> I seem to have not been as clear as I should have. I > sugest Nero not because there is no other alternative > but because it is simple better. from and end user > rospective it is highly intuative, can do anything > you could posibly want,
Actually, no, it can not. For example, the kind of UDF 1.50 images I create and burn, Nero can't do. > has every cd or dvd feature > out there, and has a more powerfull (yes this is true > go through the technical documentation if you must) > engine then cdrecord. It would greatly interest me, from a technical standpoint, to learn of a piece of software that has a more advanced engine than cdrecord. Please be so kind as to point out where Nero's burning engine is better than cdrecord. > Graveman and others are good but not as > good, most of the UI's are still feature incomplete, > while Nero is a full package and all very closely > knit. I believe that what you're really saying in the above paragraphs is that you're so used to Nero and you like it so much, that you actually want *someone else* to do the porting for you to Solaris. Two questions come to mind when I think about that. 1. did you lobby the makers of Nero to port it to Solaris? 2. if all you really care about is braindead "clicky-bunty" stuff, why do you care whether it runs on Solaris or not? You have "clicky-bunty" on Windows. And on MacOS X. You don't need Solaris for that. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
