Re: Why burnfree is off by default?
epu@localhost:~/prog/perl$ cat /tmp/muttJwlFG4
Matthias Andree wrote:
> 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.
Why do you want to create tons of switches when there is not need for
them?
Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, Rápido, Fiable.
Reply to: