Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
cdrw is dead and cdrecord is now also in /bin, so where is your problem?
According to whom is cdrw dead ?
I have been told that cdrw will not be extended (developed any further)
and I have been told that a bug in cdrw that causes it to fail writing DVDs
on Pioneer drives will not be fixed. There is a current problem with
the AOpen drive in the Ultra 20 where cdrw does not detect that an incompatible
medium has been inserted and fails without any helpful message.
That doesn't make it dead, that is also only opinion. Until is is
actually declared as Obsolete in an approved ARC case then a paying Sun
customer can request (and probably force) Sun to fix these bugs if there
is sufficient justification. It also means that anyone who wishes
could fix these problems in the OpenSolaris code base.
Opinion:
Personally I detest with a passion the CLI that cdrecord has despite it
being technically good at actually doing the writing. I like the
simple interface that cdrw provides. The simple cdrw CLI could be
implemented as a wrapper around cdrecord and I'd be happy with that, but
don't force me to use cdrecord CLI.
I am not sure whether you did read the man page for cdrecord in depth
The very fact you have to read the cdrecord man page in depth is the
issue.
Take as an example the second paragraph of the cdrecord man page dives
straight into talking about SCSI buses targets and luns this then goes
on for paragraphs.
Now compare this with the cdrw man page.
Look also at the examples, the first example in each man page attempts
to show the simple case of burning a disk using an existing iso file.
Again the cdrecord man page is talking about SCSI buses and targets,
something that is way beyond the knowledge of many users that are
otherwise very comfortable with the CLI.
but it seems that you don't know that it is not harder to use cdrecord
(you need to spedicfy even less parameters in case you like to do the
simple tasks that cdrw only supports) than to use cdrw.
Personally I find the man page for cdrecord very technical, this is good
if you really need to know all the details of how to write different
types of media on different drives.
Similarly the help output for cdrecord is 82 lines long, I find that
excessive and useless. I just recently fixed a similar issue with zfs(1).
Sure cdrecord is powerful but personally 'cdrw -i file.iso' has always
worked perfectly for my needs for CD and DVD burning on all types of
media I've ever used (CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD+RW (I think that is
the correct syntax but you get the idea)).
cdrecord may be used as simple as cdrw, but in contrary to cdrw, cdrecord
evaluates SCSI error codes gives readable error messages in case of a problem.
For this reason, I would call cdrecord more user friendly.
That depends on how technical you are. Joeg you know probably more than
anyone else all the issues with writting CD/DVD media and issues with
different drives. As a result cdrecord has the ability to workaround
all these issues and has lots of command options for doing so, this is
great for technical people but cdrw is simple.
I'd class myself as a very experienced UNIX user but I'm pretty much a
novice when it comes to SCSI and I really have to stop and think about
what is a bus what a target is and what a lun is. I shouldn't need to
have to know or even read about this just to burn an iso file on to
CD/DVD media when there is only one writable device on the system
(probably the case of the vast majority of systems).
So for me cdrw(1) is much more friendly than cdrecord(1), thats just
they way it is for me.
I think it is great that cdrecord can do so much but for me the UI is
too complex and the man page is far too technical too quickly.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
