Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Wow, this thread got very hot very fast. I composed this about an hour ago, when things were much cooler. But the questions still seem worth raising. I understand Joerg's frustration about the burden of proof issue here, and I also understand Allan's and Phrakture's reluctance, in the light of our not having more solid evidence from disinterested parties. Apparently Joerg has seen more such evidence, but is not in a position to provide it. That's unfortunate, but understandable. People are getting alternately enthusiastic, and frustrated, and annoyed with each other, but that seems to be about where this stands. Aren't there two questions here, though? 1. Should we distribute binaries of cdrtools? 2. Should we distribute binaries of cdrkit? Setting 1 aside for the moment, it sounds to me---not based wholly on this thread, but this thread exhausts my recent reading on the issue---like there are possible legal issues with 2, and in fact it sounds to me like the case for that is rather stronger than the case for there being legal issues with 1. That impression survives even if the case against cdrkit does all trace back to claims made by Joerg---which I don't know to be so but which has been alleged here. There are technical reasons for thinking cdrtools is much preferable to cdrkit; however that leaves it open whether cdrkit is or isn't good enough for the needs that prompt us to distribute a binary of either of these packages. As I said I do understand the reasons given for hesitating about cdrtools. But it sounds to me like cdrkit survives equally careful scrutiny less well. So why isn't the decision tree: be most cautious legally, and distribute neither be moderately cautious legally, in which case although it's not obvious cdrtools is in the clear, the case against cdrkit seems stronger, so if one is to be distributed it should be cdrtools trust other distros, and decide we're clear to distribute either, in which case the technical merits again speak for cdrtools. -- Jim Pryor jim@jimpryor.net
Or we could distribute both and hope that the resultant time/anti-time explosion is such that the universe is destroyed and we never have to bother worrying about such pointless, unproductive, made-up bullshit again in our lifetimes.... On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Jim Pryor <lists+arch-general@jimpryor.net<lists%2Barch-general@jimpryor.net>
wrote:
Wow, this thread got very hot very fast. I composed this about an hour ago, when things were much cooler. But the questions still seem worth raising.
I understand Joerg's frustration about the burden of proof issue here, and I also understand Allan's and Phrakture's reluctance, in the light of our not having more solid evidence from disinterested parties. Apparently Joerg has seen more such evidence, but is not in a position to provide it. That's unfortunate, but understandable.
People are getting alternately enthusiastic, and frustrated, and annoyed with each other, but that seems to be about where this stands.
Aren't there two questions here, though?
1. Should we distribute binaries of cdrtools? 2. Should we distribute binaries of cdrkit?
Setting 1 aside for the moment, it sounds to me---not based wholly on this thread, but this thread exhausts my recent reading on the issue---like there are possible legal issues with 2, and in fact it sounds to me like the case for that is rather stronger than the case for there being legal issues with 1. That impression survives even if the case against cdrkit does all trace back to claims made by Joerg---which I don't know to be so but which has been alleged here.
There are technical reasons for thinking cdrtools is much preferable to cdrkit; however that leaves it open whether cdrkit is or isn't good enough for the needs that prompt us to distribute a binary of either of these packages.
As I said I do understand the reasons given for hesitating about cdrtools. But it sounds to me like cdrkit survives equally careful scrutiny less well.
So why isn't the decision tree:
be most cautious legally, and distribute neither
be moderately cautious legally, in which case although it's not obvious cdrtools is in the clear, the case against cdrkit seems stronger, so if one is to be distributed it should be cdrtools
trust other distros, and decide we're clear to distribute either, in which case the technical merits again speak for cdrtools.
-- Jim Pryor jim@jimpryor.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 I don't know much about the licenses differences and all that crap but I experienced a problem with cdrecord several years ago where it would not work with my CD burner. I kept getting wiere I/O errors or some such. When I asked around,some people told me about wodim and when I went out and installed wodim, I've been able to burn CDs and DVDs flawlessly ever since. My time with wodim has transpired over Slackware, Debian, and now Arch. I don't know today if cdrecord would still cause me those errors or not but for me, the drkit has been doing me just fine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREDAAYFAktj3ZYACgkQWSjv55S0LfE+TwCdHJCPvK/RcDzLSjEBOewTi5Lm MAEAn1S0OaumTisV5CqgA79y/1zaWNQI =MVix -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Holmes <steve.holmes88@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
I don't know much about the licenses differences and all that crap but I experienced a problem with cdrecord several years ago where it would not work with my CD burner. I kept getting wiere I/O errors or some such. When I asked around,some people told me about wodim and when I went out and installed wodim, I've been able to burn CDs and DVDs flawlessly ever since. My time with wodim has transpired over Slackware, Debian, and now Arch. I don't know today if cdrecord would still cause me those errors or not but for me, the drkit has been doing me just fine.
As you do not give any facts, this is obviously nonsense. I know of not a single case where cdrecord fails but wodim succeeds. Wodim is nothing than an onl version of cdrecord with bugs added by it't creators that never have been in the original. If you would give evidence, it would be easy to prove that your alleged problem is not related to cdrecord. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
If you would give evidence, it would be easy to prove that your alleged problem is not related to cdrecord.
You've made your point and I agree with you :) but please don't get yourself unsubscribed by being sarcastic... Andres
@Joerg Schilling This is not another attack against you so please to not try and make yourself appear as some kinda of victim here as well. I know it's none of my business replying here, but I feel I need to say something. It's not related to the original discussion, but your attitude. Now, I'll say it up front, I'm not a psychological professional, shrink or anyone qualified to discuss this, but I will put my foot in my mouth anyway. Over this entire thread, you have come off as very aggressive, maybe this has something to do with the language, maybe it's just your personality. You have, dare I say attacked others, presented others in a somewhat degraded light. You do all these things, as far as I can tell, without sufficient reason(e.g calling others hostile when that had nothing to do with the discussion, also see your comments about Arch as well...). Throughout, you have presented yourself as some sort of victim. This coupled with your defensive behaviour is not very good. It leads to you appearing as some kind of troll, or someone whose sole intent is to destroy cdrkit as opposed to getting cdrtools back into Arch. On 30/01/10 07:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Steve Holmes<steve.holmes88@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
I don't know much about the licenses differences and all that crap but I experienced a problem with cdrecord several years ago where it would not work with my CD burner. I kept getting wiere I/O errors or some such. When I asked around,some people told me about wodim and when I went out and installed wodim, I've been able to burn CDs and DVDs flawlessly ever since. My time with wodim has transpired over Slackware, Debian, and now Arch. I don't know today if cdrecord would still cause me those errors or not but for me, the drkit has been doing me just fine.
As you do not give any facts, this is obviously nonsense.
No, that doesn't make it nonsense and along with your other favourite words (such as hostile, attacked, victim) your use of it is very appears needlessly aggressive. This kind of attitude leads to bad/buggy software.
I know of not a single case where cdrecord fails but wodim succeeds. Obviously you do not because you haven't tested every possible combination of software and hardware here. I can give you a real-life example, NetworkManager, it works great until I attemp to play games, I get a very noticeable lag every so often than ruins online games for me. This issue does not exist, now nor has it ever existed with any other networking tool(netcfg, wicd) some time ago I read about it being blamed on buggy drivers, yet it exists only because of the way NetworkManager does a periodic background scan. You are being introduced to a potential new case here, don't blindly dismiss it.
Wodim is nothing than an onl version of cdrecord with bugs added by it't creators that never have been in the original.
At this moment in time, I cannot upgrade xorg-xinit from the old 1.1.1-1 to 1.2.0-1 because some scripts breaks and I haven't bothered to look into it. By your logic, this is obviusly nonsense because the newer, less buggy xorg-xinit has no such regressions.
If you would give evidence, it would be easy to prove that your alleged problem is not related to cdrecord.
Jörg
Again, no-one likes a victim. Try not to be so defensive. Look at Pidgin's xfire/gfire plugin, it suffers from bugs and possible security issues because the developers exhibited similar defensive behavior towards me, today I upgrade and fix those bugs as I like without even bothering to report them. Attitude like this drives people away, people with potentially valuable input.
Nathan Wayde <kumyco@konnichi.com> wrote:
@Joerg Schilling
This is not another attack against you so please to not try and make yourself appear as some kinda of victim here as well.
Let me give some basic explanations: In German we have the word "Streitkultur", there is no equlvalent in English - guess why... In Germany, it is possible to have a technically based discussion without attacking the other people. If you try to have the same using the English language, people often claim that they have been personally attacked and personally attack other people although they did reply on a text that clearly does not contain any personal attack. I am not personally atacking people and I hope that some people here learn Streitkultur. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 06:48, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
In Germany, it is possible to have a technically based discussion without attacking the other people. If you try to have the same using the English language, people often claim that they have been personally attacked and personally attack other people although they did reply on a text that clearly does not contain any personal attack. I have been reading this mailing list for several years, and can think of maybe one or two discussions that got like this. The vast majority of them are quite civil technical discussions. Don't blame the language for your lack of competence. If you feel that English can't convey your ideas, that's not the fault of the language but a lack of fluency on your part. Stop trying to misdirect the discussion.
Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been reading this mailing list for several years, and can think of maybe one or two discussions that got like this. The vast majority of them are quite civil technical discussions. Don't blame the language for your lack of competence. If you feel that English can't convey your ideas, that's not the fault of the language but a lack of fluency on your part. Stop trying to misdirect the discussion.
Good idea, it would help if you start to follow your own directions...... Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Am Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:48:33 +0100 schrieb Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling):
Let me give some basic explanations:
In German we have the word "Streitkultur", there is no equlvalent in English - guess why...
And the word "Streitkultur" is the biggest misnomer ("Unwort") ever. That's typically German. Look e.g. at German forums and English forums. English forums are usually much friendlier and much more competent. In German forums the most given answer without giving the answer to the asked question is: "Use the search function." And if someone asks a question he first has to apologize with a bad conscience that he hasn't found anything with the search function and that one may excuse it if his question was already posted. In English forums you usually get the answer you have asked for. The search function is mentioned only in exceptional cases and in a sub-clause. And if it's really your intention to argue (streiten) then I don't know if this is the right attitude. Discussing is much better and effective than arguing. I mean I assume that you have a big technical knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to write such a program and build such an Open Solaris LiveCD. But I also can understand that some people feel being attacked by you. On the other hand I can understand that you like to see cdrtools in the repo instead of cdrkit since it is your and the original software. And I'd also vote for switching from cdrkit to cdrtools in the repos even if I generally don't mind with which program I burn my CDs as long as the CDs are burned correctly.
In Germany, it is possible to have a technically based discussion without attacking the other people. If you try to have the same using the English language, people often claim that they have been personally attacked and personally attack other people although they did reply on a text that clearly does not contain any personal attack.
No, it's usually exactly vice versa. If people claim that they have been personally attacked they either have been personally attacked or it's due to the language knowledge of the foreign speaker.
I am not personally atacking people and I hope that some people here learn Streitkultur.
I hope not. And I'm also German, but I hate the word "Streitkultur". Greetings, Heiko
Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
I mean I assume that you have a big technical knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to write such a program and build such an Open Solaris LiveCD. But I also can understand that some people feel being attacked by you. On the other hand I can understand that you like to see cdrtools in the repo instead of cdrkit since it is your and the original software. And I'd also vote for switching from cdrkit to cdrtools in the repos even if I generally don't mind with which program I burn my CDs as long as the CDs are burned correctly.
It seems that you also use this discussion to attack me. It would help a lot of you first try to understand what happened. A person did make a claim about an alleged problem without giving any proof for his claims. I asked him kindly to give enough information so in case there really was a problem, I am able to explain where it is located. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:56 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
I mean I assume that you have a big technical knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to write such a program and build such an Open Solaris LiveCD. But I also can understand that some people feel being attacked by you. On the other hand I can understand that you like to see cdrtools in the repo instead of cdrkit since it is your and the original software. And I'd also vote for switching from cdrkit to cdrtools in the repos even if I generally don't mind with which program I burn my CDs as long as the CDs are burned correctly.
It seems that you also use this discussion to attack me.
It would help a lot of you first try to understand what happened. A person did make a claim about an alleged problem without giving any proof for his claims. I asked him kindly to give enough information so in case there really was a problem, I am able to explain where it is located.
Jörg
Joerg, I think most of us do see your points, but its difficult to take them seriously with the language you're using. It may merely be a translation issue, but the words you use, while perhaps not being an issue in German, are considered generally offensive and trollish in English. Unfortunately a bad messenger tends to taint the message.
On 30/01/10 23:56, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It would help a lot of you first try to understand what happened. A person did make a claim about an alleged problem without giving any proof for his claims. I asked him kindly to give enough information so in case there really was a problem, I am able to explain where it is located.
Given where this part of the thread started, I assume this is about the message from Steve Holmes claiming he had issues with cdrtools in the past. That makes your definition of asking "kindly" quite weird. Calling a persons statements "obviously nonsense" does not sound kind to me. Especially when he said the bug was "several years ago". That is a similar time to when cdrkit was forked and you claim that to be full of bugs. It is entirely plausible that one of the large number of bugs you fixed since that split is what he hit when he tried a long time ago. To call it "obvious nonsense" implies to me that you really think there were no bugs in cdrtools back when it was forked and so cdrkit should be bug free. Or were you just calling it nonsense because someone said something bad about your code? I'm surprised you have not sat back and thought why so many threads on mailing lists or bug trackers for various distributions end up with people being quite annoyed at you. You do really come off in a very aggressively defensive fashion (yeah, yeah, English speakers and their lack of Streitkultur....) and that does very little to entreat people to your cause. This is probably the single biggest hurdle for people including your software in their distro, because they already have a bad impression of you and would rather not deal with you if ever they get a bug report for your code. As with all Arch development, a very long winded mailing list thread - 150+ messages and counting - will not decide what becomes part of the distribution. If it is ever decided for Arch to distribute cdrtools, it will be very much in spite of you and your attitude. Allan
Am Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:56:13 +0100 schrieb Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling):
It seems that you also use this discussion to attack me.
Where did I attack you? If you feel so easy being attacked, then you should indeed think about yourself. Greetings, Heiko
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
I mean I assume that you have a big technical knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to write such a program and build such an Open Solaris LiveCD. But I also can understand that some people feel being attacked by you. On the other hand I can understand that you like to see cdrtools in the repo instead of cdrkit since it is your and the original software. And I'd also vote for switching from cdrkit to cdrtools in the repos even if I generally don't mind with which program I burn my CDs as long as the CDs are burned correctly.
It seems that you also use this discussion to attack me.
It would help a lot of you first try to understand what happened. A person did make a claim about an alleged problem without giving any proof for his claims. I asked him kindly to give enough information so in case there really was a problem, I am able to explain where it is located.
Jörg
I don't think you "get it". First of all, I don't care what happened when the split or fork happened. It makes _ZERO_ difference to me. This is what I have done because of _your_ direct actions on this list and other actions by you on some news groups I read. On the computers I have that run Slackware -12.2/13.0 I have removed cdrtools and installed cdrkit. Note that Slackware distributes cdrtools. I don't care if cdrtools is better than the very best or that cdrkit is worst than the worst. It doesn't matter. I have preformed some tests and guess what cdrkit works! Imagine that. It burnt the iso's for Slackware distribution, and using md5sum to sum both a Slackware distribution disk burned by both cdrkit and cdrtools and they are the same, how did that happen? Going forward I will use cdrkit on any system that I have any responsibilities on. Thanks. PS. I agree and support Arch Linux to distribute cdrkit.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 09:58:19AM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
This is what I have done because of _your_ direct actions on this list and other actions by you on some news groups I read. ...
Your post makes you look like a juvenile struggling with the first hormones.
I don't care if cdrtools is better than the very best or that cdrkit is worst than the worst. It doesn't matter.
If your choice of software is such an emotional thing then I must conclude that you can't be trusted to manage any system except your own, and that whatever you do or write on these matters is completely irrelevant. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
I have preformed some tests and guess what cdrkit works! Imagine that. It burnt the iso's for Slackware distribution, and using md5sum to sum both a Slackware distribution disk burned by both cdrkit and cdrtools and they are the same, how did that happen?
There is a 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that you did never used cdrtools. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
I have preformed some tests and guess what cdrkit works! Imagine that. It burnt the iso's for Slackware distribution, and using md5sum to sum both a Slackware distribution disk burned by both cdrkit and cdrtools and they are the same, how did that happen?
There is a 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that you did never used cdrtools.
Jörg
Please show me the evidence to support your position. Please what evidence do you have that I have never used cdrtools? As a user of Linux since 1995 your assertions are ridicules. Just being a user from 1995 proves your claim to be false. Yes that is before cdrkit was ever released. I have been a early beta tester for Turbolinux, would you like a copy of my beta/prerelease TurboLinux CDs from that period? I also have RedHat Linux official versions from 5.0 to 9.0 and non official release 4.2 which I ran oracle on, the oracle db required Red Hat 4.2 at that time, again you look it up. Please do this, download Slackware 12 or 13 _LOOK_ at what it being distributed. You _WILL_ find that it is cdrtools. One _HAS_ to remove it by choice as I did and build and install cdrkit. Would you like my build script for cdrkit? Here is the script I used to test cdrtools and cdrkit #!/bin/sh # $Id: burnt_iso_md5_check.sh,v 1.1 2008/03/22 16:51:22 root Exp root $ # Written 2008 by Eric Hameleers <alien@slackware.com> # # This command will check the md5sum of a cd (ignoring possible padding at # the end by only checking the same amount of bytes at the iso image) and # also check the md5sum of the ISO image. # Idea found at: # http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=3077366#post3077366 # and expanded a bit. # if [ $1 ]; then isoFile=$1 else echo "Usage: $0 <iso-image> <cd-drive>" echo "E.g. $0 /tmp/slackware-12.0.iso /dev/dvd" exit 1 fi if [ $2 ]; then cdDrive=$2 else echo "Usage: $0 <iso-image> <cd-drive>" echo "E.g. $0 /tmp/slackware-12.0.iso /dev/dvd" exit 1 fi if [ ! -b $cdDrive ]; then echo "ERROR. '$cdDrive' is not a block device." exit 1 fi if [ ! -r $isoFile ]; then echo "ERROR. ISO image '$isoFile' does not exist." exit 1 else echo "** Verifying md5sums between $isoFile <-> $cdDrive" dd if=$cdDrive | head -c $(stat --format=%s $isoFile) | md5sum \ && md5sum $isoFile fi You have confirmed my position..... You just want to argue your point. You can continue to claim the above, But you now have _ZERO_ credibility with me.
Hi, On the Wiki, Add a small note about cdrtools. proposing it as alternate over cdkit.so let the user decide: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning_Tips Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com
Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, On the Wiki, Add a small note about cdrtools. proposing it as alternate over cdkit.so let the user decide: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning_Tips
This is of course better than doing nothing. Please note however that this discussion did not start because I like to include cdrtools into Arch linux but because Arch Linux users are interested to have cdrtools in arch linux by default instead of cdrkit. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, On the Wiki, Add a small note about cdrtools. proposing it as alternate over cdkit.so let the user decide: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning_Tips
Just a note: cdrecord has a more complete CDRWIN CUE support than cdrdao. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
I have preformed some tests and guess what cdrkit works! Imagine that. It burnt the iso's for Slackware distribution, and using md5sum to sum both a Slackware distribution disk burned by both cdrkit and cdrtools and they are the same, how did that happen?
There is a 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that you did never used cdrtools.
Jörg
Please show me the evidence to support your position.
mkisofs writes a record with it's current version number, so if you use cdrtools, the content _definitely_ differs. It is unfortunately people like you who do never prove any of their claims and who claim things with an extremely low probability that create the impression of groundless attacks and zero credibility. You may try to trick out other people, here you will not have success. As people with some basic skills know, just writing an _image_ with cdrecord and wodim and then then comparing results does not prove the absense of problems in wodim or cdrkit. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On 30-01-2010 12:58, Baho Utot wrote:
I don't think you "get it".
First of all, I don't care what happened when the split or fork happened. It makes _ZERO_ difference to me.
This is what I have done because of _your_ direct actions on this list and other actions by you on some news groups I read.
On the computers I have that run Slackware -12.2/13.0 I have removed cdrtools and installed cdrkit. Note that Slackware distributes cdrtools.
I don't care if cdrtools is better than the very best or that cdrkit is worst than the worst. It doesn't matter.
I have preformed some tests and guess what cdrkit works! Imagine that. It burnt the iso's for Slackware distribution, and using md5sum to sum both a Slackware distribution disk burned by both cdrkit and cdrtools and they are the same, how did that happen?
Going forward I will use cdrkit on any system that I have any responsibilities on.
Thanks.
PS. I agree and support Arch Linux to distribute cdrkit.
Strange, I have had the opposite experience. Trying to burn some CDs with cdrkit (on CentOS) give some problem with not being able to generate Joliet system and I have had trouble with utf-8 too. First I thought I was making some stupid mistake, but changing to cdrtools (from sourceforge repository) fixed that. Well, it was in another distro, but by what I've read in this thread it seems to make sense now. Armando
"Armando M. Baratti" <ambaratti.listas@gmail.com> wrote:
Strange, I have had the opposite experience. Trying to burn some CDs with cdrkit (on CentOS) give some problem with not being able to generate Joliet system and I have had trouble with utf-8 too.
First I thought I was making some stupid mistake, but changing to cdrtools (from sourceforge repository) fixed that.
Well, it was in another distro, but by what I've read in this thread it seems to make sense now.
There is nothing strange and this does not depend on the distro you are using. The fork does not handle UTF-8 correctly. BTW: the whole dispute with Debian started with an attempt from a Debian paketizer to make me integrate a non-working UTF-8 patch into mkisofs in May 2004. This patch was full of bugs and even if it did have no bugs, it would only handle 50% of the cases that need support for UTF-8. This broken patch is still in the fork, but in Summer 2006 I did implement working and complete UTF-8 support for mkisofs. There is however no cdrtools at Sourceforge, cdrtools is at Berlios ;-) Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On 01-02-2010 06:17, Joerg Schilling wrote:
"Armando M. Baratti"<ambaratti.listas@gmail.com> wrote:
Strange, I have had the opposite experience. Trying to burn some CDs with cdrkit (on CentOS) give some problem with not being able to generate Joliet system and I have had trouble with utf-8 too.
First I thought I was making some stupid mistake, but changing to cdrtools (from sourceforge repository) fixed that.
Well, it was in another distro, but by what I've read in this thread it seems to make sense now.
There is nothing strange and this does not depend on the distro you are using.
The fork does not handle UTF-8 correctly.
BTW: the whole dispute with Debian started with an attempt from a Debian paketizer to make me integrate a non-working UTF-8 patch into mkisofs in May 2004. This patch was full of bugs and even if it did have no bugs, it would only handle 50% of the cases that need support for UTF-8.
This broken patch is still in the fork, but in Summer 2006 I did implement working and complete UTF-8 support for mkisofs.
There is however no cdrtools at Sourceforge, cdrtools is at Berlios ;-)
Jörg
Excuse me I meant rpmforge repository. Armando
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:35:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Steve Holmes <steve.holmes88@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
I don't know much about the licenses differences and all that crap but I experienced a problem with cdrecord several years ago where it would not work with my CD burner. I kept getting wiere I/O errors or some such. When I asked around,some people told me about wodim and when I went out and installed wodim, I've been able to burn CDs and DVDs flawlessly ever since. My time with wodim has transpired over Slackware, Debian, and now Arch. I don't know today if cdrecord would still cause me those errors or not but for me, the drkit has been doing me just fine.
As you do not give any facts, this is obviously nonsense.
I know of not a single case where cdrecord fails but wodim succeeds. Wodim is nothing than an onl version of cdrecord with bugs added by it't creators that never have been in the original.
If you would give evidence, it would be easy to prove that your alleged problem is not related to cdrecord.
Jörg
-- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Now you know about several of those cases, for I wasn't able to burn my CD on a modern device (Lenovo SL500's DVD device) with cdrtools (alpha67, IIRC), but I was able to do it with cdrkit without an issue.
virus_found <vir.found@gmail.com> wrote:
Now you know about several of those cases, for I wasn't able to burn my CD on a modern device (Lenovo SL500's DVD device) with cdrtools (alpha67, IIRC), but I was able to do it with cdrkit without an issue.
There is a 99.999999999% chance that you are not telling the truth. If you really had a problem, you could describe it and send a log. People who have problems have a name and send bug reports. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:39:07PM +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
virus_found <vir.found@gmail.com> wrote:
Now you know about several of those cases, for I wasn't able to burn my CD on a modern device (Lenovo SL500's DVD device) with cdrtools (alpha67, IIRC), but I was able to do it with cdrkit without an issue.
There is a 99.999999999% chance that you are not telling the truth.
If you really had a problem, you could describe it and send a log. People who have problems have a name and send bug reports.
Jörg
-- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Sometimes I really miss the "topic close" function on the mailing list. I known already enough, so I'll just ban this thread locally. Jaroslav (Dragonlord) Lichtblau Arch Linux Trusted User -- Der Wurf mag zuweilen nicht treffen, aber die Absicht verfehlt niemals ihr Ziel. -- Jean Jacques Rousseau (Träumereien eines einsamen Spaziergängers)
2010/1/31 Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
virus_found <vir.found@gmail.com> wrote:
Now you know about several of those cases, for I wasn't able to burn my CD on a modern device (Lenovo SL500's DVD device) with cdrtools (alpha67, IIRC), but I was able to do it with cdrkit without an issue.
There is a 99.999999999% chance that you are not telling the truth.
If you really had a problem, you could describe it and send a log. People who have problems have a name and send bug reports.
Ok, I didn't want to take part in this joke, but enough is enough. There is a 99.999999999% chance that you are not telling the truth. If you really had a relevant e-mail from Eben Moglen (or another lawyer, for the matter) that could really solve all of your problems with the cdrtools-vs-cdrkit querelle, you would have found a way to publish it and clear up the doubts. People who have problems have a name (ok, you have one) and send bug (law) reports. This is *your* argument. Do you think it is valuable? Ok, I'll just say I have *two* private e-mails from a very important lawyer that states that there *is* a legal problem with cdrtools. Now, how do you counter-argument *this*? Do you see how it makes no sense at all? You know what's the point? I had a deep respect for you, before I read this thread. Maybe you're the best coder in the world, but it's decades that code doesn't earn you respect. You are talking with *people* here, not pets. And your discussion is in no way technical as you required. «My software has legal issues? No, that's not true, trust me, I can't provide any proof but it's true.» «My software has technical issues? No, that's not true, I can't trust you and you must provide proof.» No, thanks. Corrado Primier
participants (17)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andres Perera
-
Armando M. Baratti
-
Baho Utot
-
bardo
-
Daenyth Blank
-
fons＠kokkinizita.net
-
Gaurish Sharma
-
Heiko Baums
-
Jaroslav Lichtblau
-
Jim Pryor
-
Joerg.Schilling＠fokus.fraunhofer.de
-
Nathan Wayde
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Robert Howard
-
Steve Holmes
-
virus_found