Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #3615 > unrolled thread

Why are mkisofs ISO's so large?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-07 20:15 -0800
    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-08 06:03 +0000
      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-07 23:33 -0800
        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-07 23:40 -0800
          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-08 22:10 +0000
        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-08 22:07 +0000
        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:07 +0000
      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-23 10:08 -0800
        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-24 05:04 +0000
          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 11:04 -0800
          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Loki Harfagr <l0k1@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> - 2012-01-25 18:33 +0000
            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-25 20:17 +0000
              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-25 21:37 +0000
                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-25 22:32 +0000
                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-26 01:33 +0000
                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 07:56 +0000
                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-26 09:26 -0500
                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 22:43 +0000
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-01-27 00:43 +0000
                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-26 20:08 +0000
                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 22:55 +0000
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-26 18:15 -0500
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-27 07:55 +0000
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-27 07:51 -0500
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-27 09:29 +0000
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 20:35 +0000
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-01-27 22:45 +0100
                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-26 18:58 -0500
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-27 07:22 -0600
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:47 +0000
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 20:47 +0000
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-01-27 22:03 +0100
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 21:38 +0000
                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-27 21:54 +0000
                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-28 00:00 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-28 01:32 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-28 01:54 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-29 08:01 -0500
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-29 19:09 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Darren Salt <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> - 2012-01-31 17:57 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-31 21:12 +0000
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-01-27 16:44 -0500
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-27 16:39 -0500
                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? lynxuser@mouse-potato.com - 2012-01-27 14:17 +0000
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-27 09:44 -0500
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Feranija <feranija@mouse-potato.com> - 2012-01-27 07:02 -0800
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 20:53 +0000
                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:54 +0000
                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:43 +0000
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-21 18:02 +0000
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-21 17:30 -0400
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-21 23:01 +0000
                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-22 04:10 +0000
                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 07:19 -0400
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-22 17:48 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 17:51 -0400
                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-22 17:46 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-23 04:45 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-23 04:47 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2013-03-23 21:26 +0530
                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 18:05 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 17:57 -0400
                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 07:17 -0400
                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 01:30 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-03-23 02:40 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 13:33 +0000
                                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 10:41 -0400
                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 15:29 +0000
                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 11:57 -0400
                                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-23 17:24 +0000
                                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 19:02 +0000
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-23 20:00 +0000
                                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 23:22 +0000
                                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 19:44 -0400
                                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 23:56 +0000
                                                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 20:36 -0400
                                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-24 00:54 +0000
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 18:02 +0000
                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-22 14:34 -0400
                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 11:48 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 13:35 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 11:59 -0400
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 16:35 +0000
                                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 13:09 -0400
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 17:14 +0000
                                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 13:33 -0400
                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-03-23 17:58 +0000
                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 14:19 -0400
                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 19:18 +0000
                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 19:18 +0000
                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 17:25 -0400
                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> (Nuno Silva) - 2013-03-24 00:05 +0200
                                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 23:39 +0000
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> (Nuno Silva) - 2013-03-24 09:00 +0200
                                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-24 16:04 +0000
                                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-24 13:46 -0400
                                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-24 19:07 +0000
                                                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-24 17:06 -0400
                                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <njsg@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-24 21:20 +0000
                                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Fedora bug tracking Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-24 20:08 -0400
                                                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Fedora bug tracking Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-25 09:59 +0000
                                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 22:17 +0000
                                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <njsg@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-24 23:07 +0000
                                                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-25 09:57 +0000
                                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 22:35 +0000
                                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <njsg@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-24 23:03 +0000
                                                        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 21:42 +0000
                                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 21:31 +0000
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> (Nuno Silva) - 2013-03-24 09:00 +0200
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 11:29 +0000
                                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 23:34 +0000
                                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 19:58 -0400
                                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 11:31 +0000
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-24 08:56 -0400
                                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-30 12:06 +0000
                                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-30 13:24 -0400
                                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-24 17:46 +0000
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-24 15:53 -0400
                                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 21:45 +0000
                                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-24 21:51 -0400
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 20:53 +0000
                                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-03-25 08:32 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-03-23 17:22 +0100
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 17:13 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 18:44 +0000
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-24 04:15 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 11:34 +0000
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 17:56 +0000
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-03-22 18:39 +0000
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-22 22:14 +0000
                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 16:25 +0000
                                  Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 13:03 -0400
                                    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 18:39 +0000
                                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 16:37 -0400
                          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-21 17:23 -0400
                            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 17:58 +0000
                              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 17:53 -0400
                                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-23 09:20 +0000
                      Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:35 +0000
              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-01-25 23:28 +0100
                Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 07:41 +0000
              Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:31 +0000
            Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:23 +0000
          Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:21 +0000
        Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-26 10:38 -0800
    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2012-01-08 15:50 +0000
    Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:06 +0000

Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#7551

In article <slrnkknmef.r7.spamtrap42@one.localnet>,
Robert Riches  <spamtrap42@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>The problem with the brilliant software Mr. Schilling has written
>is its author is so often contradicted by reality that it
>undermines trust in the software.  For example, in another
>thread, he (very) recently stated wodim does not burn DVDs.  The
>reality is wodim has worked very well for burning a mountain of
>DVDs for me.

The problem with Mr. "Octothorpe" is that he tries to bend the truth and ignored 
the context of a statement. So the Mr. "Octothorpe" is the person without 
crediblity.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.net			(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  
      joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7559

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:05:25 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote:

> In article <slrnkknmef.r7.spamtrap42@one.localnet>,
> Robert Riches  <spamtrap42@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The problem with the brilliant software Mr. Schilling has written is its
>>author is so often contradicted by reality that it undermines trust in
>>the software.  For example, in another thread, he (very) recently stated
>>wodim does not burn DVDs.  The reality is wodim has worked very well for
>>burning a mountain of DVDs for me.
> 
> The problem with Mr. "Octothorpe" is that he tries to bend the truth and
> ignored the context of a statement. So the Mr. "Octothorpe" is the
> person without crediblity.

Bullshit

Now I see you can not read.

You stated that wodim doesn't work for DVDs
I called you on it. Wodim does work with DVDS, if it did not and it is 
indeed broken as badly as you lie about....then why does fedora ship it 
instead of cdrtools?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7539

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:01:57 +0000, unruh wrote:

> On 2013-03-21, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:02:15 +0000, unruh wrote:
>>
>> [putolin]
>>  
>>> GPL3 and GPL2 for example contain far more incompatibility than does
>>> GPL and CDDL.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, Jorg could release cdrtools under the GPL2 (as well
>>> as CDDL) if he wanted to. It is not clear to me why he doesn't do
>>> that, but it is his right to release it however he wants. It is just
>>> too bad that the rest of us are saddled with inferior software due to
>>> this battle royal (Yes, cdrtools can be installed separately, but it
>>> is a bit of a pain.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>> Just use wodim  (when you need to burn a cd/DVD) and go about ones
>> business and forget about Jorg.  DVD and such are going away replaced
>> by USB derives.  Movies that was once only on DVDs you can now get over
>> the web, so Jorg and his crusade is becoming a mute point.
> 
> The problem with your comment is that the software that Jorg writes is
> very good, and has been kept up to date with new writers, etc.

So what it is not necessary for the common user

> Wodim has
> not. And dvds are still being used and have not been replaced by usb
> drives A USB drive is still far more expensive than a blank DVD.

Well lets see the last time I burned a CD/DVD was 3 years ago.

> And while you may have unlimited data download from the web, most people
> do not. 

Well don't most people have internet connected phones now a days?

Don't most people now get their content over the internet?

> While you may well be right about what the situation in 10 years
> time will be, most people want to live life now, not sometime in the
> future.

The future is now.
If you want to stay with 4G DVD so be it but I am going to use 32G USB 
drives.  They work too well over DVDs that to go back to DVDs is like 
going back to USPS (U.S. Postal Service).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7563

On 2013-03-22, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
> Don't most people now get their content over the internet?

I have no idea. I know that I do not, and for that matter do not have
an internet-connected phone. (The whole idea of connecting a telephone
to the internet seems pretty silly on its face, but each to their own.)

I burn a lot of optical media and use cdrtools for that as I've found
it to overall be more reliable than wodim. It's easy enough to download
and compile the source. (The politics and personalities involved are
not my concern.)

> The future is now.

Not for me.

> If you want to stay with 4G DVD so be it but I am going to use 32G USB 
> drives.  They work too well over DVDs that to go back to DVDs is like 
> going back to USPS (U.S. Postal Service).

Although overall I prefer analog media, CDs and DVDs are cheap and work
just fine. (Oh, I also use the USPS on a regular basis and have no problem
with it.)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7564

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:30:06 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-03-22, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Don't most people now get their content over the internet?
>
> I have no idea. I know that I do not, and for that matter do not have
> an internet-connected phone. (The whole idea of connecting a telephone
> to the internet seems pretty silly on its face, but each to their own.)

Yes, $25 a year for the phone number, $0.007 cents a minute for in/out
calls from http://www.diamondcard.us/ is pretty silly.

I just hate not having to pay that monthly phone bill.  :-D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7573

On 2013-03-23, Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Yes, $25 a year for the phone number, $0.007 cents a minute for in/out
> calls from http://www.diamondcard.us/ is pretty silly.
>
> I just hate not having to pay that monthly phone bill.  :-D

I prefer and am quite willing to pay for reliable phone service from
the people who know telephones the best, the phone company. I have no
interest in fly-by-night outfits providing substandard service using
dubious technology.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7576

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:33:19 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2013-03-23, Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Yes, $25 a year for the phone number, $0.007 cents a minute for in/out
>> calls from http://www.diamondcard.us/ is pretty silly.
>>
>> I just hate not having to pay that monthly phone bill.  :-D
> 
> I prefer and am quite willing to pay for reliable phone service from the
> people who know telephones the best, the phone company. I have no
> interest in fly-by-night outfits providing substandard service using
> dubious technology.

Ever heard of Vonage or Magicjack?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7577

On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
> Ever heard of Vonage or Magicjack?

What about them? They are recent and highly dubious outfits, though of
course anyone willing to sacrifice quality for price is welcome to use
them. They are most likely here today, gone tomorrow. Then you can move
on to the next slipshod outfit.

In comparision, the Bell system and its direct successors have been in the
business of providing reliable telephone service for well over 100 years.
I have no problem paying for that.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7579

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:29:38 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Ever heard of Vonage or Magicjack?
> 
> What about them? They are recent and highly dubious outfits, though of
> course anyone willing to sacrifice quality for price is welcome to use
> them. They are most likely here today, gone tomorrow. Then you can move
> on to the next slipshod outfit.
> 

You are making silly comments.

> In comparision, the Bell system and its direct successors have been in
> the business of providing reliable telephone service for well over 100
> years. I have no problem paying for that.

If you are commenting on ATT well they have VOIP systems as well.  Does 
that making them unreliable/dubious as well.  I would even say that you 
POTS system also goes VOIP as well.
The old Bell system is gone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7588

On Saturday, March 23rd, 2013, at 11:57:40h -0400, Octothorpe explained:

> I would even say that you POTS system also goes VOIP as well.
> The old Bell system is gone.

Instead of running IP on top of the PSTN telephone system, telephone
systems are increasingly moving to running the PSTN telephone system
on top of IP, eg

   <http://www.samknows.COM/broadband/exchanges/21cn_overview>

QUOTE

   The following are some of the key changes that 21CN will bring:

   1) The national PSTN phone network will be moved on to a digital IP network

UNQUOTE

Presumably most US long distance carriers are already doing this???

And the local carriers (regional Bells) are in transition or not???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7594

On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
> You are making silly comments.

Not at all. Sticking with people who have been the leaders in
telecommunications for over a century is my preference. If you
want to go with newcomers offering basement prices for basement
service that is your business. 

Bell Labs invented little things like the transistor. What kind
of development and research do Vonage and Magic Jack do?

I am certainly not the only one who has made this determination.
The phone company is not keeping its residential services available
for my benefit alone.

> The old Bell system is gone.

Yes, but its decendents are still with us and that is who I choose to
do business with.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7597

On Saturday, March 23rd, 2013, at 19:02:56h +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> Bell Labs invented little things like the transistor. What kind
> of development and research do Vonage and Magic Jack do?

And what connection do Bell Laboratories have with the telephone
system of today?

Bell Laboratories is a subsidiary of the French-owned Alcatel-Lucent.

> Yes, but its decendents are still with us and that is who I choose to
> do business with.

Not its descendents but companies which bought out the business.

  "In 2005, South Western Bell Company purchased the former
   parent AT&T Corporation and took on its branding."

I wonder if you also believe that Hoover branded vacuum cleaners
are made by the Hoover Company.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7602

On 2013-03-23, J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
> And what connection do Bell Laboratories have with the telephone
> system of today?

The point is that Vonage, Magic Jack, and the like are just minimalist
fly-by-night operations that have done virtually no research and
development and have contributed nearly nothing to the art and science
of telecommunications.

> Not its descendents but companies which bought out the business.

Verizon is directly descended from the old Bell system, it started
out as Bell Atlantic. (This was one of the so-called "Baby Bells" that
were left after the Bell system breakup.) Verizon was later formed by
merging Bell Atlantic with NYNEX (a Bell regional operating company),
along with the independent phone company GTE.

There were other mergers and divestitures over the years of course, but
clearly today's Verizon can trace its lineage back to the old Bell system.
Many of the old Bell central offices still stand, their familiar Bell
system signs partially visible under the Verizon facade.

>   "In 2005, South Western Bell Company purchased the former
>    parent AT&T Corporation and took on its branding."

Yes, all in the Bell system family.

> I wonder if you also believe that Hoover branded vacuum cleaners
> are made by the Hoover Company.

Irrelevant. Hoover was sold to the Chinese, that is not the case
with the Bell companies.

By the way, check out what happens in disaster areas, traditional phone
service tends to stay up even during protracted power outages since the
telephone CO does not rely on the grid. For example, during hurricane
Sandy people reliant on Vonage and Magic Jack and/or cell phones were
left without communications for a considerable time, while those with
"old fashioned" phone lines still had service:

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11752699/1/cell-phone-internet-service-crippled-by-hurricane-sandy.html

   "...The service is self-powered and can remain operational when other
    means of communication cannot. In Lower Manhattan, after the 9/11 attacks,
    wired telephones still provided dial tones even when no other utilities
    were available."

Bottom line is some want the cheapest bargain-basement service they
can find from new and questionable companies with no established track
records. I, and the others that stick with traditional telephone service,
want reliable service from companies with long histories of experience
in telecommunications and we are willing to pay for that. It's just a
matter of what level of service one is willing to accept and what one
is willing to pay for it, a matter of personal choice. Therefore this
conversation can serve no purpose any more.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7605

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:22:56 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

[putolin]

> By the way, check out what happens in disaster areas, traditional phone
> service tends to stay up even during protracted power outages since the
> telephone CO does not rely on the grid. For example, during hurricane
> Sandy people reliant on Vonage and Magic Jack and/or cell phones were
> left without communications for a considerable time, while those with
> "old fashioned" phone lines still had service:
> 

In the Philippines the whole country uses cell phones and where i am from 
we have 6 or 7 typhoons per year and the cell phones are the only 
communication the works before, during and after the storm.

Visit Luzon sometime, preferably during a typhoon.


>     http://www.thestreet.com/story/11752699/1/cell-phone-internet-
service-crippled-by-hurricane-sandy.html
> 
>    "...The service is self-powered and can remain operational when other
>     means of communication cannot. In Lower Manhattan, after the 9/11
>     attacks,
>     wired telephones still provided dial tones even when no other
>     utilities were available."

What happens when all the telephone poles are torn down and the wires are 
mangled into uselessness?

> 
> Bottom line is some want the cheapest bargain-basement service they can
> find from new and questionable companies with no established track
> records. I, and the others that stick with traditional telephone
> service, want reliable service from companies with long histories of
> experience in telecommunications and we are willing to pay for that.
> It's just a matter of what level of service one is willing to accept and
> what one is willing to pay for it, a matter of personal choice.
> Therefore this conversation can serve no purpose any more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7606

On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
> In the Philippines the whole country uses cell phones and where i am from 
> we have 6 or 7 typhoons per year and the cell phones are the only 
> communication the works before, during and after the storm.

In the U.S. our experience has been the opposite, cell towers go offline
with the power grid, the POTS lines stay operational as long as the
copper is still up. (Even if the copper goes down, the phone lines go
live as soon as they are repaired, regardless of the power grid.

Obviously other countries will differ, but in the U.S. we have a long
history of telephone companies going to extreme measures to insure
that the land lines are up and operating during disasters. The recent
experience with hurricane Sandy is just one example. I personally have
never had the phones fail during a power outage.

> What happens when all the telephone poles are torn down and the wires are 
> mangled into uselessness?

What happens when the cell towers are knocked down? At some level of
disaster electronic communications are going to be distrupted no matter
what. But here in the U.S. the phone system has an excellent track record.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7608

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:56:11 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>> In the Philippines the whole country uses cell phones and where i am
>> from we have 6 or 7 typhoons per year and the cell phones are the only
>> communication the works before, during and after the storm.
> 
> In the U.S. our experience has been the opposite, cell towers go offline
> with the power grid, the POTS lines stay operational as long as the
> copper is still up. (Even if the copper goes down, the phone lines go
> live as soon as they are repaired, regardless of the power grid.
> 
> Obviously other countries will differ, but in the U.S. we have a long
> history of telephone companies going to extreme measures to insure that
> the land lines are up and operating during disasters. The recent
> experience with hurricane Sandy is just one example. I personally have
> never had the phones fail during a power outage.
> 
>> What happens when all the telephone poles are torn down and the wires
>> are mangled into uselessness?
> 
> What happens when the cell towers are knocked down? At some level of

What tower?

> disaster electronic communications are going to be distrupted no matter
> what. But here in the U.S. the phone system has an excellent track
> record.


The first responders (ie the residents) have cell phones, we don't sit 
around waiting for some one to fix our problem,  we fix it ourself.
No one is coming right away from Manila or anywhere else.

Google "mud slides"+Phillippines

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/typhoon-bopha-returns-to-philippines-1.183480

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/philippines-typhoon-
idUSL4N09H0RX20121207

The military always shows up several days later, after we residents get 
the roads open.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7609

On 2013-03-24, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
> The first responders (ie the residents) have cell phones, we don't sit 
> around waiting for some one to fix our problem,  we fix it ourself.
> No one is coming right away from Manila or anywhere else.

Bottom line is that different countries have different communications
infrastructures that have different strengths and vulnerabilities. Here
in the U.S. the cell phone and internet infrastructures have proven to
be more vulnerable than the traditional land lines. Any number of web
searches on the subject will confirm that this is the case.

It is very good that your people are self-reliant in the face of such
problems. There was a time here when that was the case as well, but not
any more for a variety of reasons. Today people in the U.S. who try to
be prepared for disasters tend to be vilified, but I'm not going to open
up that can of worms any further. :-)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7550

In article <qoas1a-v44.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
Octothorpe  <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:

>Just use wodim  (when you need to burn a cd/DVD) and go about ones 
>business and forget about Jorg.  DVD and such are going away replaced by 
>USB derives.  Movies that was once only on DVDs you can now get over the 
>web, so Jorg and his crusade is becoming a mute point.

If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...

People who care about results use cdrecord.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.net			(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  
      joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7553

Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:

> In article <qoas1a-v44.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
> Octothorpe  <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>Just use wodim  (when you need to burn a cd/DVD) and go about ones 
>>business and forget about Jorg.  DVD and such are going away replaced by 
>>USB derives.  Movies that was once only on DVDs you can now get over the 
>>web, so Jorg and his crusade is becoming a mute point.
>
> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...

50% failure rate?

Why don't I believe you?
Could be the few dozen DVDs I've burned I guess.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7571

In article <icli9fcmgm.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen  <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:

>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...
>
>50% failure rate?

This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.

There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they 
don't use it.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.net			(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  
      joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web