Re: OT] Joerg Schilling flames Linux on his Blog

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On May 25, 2005, at 18:46:55, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 
>> "Bodo Eggert <harvested.in.lkml@posting.7eggert.dyndns.org>"  
>> <7eggert@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I just burned a CD on my IDE-burner using mmc_cdr with cdrtools-2.01
>>> (the one without the hack) on a vanilla 2.6.11.10. I can even scan
>>> both my SCSI and IDE devices using -dev=ATAPI, but not without -dev.
>>
>>
>> The unability to give this kind of convenience to cdrecord users is  a 
>> result
>> of the refusal of the Linux kernel crew to include the kernel internal
>> device instance numbers in the ioctl structures I need to read.
> 
> 
> There is a specific reason that the numbers are _kernel_internal_!!!   I 
> set up
> my udev so that my green CD burner is /dev/green_burner, and my blue  CD 
> burner
> is /dev/blue_burner.  Please tell me again why exactly I can't just  
> give the
> option -dev=/dev/green_burner and have it use my green CD burner? 

You do realize that you can?

> That's a lot
> easier than messing with random groups of 3 numbers and trying to  
> remember in
> which order I plugged in my burners, and which kernel I'm running, so  I 
> can
> remember the enumeration order, etc.
> 
>> Note that the fields are there but the information is intentionally  
>> obscured
>> for come of the calls just to make the life of cdrecord useers  harder 
>> :-(
> 
> 
> The information is obscured because userspace shouldn't know or care

So having you see the information to set up your udev is a good use and 
having Joerg use them is bad? If you want to have names mapped into 
"humanspace" why is program use bad? I agree numbers are ugly and 
confusing, but if I wanted someone to make those choices for me I'd run 
another o/s.

The "support is accidental" message pisses me off, because it isn't 
true. Code was added, I'm betting by design.
> 
>>> (I'm running as user, and cdrecord has no need for suid bits.)

Which is fine if you have a system to dedicate to burning CDs. But on a 
loaded system Joerg is right, you get a better burn if you don't have 
the burnfree used. Like any other minor defect it may or may not bite 
you, a lot of them will measurably reduce your CD capacity, which 
actually will bite you if you are trying to use every last byte.
>>
>>
>> I am frequently reading false claims like this. Usually from people  who
>> do not have the needed SCSI background knowledge to understand that
>> SCSI is a protocol where commands frequently fail by intention in  
>> order to
>> propagate a state or a implementation level to the application.
> 
> 
> What exactly is false about the claim?
> 
>> If you don't call cdrecord as root, you will not be able to lock in  
>> memory
>> and to raise priority in order to prevent buffer underuns.
> 
> 
> I burn CDs fine all the time as a user, and I _don't_ need to lock  
> memory or
> raise priority, because I have a good scheduler, plenty of RAM, and  
> dual CPUs.
> It would be nice if you could let me leave on the _hardware_ BurnProof
> technology designed to prevent that sort of thing, but it doesn't  
> appear to
> fit with your ideals of 100% perfect CDs, does it?  Besides, by the  
> time we
> hit the point where BurnProof would turn on, the disk is either  completely
> dead and useless (no burnproof), or slightly scarred and still  useable 
> (with
> burnproof).  Personally, I'd rather have the latter.

See above. It hasn't bitten you, therefore it doesn't bite... it's 
generally safe on a fast unloaded system.
> 
>> In addition (with Linux-2.6.8.1 or newer) you will not be able to  
>> send some
>> of the important SCSI commands mainly related to newer CD or DVD  
>> drives. As
>> a result, cdrecord cannot write DVDs
> 
> 
> I was not under the impression that the free cdrecord could write DVDs.
> 
>> or ultra speed CD-RWs or cannot do other things....
> 
> 
> Did you try submitting a list of important SCSI commands and their  
> functions?
> I suspect that if you provide a clear, concise list of harmless  commands,
> they would be included in the available command set.

Possibly true, didn't work for me.
> 
>> Not true: if only R/W fd would be allowed, no non root program  could 
>> do that.
> 
> 
> Uhh, but I don't run cdrecord as root.  My /dev/green_burner device  is 
> owned
> by root, has group "media", and perms rw-rw-r--.  Since this is a  
> somewhat public
> machine with lots of users in the "media" group, I don't want anybody  
> to be able
> to turn my drives into bricks.

No argument with that.
> 
>> See above, this false claim is a result of the fact that you miss  the 
>> background
>> knowledge on CD/DVD writing. Turning burnproof on degrades the  
>> quality of the
>> media and writing without burnproof but with the apropriate  
>> privilleges just
>> works fine.
> 
> 
> Why can't you just provide an option to leave it on?  My Mac and Windows
> computers seem to do just fine with it.  In fact, all modern CD-ROM  drives
> were designed to be able to read such "degraded" media, even "degraded"
> media that also has scratches and dents and dings and scars and all  sorts
> of other glitches in the CD surface.
> 
There is an option if you would read the manpage. There are legitimate 
complaints, this doesn't seem to be one of them.