Just to note here as well as earlier that some of the confusion about what you
had and had not said was related to my not having seen the post where you
talked about RAW and compressed RAW errors until this morning. Since your
other mysteriously 'disappeared' post also appeared recently, I suspect that
the RAW/compressed post was not present earlier when we were talking about its
contents, but it is also possible that I just missed it. In any case, my
response to you was based on your claim below ("by selective quoting") that
this content had been in a post that I had responded to.
- bill
> > > can you guess? wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > Most of the balance of your post isn't
> addressed
> > in
> > > any detail because it carefully avoids the
> > > fundamental issues that I raised:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not true; and by selective quoting you have
> > removed
> > > my specific
> > > responses to most of these issues.
> >
> > While I'm naturally reluctant to call you an
> outright
> > liar, David, you have hardly so far in this
> > discussion impressed me as someone whose
> presentation
> > is so well-organized and responsive to specific
> > points that I can easily assume that I simply
> missed
> > those responses. If you happen to have a copy of
> > that earlier post, I'd like to see it resubmitted
> > (without modification).
>
> Oh, dear: I got one post/response pair out of phase
> with the above - the post which I claimed did not
> address the issues that I raised *is* present here
> (and indeed does not address them).
>
> I still won't call you an outright liar: you're
> obviously just *very* confused about what qualifies
> as responding to specific points. And, just for the
> record, if you do have a copy of the post that
> disappeared, I'd still like to see it.
>
> >
> > > > 1. How much visible damage does a single-bit
> > error
> > > actually do to the kind of large photographic
> > (e.g.,
> > > RAW) file you are describing? If it trashes the
> > rest
> > > of the file, as you state is the case with jpeg,
> > then
> > > you might have a point (though you'd still have
> to
> > > address my second issue below), but if it
> results
> > in
> > > a virtually invisible blemish they you most
> > certainly
> > > don't.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I addressed this quite specifically, for two
> cases
> > > (compressed raw vs.
> > > uncompressed raw) with different results.
> >
> > Then please do so where we all can see it.
>
> Especially since there's no evidence of it in the
> post (still right here, up above) where you appear to
> be claiming that you did.
>
> - bill
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
