[SC.LUG] Re: [Northwales] Damian Parker Is Right !

[Andrew Hutchings]

Right, lets put this one to bed once and for all.  I have had a look at the 
postings on SCLUG to make sure I wasn't alone on this.

On Sunday 01 January 2006 17:17, Frank Mitchell wrote:
> Dear LUGs:
>
> No wonder Linux Applications outperform Windows equivalents. In commercial
> use everybody needs Databases, and Linux seems destined to take over. This
> is unconnected with the Open Source concept, but I suspect Microsoft knows
> about it. They'd recognise yet another reason why people would choose
> Linux, and therefore another factor which forces them to diversify.

I would argue that it is quite connected to the Open Source concept, but that 
is irrelevant now.

> This turned out to be a good strategy, because it allowed me to develop my
> Anti Buffer Under-Run Mechanisms. I soon got Buffer Under-Runs under
> Windows, but I have yet to experience one under Linux. Obviously
> File-Opening is alot more efficient under Linux too.

Buffer under-runs are irrelevant on any drive manufactured this millenium.

> I have a different attitude to modifying stuff obviously. I looked through
> mkisofs and cdrecord, noticed the Authors didn't do things the way I would,
> and concluded this was undoubtedly the cause of the problem ;-). Seriously,
> these programs have been worked over by a number of people who disagree
> about some fundamental issues. That can't be good.

They have been worked on by many people, that is true, but they tend to have 
only one or two maintainers so the outcome is usually regular clean code.
Submitting bug reports or patches for review / modification does not taint the 
code.

> And there's an awful lot of mkisofs and cdrecord. I could hardly understand
> any of it, and I hate the whole business of adapting other people's Code
> anyway. Surely these programs have got so big and complicated you can
> expect something to go wrong, and further changes could only make things
> worse. I decided that in the time it took to figure out mkisofs and
> cdrecord I could write a CD Recording Utility of my own. So that's what I
> did. And if other people ever work on it I hope it never gets to be like
> mkisofs and cdrecord.

They have a lot of code for a very good reason, they work, they are secure, 
and they are very stable on pretty much all architectures, drives, etc...

> I haven't just reinvented the wheel. If you experiment with Trebus you'll
> discover it's entirely different from mkisofs & cdrecord. It performs
> genuine On-The-Fly File CD Recording without using an ISO Image. Now just
> when I've got it working to what I regard as a Proof-Of-Concept stage,
> people talk about modifying it. For a Utility which is likely to be used
> for Backup, I regard that as premature. First I want some User Feedback to
> establish there isn't some issue which needs fixing rapidly.

cdrecord does on-the-fly without using an ISO, it would be a bit silly not to.
If it is the command line structure of cdrecord you don't like then there are 
many frontends for it that will make it easier to understand.

> Okay some people want to be able to adapt Source Code to their own needs.
> But as Linux becomes more popular it's attracting people who aren't C
> Programmers. They don't want to get a dysfunctional program with a
> suggestion to fix it themselves. They want it to work, understandably, and
> if it doesn't they'll pester the original Author. That's the experience of
> Joerg Schilling and Peter Anvin. They get contacted by Users from all over
> the World complaining about some version of their Software which wasn't
> released in the form they intended.

The main reason people are asking for the source is they can build it for 
other arcs, such as x86_64, PPC, etc...  As well as build into RPM or DEB and 
optimising for certain setups.
I would hazard a rough guess that at least 50% of LUG members understand 
enough C to find bugs, which for now seems to be your target audience.
Forums, mailing lists and such would highly reduce the pester factor from 
users.

> So there's the problem: One person's Useful Modification can cause trouble
> for somebody else. And if it gets Redistributed as Open Source allows, the
> Original Author will get alot of flak from the many people World-Wide who
> aren't C Programmers. You can't please everybody.

The mods wouldn't be released into general public without either a project 
fork or project maintainers acceptance.  Again forums and mailing lists help 
here.

> I don't suppose Trebus is likely to damage your equipment in practice. If
> you own a Non-MMC SCSI-2 Drive or a DVD Writer which isn't intended for
> CDs, you probably know about this already, irrespective of the Source Code.
> I just thought it pays to be cautious. Trebus will of course run using
> Kernel 2.6 with ide-scsi enabled, though you may get a message saying
> "ide-scsi Is Deprecated". I've been in touch with Alan Cox about ide-scsi,
> and he says it will be Un-Deprecated after he's redeveloped it somewhat.

Trebus may not damage equipment in practise its more software damage that is 
the worry.

> Probably you expect to be reassured that I'm not a Virus Writer very
> shortly, and you don't believe I'm too incompetent about MMC either.
> Otherwise you wouldn't urge me to participate in the cdrecord project.

I believe someone on SCLUG confirmed that it didn't look virus like and my 
initial look at the binary seems to also suggest that.  That doesn't mean it 
can't accidentally cause a memory leak which in turn could crash a system or 
accidentally wipe a home dir.

You main problem is going to be credibility.  If you want to do this seriously 
you will need a web site and some kind of forum, list, comment system, etc...
If you want to be taken seriously by Linux users you will need to comply with 
Open Source or similar license.

I am still keeping Trebus blocked from NWLUG for the time being.

Regards
Andrew
-- 
Andrew Hutchings (A-Wing) - Linux Guru
Linux CDs and DVDs - http://www.linuxiso.co.uk/
Random quote 17: "The box said that I needed to have Windows 98 or better... 
so I installed Linux" - LinuxNewbie.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sc/attachments/20060101/c68cbd2e/attachment.bin