From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268322AbUHFXhE (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:37:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268325AbUHFXhD (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:37:03 -0400 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]:49108 "EHLO relay.uni-heidelberg.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268322AbUHFXgQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:36:16 -0400 From: Bernd Schubert To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PATCH: cdrecord: avoiding scsi device numbering for ide devices Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 01:35:54 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Albert Cahalan , schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de References: <1091823988.1232.2552.camel@cube> In-Reply-To: <1091823988.1232.2552.camel@cube> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408070136.04576.bernd-schubert@web.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 06 August 2004 22:26, Albert Cahalan wrote: > In various emails, Joerg Schilling writes: > > Linux users like to call cdrecord -scanbus and they like to > > see _all_ SCSI devices from a single call to cdrecord. > > If you really think so, you've been smoking crack. Please, no insults. I like this cdrecord -scanbus too, but I would like it more, if it would also print pure ide devices ;) On the other hand I usually also don't care since k3b does all this stuff for me. > Users _hate_ to call "cdrecord -scanbus". They don't > see why it should be needed. The normal reaction to > reading your documentation goes something like this: > > "What the fuck? Can't I just give it a device name?" Well, the usual reaction is 'cdrecord whats that? Commandline interface, parameters? Hey, I want to burn a CD and don't like reading manpages for stuff like that'. I guess that at least 95% of all people who would like to burn a CD will prefer (and also use) a grahical interface. The hole discussion which cdrecord -dev parameter to use is completely useless, it only effects a clear minority of developers and guys who probably don't like graphical interfaces at at all. Those guys should be able to adopt to whatever -dev option is possible. Please, calm down and return to usefull technical discussions. Bernd