>From: David Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Could we have a cdwrite-announce for Joerg to tell us when new
>versions come out and then a different list for (perhaps just cdrwite)
>for all the other stuff.
There already aretwo new lists for some time:
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intended for discusions on development internals of cdrecord
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intended for support requests
I just created another list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>That way when the list degenerates every few months into Joerg Schilling
>versus everyone else again I can safely ignore it?
Well ask the people why they constantly restart old threads.
>BTW, Joerg - the reason orbs was trying to relay "spam" through your mail
>server was to make sure your server was secure. How else can they know but
>to test? AS long as your server was secure, you didn't end up in the orbs
>database of people who allow spam. It's all moot now that orbs is dead.
OK, what would you do:
You locked your door and go for work.
In the evening you come back and find a Burglar who is tryong to open you lock
with some tools. What would you do?
Question 1a: would you behave different if the Burglar is wearing a Police Uniform?
I am shure that in case you really like to know whether your lock is secure
you will not wait for a Burglar to come but would call a locksmith.
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>And before you get too upset about tar versus gnutar versus standards and the
>world, please realise that you wrote your own makefile system that you prefer
>to anyone elses, and I'm quite certain that your makefile system isn't an ISO
>standard. So how about giving other people the slack you give yourself and
>let them do what they want how they want?
My makefilesystem is _not_ ISO as the method proposed by FSF is.
.... but my makefilesystem is better than the method proposed by FSF so why
stop progress?
A last note to GNU tar: I already said that PD tar aka SUG tar from 1987
_was_ POSIX compliant (at least it implemented a subset). When FSF adopted
SUG tar to GNU tar in 1989 they started to introduce non POSIX compliant
"enhancements" that _break_ basic rules for the TAR archive format.
For the question of best portability:
As GNU tar archives are not POSIX compliant, I see no argument that would stand
to justify using GNU tar as the tool of your choice to create highest
portability. Contrawise: all arguments listes in the last days are arguments
to use star instead of GNU tar. Star produces (in default mode) archives that
are readable with all tar implementations except GNUtar. In addition, star
is the only program that is able to read _and_ create GNU tar archives, so
star is the program with the highest portability _and_ star ports at least
to the same number of platforms as GNU tar does.
>In case you aren't aware, Joerg -- we subscribe to this list to learn about
>cdrecord and making it work. Not Joerg's idea of how the world should work
>and why gnu is evil and stupid, or anything else.
>Why don't you get back to doing what you do best and write some code?
So even you do not realize that I have been _extremly_ productive within the
last three weeks!
I am trying to get some feedback for the new cdrecord features for some
days and it seems that all member in this mailing list are more interested
in repeating false arguments pro GNUtar and against star than in cdrecord.
J�rg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
