Reusing DVD+RW disks with cdrecord
in [General Linux]
|
From: mjt on 6 Jul 2010 16:21 On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)yahoo.donottypethisbit.co> wrote: > >> That doesn't really make much sense to me. Anyhow it turns out > >> that to reuse a disk, just insert it into the drive, and perform > >> the record operation as normal. > > > > Makes sense to me ... erasing first, then recording over that erased > > space is redundant - "recording over" is simply an erase-on-the-fly > > operation. > > The thing that did not make much sense was the way that the man page > is worded. However, that is easy enough to fix, now I know how it > works. The document talks about the DVD Plus Alliance, simulation > mode, "nor away" (which is a grammatical error), write modes and > packets, but doesn't actually tell me anything about the behaviour > of cdrecord. Agreed. Man pages can be terse/confusing/contradictory. Unfortunately, sometimes we must read into what is not written, or learn from experience :) -- Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics. - Fletcher Knebel <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: Aragorn on 10 Jul 2010 15:17 On Saturday 10 July 2010 20:31 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as Joerg Schilling wrote... > In article <i05b7r$bcj$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Aragorn <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote: > >> I'm no lawyer or license guru, but it does deserve to be mentioned >> that Joerg Schilling's "cdrtools" is licensed under the CDDL, >> while "wodim" - i.e. the "broken" variant - is licensed either under >> the GPL or a compatible Free Software license - the BSD or Apache >> license, perhaps. > > The people from Debian who started to attack cdrtools are no lawyers > and they did never send any legally valid prove for their claims > against cdrtools. Hey, you won't hear any comments on that from me. First of all I don't know what Debian's claims against the "cdrtools" software would be, and secondly I try staying away from too much pedanticism in the FOSS world. Debian is not exactly too pedantic on the licensing of its own software packages, because even the FSF does not consider Debian a "truly free" distribution. >> "cdrtools" is freely downloadable from Schilling's repository, but I >> don't know whether the CDDL supports distribution by third parties. >> Like I said, I'm neither a lawyer nor a license guru. ;-) > > The CDDL is an accepted OSS license. This I know, yes. For one, it is the license used for OpenSolaris, but of course, given that you've also released an OpenSolaris Live CD, you probably know this better than I do. :-) I just wasn't aware - when I wrote that paragraph - on whether the CDDL had some specific stipulations about redistribution. Therefore, since I didn't know that, I found it the most honest approach to the original poster. ;-) > While there was never a dispute on whether the CDDL can be accepted by > the OpenSouce Initiative as a conforming OSS license, the GPL was > marked non-OSS compliant for a while because the GPL FAQ from the FSF > contains claims that make the GPL non-OSS-compliant. Later, the FSF > send a mail to the OSI that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way > that makes it OSS compliant. The FSF however did never correct the GPL > FAQ on their web server..... Maybe their webmasters are just as technically motivated as the developers of the GNU Hurd... :p > There are companies that employ such people and all the companies that > asked their lawyers and license gurus ship the original cdrtools. Most distributions I myself have seen so far - and granted, there aren't too many of those because my colleagues and I have always been gravitating towards the same subset of distributions - ship with "wodim" instead, but your "cdrtools" is far superior to "wodim", and I'll always acknowledge that any time. ;-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: John Hasler on 10 Jul 2010 16:00 Joerg Schilling writes: > What you write here is called slander and this is a crime in my > country Germany. Another vague threat of legal action: a good reason not to distribute Mr. Schilling's program (which is too bad as it is good code). -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Darren Salt on 10 Jul 2010 16:31 I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written... > In article <5132F9918C%news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid>, > Darren Salt <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote: >>> What do you think growisofs depends on? >> dvd+rw-tools (which contains growisofs) depends on libc6, libgcc1, >> libstdc++6 and... > I need to correct you here: growisofs depends on mkisofs and not on > genisoimage. http://packages.debian.org/lenny/dvd+rw-tools disagrees. http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/dvd+rw-tools disagrees. http://packages.debian.org/sid/dvd+rw-tools disagrees. > Guess why the author recommends not to use genisoimage? It is because there > are many bugs in genisoimage that hit you in special when you prepare > images for DVDs or BluRay media. Whether or not that's true, I've not been affected by them. -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | back! | + Travel less. Share transport more. PRODUCE LESS CARBON DIOXIDE. Borg moderator: Your topic is irrelevant.
From: J G Miller on 10 Jul 2010 16:59
On Saturday, July 10th, 2010 at 20:55:00h +0000, Joerg Schilling declared: > Well Debian destroys many programs - not only cdrtools. In your opinion, which distribution is least destructive of programs? |