From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep  4 14:04:55 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 567F316A4CE; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 14:04:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from alogis.com (firewall2.alogis.com [62.8.223.1])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B030F43D2F; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 14:04:53 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from Holger.Kipp@alogis.com)
Received: (from hk@localhost)
	by alogis.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id i84E4ij31847;
	Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:04:44 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from hk)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:04:44 +0200
From: Holger Kipp <Holger.Kipp@alogis.com>
To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com>
Message-ID: <20040904160444.A31485@intserv.int1.b.intern>
References: <4133683A.3090201@portaone.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <4133683A.3090201@portaone.com>;
	from sobomax@portaone.com on Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 08:47:38PM +0300
cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org>
cc: sos@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: burncd(8) usability: why `-s max' isn't default?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:04:55 -0000

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 08:47:38PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder if there are any compelling reasons why `-s max' is not default 
> behaviour of burncd(8). IMHO, there is no point to have default of 4. 
> Usually, today's drives are smart enough to select the maximum speed 
> supported both by drive and by the medium.

Maybe this should be a make-option for building the port. I actually
like it not being "-s max" for several reasons:

- most audio-cd-player still won't play audio-cds recorded at max-speed.
- many cdrs don't like the max-speed the cd-rw-drive offers.
- many cd-drives don't like data-cds recorded at a higher speed.

at least I don't have another medium to throw away if I forget to
select a proper speed.


Regards,
Holger Kipp