Re: cdrtools cdrecord/cdrecord.c
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Geoffrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I am not against Linux, I am however against stupidity and evilness.
But your comments regarding Linux kernel developers would appear to
indicate that you are against Linux. Personal opinion, nothing more.
This is not true!
I am not against Linux, however I don't like the way the Linux kernel developers
personally attack people who tell them where they make mistakes.
Let me make an example: if you take Linus Torvalds statements on Linux kernel
include files for serious, then it is _forbidden_ to test kernel interfaces.
Can you provide a link to this statement?
Also it is a matter of facts that the Linux kernel people constantly insert new
snares against CD/DVD recording.
Again, I would appreciate some specific examples. I would take it upon
myself to inquire as to why such a thing is done.
Once the Linux kernel folks start cooperating
If I see problems I name them and I do it in a direct way that just describes
the problem. This is independent from the OS. If you don't see when I am
atracking Solaris then you obviously close your eyes depending on where to look.
Not at all, I have taken a look at Open Solaris, it apparently is not
Solaris. Linux works mighty fine for me, thus I can't justify the cost
for a real copy of Solaris or the required hardware.
This looks uninformed and I am not sure whether I should belive that you know
what OpenSolaris is.
Now see that's the kind of statement someone might take wrong. It
appears that you might be calling me a lier. I said that I had
attempted to install it. I may not have called it the correct name as
it appears that it is now referred to as simply Solaris. I did think
that at one time it was called OpenSolaris. To that point, I am
currently downloading the latest version and will give it another look.
Solaris is free!
Well, I've not looked into the Solaris thing lately, but I did attempt
to install it on two differen i86 based systems, with little luck. The
install process was not polished at all. Now this could well have
changed as I've not looked at it in a while.
I really don't see a resistance to accepting bug reports. Differences
Maybe the problem is that Debian accepts bug reports for things that are not
broken (at least not inside cdrecord).
I would agree that some things are not technically bugs, but issues with
differences in philosophies. These can often be difficult issues to
in what one perceives to be a bug are a different issue. For example, I
can see why Debian folks would add contact information to cdrecord if
they have made modifications to it. I can also see why Debian would
remove references to cdrecord-Prodvd, although I don't necessarily agree
with those objections. Neither is truly a bug, but a preference.
- Linux kernel folks modify interfaces without notifying the users
even though there are less than 5 Authors who write software that
uses the related interfaces.
I would agree that this is not the right way to operate.
- Most Debian patches _cause_ problems instead of fixing them.
I'll have to review your list of objections again. As I recall the
issues were more of the 'difference in philosophy' then actually causing
- Debian people do not cooperate by not talking to the Authors of the
For me, all I can do is research this issue as I'm not involved in it. I
will take the time to do so as I would like to see the noise level
regarding these issues on this list drop. cdrecord is a wonderful product.
I'm primarily a SuSE user...
Suse agreed some time ago to publish the version of cdrecord that is
similarily broken as the Debian one under a different name and to publish a
mainly unmodified version under the name cdrecord.
Well, I would think that is a step in the right direction.
Until later, Geoffrey