On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:44:31PM -0800, ben wrote:
> On Thursday 31 January 2002 11:29 pm, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 10:04:38PM -0800, ben wrote:
> > > On Thursday 31 January 2002 09:53 pm, Jeff wrote:
> > > > Running Debian Sid.
> > > >
> > > > When I recompiled to 2.4.16, I put SCSI CDROM emulation in the kernel
> > > > and took out IDE CDROM support.. I can mount my drives as /dev/scd0 and
> > > > scd1.. However, when trying to use any cd writing programs (the burner
> > > > is scd0), they say they cant scan the SCSI bus? ?No permission or SCSI
> > > > emulation not enabled for IDE drives..
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > yeah. here's one. what are you talking about? scsi and ide are not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > interchangable. they are different technologies. scsi emulation lets you
> > > refer to something as if it were, but it's not. how are you going to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > emulate scsi on an ide device that doesn't exist, as far as the kernel is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > concerned, without support? what does your /etc/fstab look like? start
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> > > hoping you haven't fried a drive already.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > ben: Educate yourself before calling the other guy an idiot.
> >[ education snipped by ben ] > > at which point did i call him an idiot? unlike you, i simply erred. you, Are you saying you were seriously asking a question? Read what you wrote. The tone certainly seems belittling from here. In any case, your post was uninformed and non-productive. > however, are injecting a previously non-existent invective and suggesting > that it originated with me. i'm not interested in flaming, but it does seem > that we could both profit by a little education. I'm not attempting to "[inject] a previously non-existent invective". I am educated; I shared part of said education with you above. If you think my post was a flame, your skin thickness may be insufficient for this list. I would classify your original post as much closer to flame-material than my reply (hint: my reply included useful information). You saying "i'm not interested in flaming" seems a little less than sincere to me. Good day. -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton
pgplXpNtBasBg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
