dvd+rw-tools Ported to FreeBSD

Dan writes "Matthew Dillon has finished porting Andy Polyakov's excellent dvd+rw-tools to FreeBSD. These tools support DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, and DVD+RW format dvd burners, including the popular Sony 500A, which he has bought himself. He says that these tools should work on a wider variety of burners than the half-broken GNU dvdrecord tools work on."

Comments

rejoice

[Ahaldra]

just IMHO the cdrecord-prdvd tools suck - read, for exampl. this readme - they suck because they are essentially not really free. this thingee seems to be a step in the right direction, although one still needs the cdrtools according to this faq.

Re:Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything

[evilviper]

Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything?

No, it isn't funny. That means that most programmers are using OS specific syscalls in their programs. It's a terrible thing to do, yet the Linux community does it constantly...

Release a program that only works on the BSDs, and watch the Linux users come out in arms like their first born has been slaughtered... I really hate hypocrites.

dvd+rw-tools == dd(1)

[hubertf]

IIRC the growisofs tool that's the core of the dvd+rw-tools is really just a frontend to dd(1), and you don't really need it, *IF* you have a decent driver that allows dd(1)ing a ISO image to it.
Tried it some time ago under SuSE 8.something, worked.

- Hubert

Re:dvd+rw-tools == dd(1)

[phoenix_rizzen]

growisofs is a front-end to mkisofs, which has no relation to dd. When in doubt, read the FAQ. :)

Re:Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything

[Arandir]

Release a program that only works on the BSDs, and watch the Linux users come out in arms like their first born has been slaughtered...

I did that once by accident. Usually I test my software on a Linux distro before making a release, but I didn't do it once. I had QNX installed on my extra partition and didn't want to wipe it out. So I just released it.

I realized my mistake about twenty minutes later when the bug reports started coming in...

Re:Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything

[evilviper]

You are now saying that there are not ANY programmers that have written non-portable programs, that have also complained when a program didn't work on their OS? I would beg to differ.

You are also saying that there are no people that promote and/or support a Linux program that don't care that it doesn't run on another system, but are upset when a program doesn't work on their system?

I beg to differ.

Re:Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything

[cperciva]

That means that most programmers are using OS specific syscalls in their programs.

Not necessarily. I count 8817 ports in the tree right now, of which only 4663 have local patches.

In many cases, the "port" is used as nothing more than a convenient front-end to the package system.

Re:Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything

[evilviper]

Yes, but that isn't actually porting software, it's just a matter of making a port out of it.

Besides, I never said that all software was system specific, but a LOT of it is. Additionally, many programs that were originally OS specific, but someone wrote patches, and the author integrated them into the main tree instead of requiring patches in the port.

Another instance of the word "port" being insanely over-used...

Re:Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything

[cperciva]

True. On the other hand, the word "port" has gone from verb to noun, and is now being verbified again. That is to say, "to port" means to fix operating system-specific code; "a port" is either the result of porting something, or anything in the ports tree; and "to portify" means to add the necessary wrappers to make some code fit into the ports tree.

Isn't the English language great?

half-broken GNU dvdrecord

[zdzichu]

What is so bad in cdrecord (modified to be dvdrecord)? I'm not trolling, I'm curious.

Re:Isn't it funny that *BSD has to port everything

[agent dero]

I am a huge FreeBSD advocate, and I use it all the time, and the only major things I have seen that may not have happened without Linux, were the great Xfree Window Managers, along with the software that uses the X Window system, GTK+, Netscape, QT, etc, etc. That and maybe the publicity.

Otherwise I'd say the *BSD community has been moving along fine, and wuold have with or without the existance of Linux or GNU. Look at applications such as MySQL, Apache, and clustering software. People have been using BSD since before the invention of Linux, somehow they survived without "ersatz hacks" (crazy german) If a troll is killed by a falling tree in the forest, will anybody miss him?