[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Weird CDRW issue?



On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:44:31PM -0800, ben wrote:
> On Thursday 31 January 2002 11:29 pm, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 10:04:38PM -0800, ben wrote:
> > > On Thursday 31 January 2002 09:53 pm, Jeff wrote:
> > > > Running Debian Sid.
> > > >
> > > > When I recompiled to 2.4.16, I put SCSI CDROM emulation in the kernel
> > > > and took out IDE CDROM support.. I can mount my drives as /dev/scd0 and
> > > > scd1.. However, when trying to use any cd writing programs (the burner
> > > > is scd0), they say they cant scan the SCSI bus? ?No permission or SCSI
> > > > emulation not enabled for IDE drives..
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > yeah. here's one. what are you talking about? scsi and ide are not
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > interchangable. they are different technologies. scsi emulation lets you
> > > refer to something as if it were, but it's not. how are you going to
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > emulate scsi on an ide device that doesn't exist, as far as the kernel is
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > concerned, without support? what does your /etc/fstab look like? start
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                      ^^^^^
> > > hoping you haven't fried a drive already.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > ben: Educate yourself before calling the other guy an idiot.
> >

[ education snipped by ben ]

> 
> at which point did i call him an idiot? unlike you, i simply erred. you, 

Are you saying you were seriously asking a question?  Read what you
wrote.  The tone certainly seems belittling from here.  In any case,
your post was uninformed and non-productive.

> however, are injecting a previously non-existent invective and suggesting 
> that it originated with me. i'm not interested in flaming, but it does seem 
> that we could both profit by a little education.

I'm not attempting to "[inject] a previously non-existent invective".

I am educated; I shared part of said education with you above.

If you think my post was a flame, your skin thickness may be
insufficient for this list.  I would classify your original post as
much closer to flame-material than my reply (hint: my reply included
useful information).  You saying "i'm not interested in flaming" seems
a little less than sincere to me.

Good day.

-- 
Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better
Micromuse Ltd.                 | than a perfect plan tomorrow.
mailto:nnorman@micromuse.com   |   -- Patton

Attachment: pgpyyFx247cE4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: