Miscellaneous > Applications
Nero for Linux!!!!!!
GenuineAdvantage:
Heh, I knew this would happen in this thread when I first saw it posted. Anyways, the only thing I liked about Nero, back when I used it, was the image burning option. I have to admit that the .nrg format is one of the better ones for ripping a disk image. And yeah, it was proprietary unlike .bin or something else, but a lot of free apps used it to load CD images anyways, and it compressed a lot better. That's how I used to rip and play PS1 games through Daemon tools.
There's no such virtual drive daemon on linux which supports it, so I'd have little need for Nero. And I'll use any of the apps on linux to burn CDs. I'm very not picky in this case. As long as the CD burns without errors I'm happy. Gnomebaker, K3b, XFburn, they've worked for me.
a1mck:
Whoooaaaaaaa!!!!
Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.
As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.
I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.
Anyway, you guys rock, and happy burnin';-)
a1mck
H_TeXMeX_H:
How do you know what you like until you've tried all possibilities ?
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---I'm not going to let that happen to Linux
--- End quote ---
Why do you think this will happen with Linux?
Just because masses of people who don't agree with the GNU it doesn't mean that everything will become closed source.
I don't agree that Linux should be like some sort of religion where you have to agree with a certain philosophy, if all open source software is going to be like that then give me Microsoft any day.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---Wait, you see my point? Then why deflect to the straw-man "software has morals" argument?
--- End quote ---
I was under the impression that your opposition to closed source software is a morral one. Perhaps I was putting you in the same crowd as piratePinguin who often makes claims about the evilness of proprietary software; if I'm wrong then I appologise.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---I'd expect that you, of all people, would see the advantages in clear-box code where particularly amoral or immoral organisations may be concerned.
--- End quote ---
I do see the advantages but of open source but I don't mandate it.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---My major problem with proprietary software isn't that it's proprietary, believe it or not. My major problem is what's so bad about the source that the issuing company doesn't want me to see it?
--- End quote ---
What about sharred source software then?
Would you consider buying a piece of proprietary software that comes with source code but prohibits you from redistributing it?
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---Would you buy a car if the hood were riveted shut?
--- End quote ---
That's almost the case with some modern cars these days anyway, you can't tinker with them like you used to and this is why I've known poeple who prefer classic cars. Personally I don't care about modifying or tinkering with my car, providing I can do a basic service I don't care, actually I tell a lie, I normally send it to the garrage for a service, all I ever do is check the oil, water, break fluid, tires etc.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---How about a house with the windows boarded up and the doors nailed closed?
--- End quote ---
That's a silly annalogy and you know it.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---How can someone guarantee a quality product if you can't "wander through it" if you so desire?
--- End quote ---
But you can still only see what's on the surface.
Do you know how secure the foundations are?
Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?
Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?
How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.
Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't agree with the perspective you're espousing.
--- End quote ---
Likewise.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---It sounds remarkably like someone who's been gaming on a PS2 a little too long, and forgets that the Revolution and 360 are still viable options.
--- End quote ---
Nope, don't play computer games. :p
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---More reverse engineering than anything, particularly before they put that bastard clause in the licence.
--- End quote ---
The MASM32 forum explains it all.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0
I was tempted to join and do some trolling, but I thought I should do some reading first and decided against it. There's some interesting debate on there surounding licences but I'll discuss this in the MASM32 thread.
The only thing I'm really against is closed standards whether it be the file format a piece of software uses or the latest music or video format. I promote royalty-free open standards over free software because they are more fair on the software developers. I actually advocate the scrapping of all laws regarding interlectual property where system compatability is concerned. Developers don't have to release the source but they shoudn't be allowed to sue if someone reverse engineers their file format.
Orethrius:
This is a long one, so batten down the hatches and prepare for a long rant. Hope I make some sense here. :D
--- Quote from: GenuineAdvantage ---There's no such virtual drive daemon on linux which supports it, so I'd have little need for Nero.
--- End quote ---
For ISO or NRG? ISO's can be mounted on a local loopback, like so. NRG will probably see support for this before too much longer, since Ahead is porting over to Linux.
--- Quote from: a1mck ---Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.
--- End quote ---
On the contrary, it's good to have healthy debate time and again. It helps to reinforce our stronger beliefs and to sway our weaker thoughts. I think it's GREAT that Ahead sees Linux as a real enough threat to the Windows marketplace to bother porting to it. I do not, however, agree with their licensing methods.
--- Quote from: a1mck ---As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.
--- End quote ---
From a commercial standpoint, this is a perfectly viable stance. Unfortunately, when it comes down to determining the legal origins of software, there are some things you can find out with open source that you just can't with proprietary software.
--- Quote from: a1mck ---I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.
--- End quote ---
Well, that's what the community is all about, the freedom to make a decision. However, were I to agree with proprietary philosophies, I'd probably stick with Nero, too. It's representative of what that community should be rather than the horror show we have today. ;)
--- Quote from: a1mck ---Anyway, you guys rock, and happy burnin';-)
--- End quote ---
Actually, I'd like to thank you - and so should the forum - for bringing this to our attention. As much as I don't like some of their finer-grained business policies, Ahead supporting Linux is HUGE news. :cool:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Why do you think this will happen with Linux?
--- End quote ---
If you've not noticed this before now, as much as I don't want to flame you, I can't help wondering if you've been reading anything I said. I watched this happen with DOS. Hell, remember Amiga? Ever see AROS recently? It's atrocious. I just don't want to see a decent development community go down the crapper because of some bad legal and business decisions.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Just because masses of people who don't agree with the GNU it doesn't mean that everything will become closed source.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough, there are other alternatives, and I'm not saying everything needs to be GPL per se.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I don't agree that Linux should be like some sort of religion where you have to agree with a certain philosophy, if all open source software is going to be like that then give me Microsoft any day.
--- End quote ---
I'm assuming you're not a total nihilist here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't it easier to determine the legality of copyrighted source, to find the true origins of so-called "intellectual property", by making the process as transparent as possible? If so, I'm left to wonder what proprietary vendors have to gain from keeping source closed.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez --- I was under the impression that your opposition to closed source software is a morral one. Perhaps I was putting you in the same crowd as piratePinguin who often makes claims about the evilness of proprietary software; if I'm wrong then I appologise.
--- End quote ---
That's understandable, but Penguin's views are actually quite in-line with my own. The key difference is that he's gone ahead and applied an intrinsic characteristic of evil practices to an a device that is, in and of itself, neither good nor evil. More often than not, he's referring to the corporations that close source for nefarious purposes - Sony comes to mind, XCP in particular.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez --- I do see the advantages but of open source but I don't mandate it.
--- End quote ---
What's the problem with mandating clear-box code? Aside from the loss of questionably-gained profits, I don't see much else wrong with it. I don't think proprietary code should necessarily be punishable by incarceration, but I do happen to believe that detrimental acts should be punished by severe fines. Let me put it this way: if I had my way, by now Sony would have to sell its drive manufacturing plants to Fujitsu and split off Epic into its own independent agency just to stay afloat. I don't think ignoring the crime encourages anything but recidivism in the perpetrator.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez --- What about sharred source software then?
--- End quote ---
I'm tempted, but I'd have to say categorically: no. I've seen far too much bullshit along the lines of "we'll share this, this, and this, but module X is a confidential trade secret" when module X contains damning code. It's like buying a dozen eggs that may or may not contain a shellacked hand-grenade.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez --- Would you consider buying a piece of proprietary software that comes with source code but prohibits you from redistributing it?
--- End quote ---
That depends, the software or the source? If you mean the software, then I don't see that as a huge problem. If you're talking about the source under an NDA, though, then I have to question again - why isn't this public knowledge? What if I find out about a number of felonies committed in the acquisition of the source code, but the NDA prevents me from saying anything for fear of reprisal? I'd just as soon not enter into such an agreement, thanks.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez --- That's almost the case with some modern cars these days anyway, you can't tinker with them like you used to and this is why I've known poeple who prefer classic cars. Personally I don't care about modifying or tinkering with my car, providing I can do a basic service I don't care, actually I tell a lie, I normally send it to the garrage for a service, all I ever do is check the oil, water, break fluid, tires etc.
--- End quote ---
You're missing the point. You can't observe any problems under the hood when you can't open it, so even those simple diagnostics can't be done. You'd have to rely on the idiot panel, which can be notoriously inaccurate (read: bad ABS sensors). You couldn't take it to your neighborhood mechanic, either - you'd have to get a new one from the manufacturer. My point is this: why do people put up with this shit from software vendors, when hardware manufacturers doing the same would cause bloody riots?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---That's a silly annalogy and you know it.
--- End quote ---
Silly doesn't mean invalid. If you got the message, it worked. :p
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---But you can still only see what's on the surface.
Do you know how secure the foundations are?
Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?
Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?
How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.
--- End quote ---
I get the idea. Around here, at least, we have building codes to address those issues. Stiff fines and prison sentences are associated with persistent violators. What's so bad about doing this for something else millions of people use on a daily basis?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.
--- End quote ---
My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software, my television doesn't tell me what to watch (not even ONE properly configured V-chip in this household), and my calculator doesn't tell me not to include Liquid Paper as an office expense. All of those have open initiatives in one form or another to prevent that from happening in the future. Why should I settle for whatever short-sighted purpose the original vendor decided to give my 1's and 0's? Why should I PAY to see their short-sighted purpose? If they want to help me adapt, by all means, charge for that. But I don't appreciate being told to pay for something I can't adapt to my needs. I wouldn't buy a car without asking questions about the engine, and if the hood won't open, I won't buy it.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Likewise.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough, I suppose I've let my emotions into this, but I can't really help that when I feel as passionately about something like this. ;)
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Nope, don't play computer games. :p
--- End quote ---
Wiseass. You got the point. :D
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---The MASM32 forum explains it all.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0
I was tempted to join and do some trolling, but I thought I should do some reading first and decided against it. There's some interesting debate on there surounding licences but I'll discuss this in the MASM32 thread.
--- End quote ---
Wise decision. I didn't mean to argue about MASM but it seemed a decent example. ;)
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---The only thing I'm really against is closed standards whether it be the file format a piece of software uses or the latest music or video format. I promote royalty-free open standards over free software because they are more fair on the software developers. I actually advocate the scrapping of all laws regarding interlectual property where system compatability is concerned. Developers don't have to release the source but they shoudn't be allowed to sue if someone reverse engineers their file format.
--- End quote ---
Well, don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-DMCA as the next anarchist. My main concern is that open standards are just one step shy of real, legally-enforceable licence agreements. If someone can see the source, there's no question about what was created by whom when. I don't mean this individually, but from a corporate and bureaucratic standpoint, the current licensing situation is a literal nightmare.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version