Re: Why burnfree is off by default?
Matthias Andree wrote:
> "ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es" <ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es> writes:
> > Matthias Andree wrote:
> >> "ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es" <ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es> writes:
> >> > Why complicate the lives of cdrecord users with lots of options that
> >> > don't even have a use case?
> >>
> >> Just because your view is limited and you cannot conceive a use case
> >> (which is not bad in itself, just don't argue :-)), does not mean there
> >> is none.
> >
> > Please explain the use case, otherwise we won't see it.
>
> The burden of proof is with you, you want the code to change in
spite of
> not being the maintainer.
Not just me, I'd say like 99% of cdrecord users.
Not hearing the users and having making software that doesn't help them
is a real threat to free software that people like Jörg personify as
the dictator of these projects (maybe he's paid by Micro$oft or some
other people anti free software but I can't know)
> You don't need to see the use case, but YOU need to PROVE the switch is
> unneeded with every existing hardware before you can expect Jörg to even
> consider removing it.
So, what happens on those "broken" drives that support burnfree and you
left
burnfree on?
Could cdrecord have workarounds for those drives like easy to use
M$Windows CD recording software may have since they don't need the
switch either and have burnfree turned on by default?
> Just because the DAU of the day assumes his defaults are the only sane
> ones doesn't mean everybody else shares his POV.
>
> Proper compact discs were meant to be written in streaming DAO mode, period.
Totally agree with you! (But we have made already clear that's not what
we are talking about)
Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, Rápido, Fiable.
Reply to: