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

Re: How to react on a factually wrong Debian wiki change ?

On 28/09/18 8:00 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> In the case of the BurnCd page, I actually *do* think that it would be
>> of general interest to readers to have a paragraph explaining the limits
>> of wodim, and when not to use it.
> Let me try ... hrr-umm ... 
> wodim was cloned from cdrecord in 2006. At that time, cdrecord had few
> clue about DVD burning and hid this behind a 1 GB size limit of the
> free program version. The full size version was not available at all.
> wodim got implanted DVD-related code from an earlier cdrecord clone
> which hacked around the size limitation.
> But still wodim is handling any DVD as if it was a large CD-R.
> This works halfways with DVD-R and, depending the medium state, with
> other media after due rejection of inappropriate SCSI commands by the
> drive.
> But it is awful, specs-wise !
> wodim is factually abandoned by its cloners Joerg Jaspert, Steve McIntyre,
> and Eduard Bloch. Its home page is gone, its change history is gone.
> In contrast to that, the doings of dvd+rw-tools (growisofs) and of libburn
> can be justified by the MMC-5 specs. In case of libburn there is even an
> active upstream developer (myself).
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> But who wants to read about 12 year old quarrels between Debian Developers
> and the upstream developer of cdrecord ?
> My way to express the current technical situation was the statement:
>   "wodim should better not be used with DVD or BD media."
> which now became
>   "Some believe it would be better if wodim were not used with DVD or BD
>    media. Perhaps so, but there are many variables involved, most
>    especially burner types and condition, and media quality.
>    '''Burn on one does not necessarily mean readable on another.'''"
> It is not the opinion of "some". It is the opionion of me, the expert (tm).
> And yes, there are ill burners and media which produce poorly readble
> results. But this is _not_ normal. If hardware behaves that way, then
> it is to blame, and not the burn program.
> (Even wodims's failures are repeatable.)

How about something like:

"wodim may sometimes work with DVD or BD media, but the results will not
meet the relevant specifications."

or perhaps s/work/appear to work/

Note: I have no expertise in this area; I'm merely interpreting the
comments above.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: