion, what does it matter if you
> can override the default?
It seems that there is an increasing number of people who like to avoid
stability and predictability on Linux.
I am not a member of that fraction and thus I grant similar behavior
for all type of drives and compatibility to old versions if possible.
As cdrecord allows for easy configuration, I get the impression that people
who complain in this area just like to rant but have no real concern.
EMail:firstname.lastname@example.org (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
email@example.com (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily