Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #3615 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-01-07 20:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-03-21 14:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
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 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-07 20:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? |
| Message-ID | <jeb58h$9ne$1@dont-email.me> |
Hi All,
Why does
mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label
create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility
to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What
am I doing wrong?
Many thanks,
-T
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-08 06:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QkaOq.3472$QF4.2309@newsfe01.iad> |
| In reply to | #3615 |
On 2012-01-08, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Hi All, > > Why does > > mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label > > create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility > to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What > am I doing wrong? > First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. cdrecord.belios.de and not the ancient version in cdrkit. What GUI utility are you using and yes there probably is some compression setting, but I cannot help there. > Many thanks, > -T
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-07 23:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jebgsd$jh2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3616 |
On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: > On 2012-01-08, Todd<Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Why does >> >> mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >> >> create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >> to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >> am I doing wrong? >> > > First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. > cdrecord.belios.de > and not the ancient version in cdrkit. $ mkisofs -version mkisofs 2.01 is not what you see here. This line is only a fake for too clever GUIs and other frontend applications. In fact, this program is: genisoimage 1.1.9 (Linux) > What GUI utility are you using k9copy and dvdshrink
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-07 23:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jebh9g$k68$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3617 |
On 01/07/2012 11:33 PM, Todd wrote: > On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: >> On 2012-01-08, Todd<Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Why does >>> >>> mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >>> >>> create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >>> to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >>> am I doing wrong? >>> >> >> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. >> cdrecord.belios.de >> and not the ancient version in cdrkit. > > $ mkisofs -version > mkisofs 2.01 is not what you see here. This line is only > a fake for too clever GUIs and other frontend applications. > In fact, this program is: genisoimage 1.1.9 (Linux) $ rpm -q --provides wodim cdrecord = 9:2.01-12 dvdrecord = 0:0.1.5.1 wodim = 1.1.9-11.el6 wodim(x86-64) = 1.1.9-11.el6 > >> What GUI utility are you using > > k9copy and dvdshrink > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-08 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EvoOq.7895$wy.854@newsfe21.iad> |
| In reply to | #3618 |
On 2012-01-08, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 01/07/2012 11:33 PM, Todd wrote: >> On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: >>> On 2012-01-08, Todd<Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Why does >>>> >>>> mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >>>> >>>> create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >>>> to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >>>> am I doing wrong? >>>> >>> >>> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. >>> cdrecord.belios.de >>> and not the ancient version in cdrkit. >> >> $ mkisofs -version >> mkisofs 2.01 is not what you see here. This line is only >> a fake for too clever GUIs and other frontend applications. >> In fact, this program is: genisoimage 1.1.9 (Linux) > > $ rpm -q --provides wodim > cdrecord = 9:2.01-12 > dvdrecord = 0:0.1.5.1 > wodim = 1.1.9-11.el6 > wodim(x86-64) = 1.1.9-11.el6 Yes, you are using an ancient version of mkisofs-- from about 2005 and it has had no updates since then. There has been a battle between Debian ( and via them many linux distros) and Schilling, the writer of cdrecord/mkisofs over licensing. The only losers in this battle have been the users. Schilling has spent much time and effort keeping cdrecord/mkisofs up to date. The people who branched wodim have not. Get the real thing. Although I do not think that the problem you ae having is really associated with this, it might be. > > >> >>> What GUI utility are you using >> >> k9copy and dvdshrink >> >> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-08 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rsoOq.9734$xs3.2822@newsfe17.iad> |
| In reply to | #3617 |
On 2012-01-08, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: >> On 2012-01-08, Todd<Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Why does >>> >>> mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >>> >>> create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >>> to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >>> am I doing wrong? >>> >> >> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. >> cdrecord.belios.de >> and not the ancient version in cdrkit. > > $ mkisofs -version > mkisofs 2.01 is not what you see here. This line is only > a fake for too clever GUIs and other frontend applications. > In fact, this program is: genisoimage 1.1.9 (Linux) That is the "fake" mkisofs from cdrkit. > > >> What GUI utility are you using > > k9copy and dvdshrink From the web page for dvdshrink The first preventative measure is encryption. Commercial DVD titles are often encrypted, which prevents you from either copying them to your hard drive, or if you manage to do so, being able to play the resulting files. DVDShrink overcomes this problem with built-in decryption algorithms. The next problem is not so easy. Most DVD video titles are simply too large to fit, without modification, onto a single recordable DVD-R disk. DVDShrink overcomes this problem by compressing or "shrinking" the data from your original DVD. > And I am sure that mkisofs does not compress the files. Its purpose is to write to disk. Not to prepare the contents. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-21 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kif471$bn3$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #3617 |
In article <jebgsd$jh2$1@dont-email.me>, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote:
>> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs.
>> cdrecord.belios.de
>> and not the ancient version in cdrkit.
>
>$ mkisofs -version
>mkisofs 2.01 is not what you see here. This line is only
>a fake for too clever GUIs and other frontend applications.
>In fact, this program is: genisoimage 1.1.9 (Linux)
This is the buggy Debian variant, you don't like to 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]
| From | Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-23 10:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jfk7me$js2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3616 |
On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: >> Hi All, >> > >> > Why does >> > >> > mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >> > >> > create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >> > to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >> > am I doing wrong? >> > > First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. > cdrecord.belios.de > and not the ancient version in cdrkit. > What GUI utility are you using and yes there probably is some > compression setting, but I cannot help there. What a HUGE difference that made. My ISOs are now small and are created 10 times faster! And, I guy over on RPM Forge gave me a link to Red Hat RPMS, including RHEL RPMs: http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/cdrtools/ Thank you! -T
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 05:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lZqTq.4339$5r2.166@newsfe11.iad> |
| In reply to | #3841 |
On 2012-01-23, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> > >>> > Why does >>> > >>> > mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >>> > >>> > create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >>> > to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >>> > am I doing wrong? >>> > >> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. >> cdrecord.belios.de >> and not the ancient version in cdrkit. >> What GUI utility are you using and yes there probably is some >> compression setting, but I cannot help there. > > > What a HUGE difference that made. My ISOs are now small and are created > 10 times faster! And, I guy over on RPM Forge gave me a link to > Red Hat RPMS, including RHEL RPMs: > > http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/cdrtools/ > > Thank you! There is a totally idiotic pissing contest between Debian and Schilling, the writter of cdrtools. Schilling released cdrtools recently under CDDL. Debian does not like this (although they are happy with the totally incompatibility between GPL3 and GPL2) and have decided that that completely stupid, ancient version of cdrtools (7 years old now). The only ones that suffer are the users. Schilling on the other hand is pathelogically stubborn (and a great software creator). > > -T > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 11:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jfmvb0$3ai$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3846 |
On 01/23/2012 09:04 PM, unruh wrote: > There is a totally idiotic pissing contest between Debian and Schilling, the > writter of cdrtools. Schilling released cdrtools recently under CDDL. > Debian does not like this (although they are happy with the totally > incompatibility between GPL3 and GPL2) and have decided that that > completely stupid, ancient version of cdrtools (7 years old now). The only ones that suffer are > the users. Schilling on the other hand is pathelogically stubborn (and > a great software creator). Hear! Hear!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Loki Harfagr <l0k1@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-25 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2012.01.25.18.33.24@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> |
| In reply to | #3846 |
Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:04:17 +0000, unruh did cat : > On 2012-01-23, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> > >>>> > Why does >>>> > >>>> > mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >>>> > >>>> > create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >>>> > to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >>>> > am I doing wrong? >>>> > >>> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. >>> cdrecord.belios.de >>> and not the ancient version in cdrkit. >>> What GUI utility are you using and yes there probably is some >>> compression setting, but I cannot help there. >> >> >> What a HUGE difference that made. My ISOs are now small and are created >> 10 times faster! And, I guy over on RPM Forge gave me a link to >> Red Hat RPMS, including RHEL RPMs: >> >> http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/cdrtools/ >> >> Thank you! > > There is a totally idiotic pissing contest between Debian and Schilling, the > writter of cdrtools. Schilling released cdrtools recently under CDDL. > Debian does not like this (although they are happy with the totally > incompatibility between GPL3 and GPL2) and have decided that that > completely stupid, ancient version of cdrtools (7 years old now). The only ones that suffer are > the users. come on, read this page and it's just too clear the suffering origin comes from strange interpretations of the license by some (probably gone down the drain for long now) loosy transient partners in some distros at some time in the past (hopefuly): http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html > Schilling on the other hand is pathelogically stubborn (and > a great software creator). to be stubborn on an important point in free software distribution is a quality that should be supported, taught and shared, and that other point you said about another quality of Jörg Schilling is certainly true too :D)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-25 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zrZTq.5432$_g3.3426@newsfe09.iad> |
| In reply to | #3885 |
On 2012-01-25, Loki Harfagr <l0k1@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> wrote: > Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:04:17 +0000, unruh did cat??: > >> On 2012-01-23, Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> > >>>>> > Why does >>>>> > >>>>> > mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label >>>>> > >>>>> > create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility >>>>> > to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What >>>>> > am I doing wrong? >>>>> > >>>> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs. >>>> cdrecord.belios.de >>>> and not the ancient version in cdrkit. >>>> What GUI utility are you using and yes there probably is some >>>> compression setting, but I cannot help there. >>> >>> >>> What a HUGE difference that made. My ISOs are now small and are created >>> 10 times faster! And, I guy over on RPM Forge gave me a link to >>> Red Hat RPMS, including RHEL RPMs: >>> >>> http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/cdrtools/ >>> >>> Thank you! >> >> There is a totally idiotic pissing contest between Debian and Schilling, the >> writter of cdrtools. Schilling released cdrtools recently under CDDL. >> Debian does not like this (although they are happy with the totally >> incompatibility between GPL3 and GPL2) and have decided that that >> completely stupid, ancient version of cdrtools (7 years old now). The only ones that suffer are >> the users. > > come on, read this page and it's just too clear the suffering origin comes > from strange interpretations of the license by some (probably gone down the > drain for long now) loosy transient partners in some distros at some time > in the past (hopefuly): > http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html > >> Schilling on the other hand is pathelogically stubborn (and >> a great software creator). > > to be stubborn on an important point in free software distribution is a > quality that should be supported, taught and shared, and that other point > you said about another quality of J??rg Schilling is certainly true too :D) I do not dispute his right to be stubborn-- his producing the software more than gives him the right to be so. I have a lot less sympathy for the stubborness of the Debian people and all of the other distributions. The key point is that the users suffer. While one can download the cdrtools and compile them, that in itself makes use by many users highly unlikely. The key issue is an issue of licenses and the GPL. The debian people interpret the GPL in one way, a way that I believe holds much in sympathy with the way in which SCO interpreted the GPL in their famous attempt to extort money from Linux users. Schilling does not like the GPL because he feels it does not offer enough protection against someone using the software in proprietary and commercial products, at least under German law, and likes (was involved, at SUN, in the formulation of) CDDL. There are some very subtle points about the overlap of the GPL and CDDL. Note that in my opinion that are far less than the incompatibility of GPL3 and GPL2 licenses. Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any system that uses the Linux kernel. Anyway, it is an illustration of the fact that without good will, the most minor points can be blown up into major battles. If one cannot even get Debian and Schilling together by enough to solve the cdrtools problem for the users, there is zero hope of solving problems like Palestine, Iran, Iraq, ..... At least people have not died yet because of this dispute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-25 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8762fzcvlh.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #3887 |
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian > people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any > system that uses the Linux kernel. The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-25 22:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oq%Tq.69$ak.46@newsfe19.iad> |
| In reply to | #3888 |
On 2012-01-25, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: > unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian >> people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any >> system that uses the Linux kernel. > > The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true. The kernel's license is GPL2. The distributors may include what they think the license means, but they are not the ones that determine the meaning. The courts do. Now, their interpretation may well determine whether or not the kernel developers will sue under various conditions. But then Schilling has explicitly stated that he feels that the inclusion of cdrtools in Linux is perfectly fine and he will not sue. Ie, I see nothing dissimilar between the kernel/program license incompatibility and the CDDR/GPL claimed incompatibility as far the licenses are concerned. Both may have incompatibilities with each other (greater in the GPL3/GPL2 case than in the CDDL/GPL case) but there are nothing that a bit of good will cannot accomodate in both cases. That good will is totally lacking in the cdrtools case, and I feel mainly on the distribution people's side. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-26 01:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87liovb63p.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #3889 |
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >>> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian >>> people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any >>> system that uses the Linux kernel. >> >> The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true. > > The kernel's license is GPL2. Plus a specific statement about user programs. The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea, since the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-26 07:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jfr0up$cbr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3890 |
On 2012-01-26, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: > unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>> unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > >>>> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian >>>> people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any >>>> system that uses the Linux kernel. >>> >>> The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true. >> >> The kernel's license is GPL2. > > Plus a specific statement about user programs. No. That preamble has no legal weight. It is Linus's opinion. It is incidentally wrong. The copyright, a right granted by law, not by Linus, DOES apply. What he is attempting to say is that the LICENCE does not apply because it is not a derivative work. But "derivative work" is not something he can decide on. His interpretation of the law might be right, it might be wrong. Courts decide that, and courts in different countries could decide differently. A derivative work is defined ( poorly) in law, and is not something he can define. Furthermore he cannot constrain other people. Had he wanted to grant a license to works that might be regarded under law as derivative works of the kind he describes, he could have done that. He did not. He made statements about things which he does not have the right to make statements about-- legal definitions. Note also that he specifically states that GPL2 is the only valid version. Thus any program which is in conflict with GPL2 ( which in pricipal can include GPL3 programs) is in conflict with the only license under which the kernel is licensed. > > The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is > bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea, since > the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of. > How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not, but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply ( and where Jorg thinks it applies). Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-26 09:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2d48v8-fie.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #3903 |
unruh wrote: [putolin] > > How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which > rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a > user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not, > but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that > cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the > distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of > "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the > definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply > ( and where Jorg thinks it applies). > Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools > and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg? His opinion. There may be and most likely other issues as well. His point is from a single software package, debian must consider all packages not just his. Any way why does'nt he license with GPL as well as CDDL? Dual license is permissable. He could do so and solve all this problems just by doing that, but he won't. I still don't know why he had to pick an ugly fight with arch linux last year.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-26 22:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aGkUq.725$JQ5.122@newsfe04.iad> |
| In reply to | #3904 |
On 2012-01-26, Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> wrote: > unruh wrote: > > [putolin] > >> >> How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which >> rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a >> user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not, >> but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that >> cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the >> distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of >> "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the >> definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply >> ( and where Jorg thinks it applies). >> Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools >> and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg? > > His opinion. There may be and most likely other issues as well. His point > is from a single software package, debian must consider all packages not > just his. Yes, it is his opinion. And his statement about what he will do. That statement would make it extremely difficult for him to sue. > > Any way why does'nt he license with GPL as well as CDDL? He feels that the GPL is too weak and cannot protect his software from being used in someone else's proprietary software without his permission. Ie, although the GPL claims to disallow it, he feels that it is on too shakey a stance to be enforcable in court. He claims that this has been backed up by someone who tried to enforce the GPL in German courts and could not do so. The courts found that the language of the GPL overstepped what it was legally allowed to restrict. > Dual license is permissable. He could do so and solve all this problems > just by doing that, but he won't. It is. It means that the weakest featues of each licence applies. Ie, he would not be able to prevent the use of the software in closed source commercial ventures. Ie, the solution would come with unacceptable side effects. > > I still don't know why he had to pick an ugly fight with arch linux last > year. I have no idea what the fight was. Can you point me to references?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-27 00:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jfsrvr$ern$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3906 |
On Thursday, January 26th, 2012, at 22:43:18h +0000, UnrUh wrote: > He claims that this has been backed up by someone who tried to > enforce the GPL in German courts and could not do so. Whereas most cases seem to suggest the opposite. April 22nd, 2004 "GPL gains clout in German legal case" <http://news.cnet.com/2100-7344-5198117.html> June 3rd, 2005 "Second Injunction Enforcing GPL Issued in Germany" <http://www.wilmerhale.COM/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=346> July 25th, 2007 "GPL Upheld in Germany Again - Translation" <http://www.groklaw.NET/articlebasic.php?story=2007072513105421> November 16th, 2011 "AVM Case: German Courts Defends the GPL in Landmark Decision" <http://lxnews.ORG/2011/11/16/avm-german-courts-defends-gpl/> This last case is the most significant of all because if the court had not ruled against AVM then the restrictions of the GPL would have been null and void. June 20th, 2011 "German company claims it can disregard GPL requirements in aggregated software" <http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/german-company-claims-it-can-disregard-gpl-re>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-26 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87y5sup6q5.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #3903 |
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is >> bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea, >> since the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of. > > How is it bizarre? For instance: if running a program under Linux makes it a derivative work of the Linux kernel, then a Windows program run for the first time using WINE, or a CIL program run using Mono, or a shell script written in 1885 and run today under Bash, would suddenly become a derivative work of Linux. > Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill > defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which > uses kernel calls as derivative works? The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not (in general) based on the kernel. > I hope not, but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian > people claim that cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus > cannot be included in the distribution? Under what legal theory? The > only one is that of "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems > to me is expanding the definition of derivative work way beyond where > I would want it to apply ( and where Jorg thinks it applies). I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web