Burning music CDs
in [UK Linux]
|
From: davesurrey on 25 Feb 2010 12:27 "Martin Gregorie" <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message news:hm69ah$mqa$1(a)localhost.localdomain... > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:32:31 +0000, Nigel Feltham wrote: > >> Martin Gregorie wrote: >> >>> My stereo system is quite old, consisting of Garrard 301 deck with an >>> SME arm and Shure V15 cartridge driving a Quad 33/303 amp and Celestion >>> Ditton 44 speakers. It has other sound sources too: a Quad FM3 tuner, >>> Nakamichi BX-125 tape deck, Sony CDP338 CD player and (recently added) >>> a Roku Soundbridge internet radio tuner. >> >> When it comes to HiFi then old doesn't necessarily imply bad, especially >> when it comes to the classic 301/SME/V15 combo (I personally use a >> Garrard 401 / SME Series 2 Improved removable shell version and Goldring >> 1042 cart) and most of your other hardware (I'm using a late 60's Rogers >> Cadet III valve/tube amp myself). >> > Yeah, mines also a SME Series 2 with removable head shell. > >> Amazing really that technology that was supposed to be not only killed >> off by the CD back in 1982 but by japanese belt drive turntables before >> that still performs at a level to match the best new kit (All these >> garrard models including the 501/601 are idler/rim drive - technology >> once laughed at). >> > Indeed. I've never understood why it works so well. > > The real step backward, though, is the direct drive turntable, especially > when supplied with a lightweight low-inertia plastic platter. Ugh. I once > saw direct drive described as using a road drill as the turntable support. > > martin@ | Martin Gregorie > gregorie. | Essex, UK Amazing, SME arm with a V15, Quad amp, well it was a pair of Quad II's plus 22 pre-amp, plus Celestions and a Nakascreachy; that was my rig eons ago except I was a Thorens man. And my best friend had the famous Rogers cadet. Now the only Quads I have are a pair of LS22's but I do have a Roku Soundbridge (3 in fact) connected to the main system which plays from my music server through a Roksan Candy. With age and the falling frequency response that goes with it, it does its job. Dave
From: unruh on 1 Mar 2010 17:43 On 2010-03-01, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote: > In article <7v0bobFmv5U1(a)mid.dfncis.de>, > Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> Does this mean I would get less problems with some people if I did >> disregard Authors rights like the FSF and Debian do? > > Your abrasive attitude has a lot to do with it. Adding an abusive > statement about the Linux kernel and other free software developers in > your program wasn't going to win you friends. Oh dear. Surely you can get past his" abrasive attitude". The question is surely how we supply the users with the best software, not how lovey dovey the group of distributors is. Stahlman has never been a very easy person to get along with, but that does not mean that gnu should be boycotted. Grow up. "Winning friends" is not the name of the game. Producing good software is. > > Your viewpoint is contrary to the *spirit* of most free software > licences. Not even the CDDL mentions authors' moral rights. Moral rights are part of the copyright law, not of the license. And an author in many jurisdictions cannot give away moral rights. If the CDDL or GPL is silent on moral rights then copyright law takes over. In the absense of specific statements otherwise, the work must be attributed to its author. > > Once again, I ask you what the nature of your complaint was which > caused you to consider sueing someone for a breach of the GPL. How > does the CDDL differ in giving you more control? >
From: Nix on 2 Mar 2010 15:12 On 1 Mar 2010, Paul Martin said: > Your abrasive attitude has a lot to do with it. Adding an abusive > statement about the Linux kernel and other free software developers in > your program wasn't going to win you friends. Joerg isn't the only person to have come up with this remarkable approach to PR. I was considering using the quodlibet music player at one point, until I spotted the then-ongoing flamewar around Debian bug 477454. At least Joerg has never tried concealing actual insults in the source code for the maintainer to stumble over; nor has he tried to conceal actual trojans in obfuscated portions of the source, conditionalized to fire only if the username wasn't that of the Debian maintainer, unlike the mICQ upstream. So his attitude is much better than *some* upstreams.
From: Darren Salt on 6 Mar 2010 17:37 I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written... > In article <slrnhoogo2.594.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >> Oh dear. Surely you can get past his" abrasive attitude". The question is >> surely how we supply the users with the best software, not how lovey >> dovey the group of distributors is. Stahlman has never been a very easy >> person to get along with, but that does not mean that gnu should be >> boycotted. Grow up. "Winning friends" is not the name of the game. >> Producing good software is. > Well, you are correct! If abrasive attitude would prevent people from using > software, nobody would use software from the FSF ;-) Maybe I'm just lucky. I've not seen that alleged abrasive attitude of theirs. > Important features for really free software are that that the software is > well maintained Failing that, it either rots, is forked or is passed on. > and that it supports many different platforms. That implies that platform-specific software cannot be really free. You might want to reconsider that... > Important is also that the author and the maintainers grant long term > support and grant long term freedom to the users of the software. Hmm... [snip; the usual tired old cdr{tools,kit} argument] > The debian project lost its innocence with the social attack against > cdrtools and if the debian project is unable to fire the attackers, Debian does not employ anybody therefore, regardless of the existence or otherwise of these attackers, there is nobody who Debian can sack. > we the members of the OSS community need to avoid debian in future. Pull the other one. Doing so would effectively reduce diversity; it would not benefit the OSS community. -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + This comment has been censored. Doesn't he sound tired?
From: unruh on 7 Mar 2010 19:49
On 2010-03-07, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote: > In article <7vg3f3Fsj0U1(a)mid.dfncis.de>, > Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> Nothing from the last section is true for the debian fork that was >> just created in order to run a social attack against a true OSS >> project. It is a real pitty that only a few people tell debian that >> debian needs to keep a proper distance from maintainers that attack >> OSS projects. The debian project lost it's innocence with the social >> attack against cdrtools and if the debian project is unable to fire >> the attackers, we the members of the OSS community need to avoid >> debian in future. > > What do you want Debian to do? You released cdrtools with an > irrevokable licence (GPLv2 or later) for anyone to distribute it, > modify it and distribute a modified version. Your moral rights are > never affected by that. (Your moral rights are: correct attribution of > authorship or non-authorship, and to object to derogatory treatment of > work.) I think what he wants Debian to do is to distribute an up to date version of cdrtools, not a 5 year old version. And he is objecting to derogatory treatment of the work. For a while, while Debian still called it cdrecord, he also objected to them attributing authorship to him of a work which he felt had been altered and ruined. They finally changed the name. As a user, it pains me to see grown men behave like a bunch of 5 year olds in a playground, and in the process having a good and crucial piece of software unavailable in the distributions. > > However, as you explicitly grant (formerly under the GPL and latterly > under the CDDL) anyone the right to modify the work and distribute > modified versions, arguing after the fact that someone's done so in a > way that you object to would not be easy to take to law. > > Are you saying that nobody* can distribute a modified version of > cdrtools? If that is the case, your software is not Free at all. > |