RE: [SLE] Re: remastering suse 9.3 DVD
because of SuSE's silly dual-layer DVDs. The webserver's a tiny 1U rackmount, and has a laptop DVD drive in it. Of course, it's one of the ones that won't read DL discs.
ie. it is broken.
Blaming SuSE for having faulty hardware doesn't seem that sensible to me.
mfg Nik
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion. Is there really any huge reason to not have a 32-bit DVD and a 64-bit DVD like 99% of the other major distros? All it is, IMO is an inconvenience.
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 16:54, Steve Kratz wrote: [re "DVD drive" which won't read a dual layer DVD]
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
(Various people have already said this, but let's spell it out ...) A DVD drive which doesn't read double layer DVDs is broken. All DVD drives read double layer DVDs since it's part of the DVD specification. If yours doesn't, it's either broken or not a DVD drive. Contact your vendor and demand a replacement drive. http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.18 I bought my first DVD drive in 1999 when they started to get cheap (ISTR that I bought a 6x drive for about �60). I don't consider that one brand new. Alternatively, perhaps the OP's media is faulty. Does it read OK in other drives? Finally, is the firmware in the drive up to date? (Some laptops we bought last year required a firmware update for the drive - applied from Windows ... grr - before they would read any DVDs at all!)
Is there really any huge reason to not have a 32-bit DVD and a 64-bit DVD like 99% of the other major distros? All it is, IMO is an inconvenience.
Twice as many DVDs = double the cost. And using only one DVD makes it harder for the user to accidentally install 32-bit on a 64-bit machine, or to attempt to install 64-bit on a 32-bit machine (which will fail with an error message) sssand have to find the other DVD. One DVD also makes it easier to install 32-bit packages on a 64-bit system (often desirable for many reasons), since they're all on the same medium. I favour the one DVD fits all approach. It would be nice if it included 64-bit PowerPC as well :) -- Bill
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 12:12, William Gallafent wrote:
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 16:54, Steve Kratz wrote: [re "DVD drive" which won't read a dual layer DVD]
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
(Various people have already said this, but let's spell it out ...)
A DVD drive which doesn't read double layer DVDs is broken. All DVD drives read double layer DVDs since it's part of the DVD specification. If yours doesn't, it's either broken or not a DVD drive. Contact your vendor and demand a replacement drive.
Thanks for the link, that and google answered my questions about my old DVD drive {snip} Mike
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 10:54 -0500, Steve Kratz wrote:
because of SuSE's silly dual-layer DVDs. The webserver's a tiny 1U rackmount, and has a laptop DVD drive in it. Of course, it's one of the ones that won't read DL discs.
ie. it is broken.
Blaming SuSE for having faulty hardware doesn't seem that sensible to me.
mfg Nik
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
Is there really any huge reason to not have a 32-bit DVD and a 64-bit DVD like 99% of the other major distros? All it is, IMO is an inconvenience.
Couple in the fact that dual layer DVD's cost much more (perhaps ten times more) you would think that even with added production costs the over all cost would be less. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 18:19, Ken Schneider wrote:
Couple in the fact that dual layer DVD's cost much more (perhaps ten times more) you would think that even with added production costs the over all cost would be less.
Eh, Ken, DL Recordable for *home* use are expensive, rom != recordable. I think those produce in factories have a different price tag. Besides that, the heave onky to manufacture ONE item, instead of two. Fair guess is that the production of the cdroms is more expsive than the dvd.. Hans
On Tue, May 31, Ken Schneider wrote:
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
If your drive cannot read duallayer DVDs, your hardware is faulty. Every video DVD out there is DL. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5 D-90409 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Tue, May 31, Ken Schneider wrote:
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
If your drive cannot read duallayer DVDs, your hardware is faulty. Every video DVD out there is DL.
Not quite. I've seen some double sided disks. Normally, they have wide screen format on one side and standard on the other.
James, On Wednesday 01 June 2005 04:59, James Knott wrote:
Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Tue, May 31, Ken Schneider wrote:
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
If your drive cannot read duallayer DVDs, your hardware is faulty. Every video DVD out there is DL.
Not quite. I've seen some double sided disks. Normally, they have wide screen format on one side and standard on the other.
That's one option, but not the only way they're used. I have discs with two feature-length movies, one on each side and others with a single 4:3 format with different episodes on each side as well as some with different screen formats of the same work on each side. I'm sure there's both economics and some marketing to it. If the vendor chooses dual-sided, they cannot put a label on the disc(s), e.g. Nonetheless, the standard calls for single-sided, double-sided, dual-layer and double-sided, dual-layer combined. Hardware that cannot handle any of these is not compliant with the standard. Randall Schulz
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:54, Randall R Schulz wrote:
James,
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 04:59, James Knott wrote:
Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Tue, May 31, Ken Schneider wrote:
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
If your drive cannot read duallayer DVDs, your hardware is faulty. Every video DVD out there is DL.
Not quite. I've seen some double sided disks. Normally, they have wide screen format on one side and standard on the other.
That's one option, but not the only way they're used. I have discs with two feature-length movies, one on each side and others with a single 4:3 format with different episodes on each side as well as some with different screen formats of the same work on each side.
My copy of Armageddon (with Bruce Willis) is double sided, dual layer. One movie, two sides, you have to turn it over in the middle of the movie
Steve, On Tuesday 31 May 2005 08:54, Steve Kratz wrote:
because of SuSE's silly dual-layer DVDs. The webserver's a tiny 1U rackmount, and has a laptop DVD drive in it. Of course, it's one of the ones that won't read DL discs.
ie. it is broken.
Blaming SuSE for having faulty hardware doesn't seem that sensible to me.
mfg Nik
The hardware isn't faulty - Distributing Linux on a media set that requires brand new hardware is a little bit of a flakey idea, in my opinion.
Check out the other thread where this issue has been run into the ground. The hardware most certainly is not compliant with the DVD standard and the vendor of that hardware has had the better part of a decade to get it right.
Is there really any huge reason to not have a 32-bit DVD and a 64-bit DVD like 99% of the other major distros? All it is, IMO is an inconvenience.
If you want things the way they are in other releases, then why don't you use other releases? Novell / SuSE made business decisions about how to package their released based on their perception and evaluation of the relevant business considerations. Let them know you don't agree. Randall Schulz
participants (9)
-
Anders Johansson -
Hans Witvliet -
James Knott -
Ken Schneider -
Mike McMullin -
Randall R Schulz -
Steve Kratz -
Thorsten Kukuk -
William Gallafent