On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 01:18, Audioslave - 7M3 - Live wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Thanks for the feedback regarding the advancements with the 2.6 kernel.. It sounds like the IDE direct access for use with the cd burner is what I am after here. the scsi emulation does not work very well, in my instance, anyway. Having a true device mount point, instead of emulation /dev/sg for burning and /dev/scd for reading , tthrough the emulation, seems to be corrupting the data that is written via the emulation.
I hope 2.6 gets out soon. I hope the work in the 2.5 development level are making progress with the IDE mount point.
I have recorded several CD's with 2.5 kernels using cdrecord and native ATAPI burning (no IDE-SCSI emulation) with success :-)
________________________________________________________________________ Felipe Alfaro Solana Linux Registered User #287198 http://counter.li.org
If I ever sucessfully get one of the 2.5 kernels compiled. I'll try it out also.
Other than the trouble with getting the modules to compile sucessfully. The kernel that I compiled doesn't successfully load.
It would be great to have a system that had all the required libs and mod-utilities to compile these kernels successfully. I hope that the next beta cycle includes these capabilities.
With these CDRs that you recorded. Did you try to use them in readers that were sort of written off, in earlier discussions, on this list?
I'd like to burn a CDR that plays well in about any audio player, works great within foreign operating systems and is read without errors in the written off readers.
Though i'm in favor of working within the latest kernel build environment. I am getting that this 2.6 kernel can only be expedited through a whole distribution that caters to using the latest in kernel development, with the latest in the development of programs and GUI managers.
It sounds like a great time for a "Linux, on the edge" distribution. How else can someone gauge the best directions to take Linux, into the future?
The utility functions should be the highest priority set out. (hardware working in a close to pure state.) Then the command line interface to programs. Then the GUI frontends to control fully functional programs, that can operate with only command line controls.
The aspect has to be remembered that the graphic interfaces will change with each version of the GUI chosen. If they both have to interface with the same non-GUI program, through an interface. The core programs would be more uniform and would aid several more varieties of a GUI manager.
Personally, I like the programs like setup and mc. They are visual enough to aid you in navigating through the system. Plus, they work with or without a working GUI.
Jim
-- A mathematician, a doctor, and an engineer are walking on the beach and observe a team of lifeguards pumping the stomach of a drowned woman. As they watch, water, sand, snails and such come out of the pump. The doctor watches for a while and says: "Keep pumping, men, you may yet save her!!" The mathematician does some calculations and says: "According to my understanding of the size of that pump, you have already pumped more water from her body than could be contained in a cylinder 4 feet in diameter and 6 feet high." The engineer says: "I think she's sitting in a puddle."
-- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
