On 14/03/13 05:45 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
being developer of libburn i would like to correct some technical
statements made here.
Gary Dale wrote:
The difference between Blu-ray and DVD is that DVD is a super CD
while Blu-ray is a super DVD-RAM.
BD-RE are like DVD-RAM, indeed.
But BD-R aren't. One can format them to a state called Pseudo
Overwrite (POW). But that is an escalation of Defect Management,
which does not work convincingly to my experience.
Writing by a specialized burn program to plain unformatted BD-R
still works best and fastest.
Not all DVD types resemble giant CD. DVD+R and DVD+RW are quite
different. Not to speak of hunchbacked DVD-RAM.
Thanks Thomas. I wasn't striving for absolute accuracy but rather to
give the OP the flavour of the issue.
Your file manager is all the GUI you need to "burn" a BD-R/RE.
This might be true for BD-RE, but not for BD-R.
Nevertheless the random-access performance of BD-RE is weak.
So i would not use them for a read-write filesystem.
ISO 9660 written as stream works fine with them.
My own experiences with writing to UDF on mounted optical
media are repelling: the poor drive makes awful noises and the
extreme expansion of i/o buffers nearly lets the desktop freeze.
So it is preferrable to fill all optical media by a sequential
stream of data rather than by random-access.
E.g. by creating an UDF image on hard disk, mounting it, filling
it with files, unmounting, and then burning it to BD by help of
a burn program.
I am normally using my own command line program xorriso for
burning to BD media (two BD-R and two BD-RE are in daily use).
libburn also serves underneath frontends like Brasero, xfburn,
FlBurn.
If those frontends are not aware of BD media, then their developers
are invited to ask me for advise how to make use of libburn's
capability to handle them.
But first one should give their newest versions a try.
It depends I suppose on what you are trying to do. I use BD-RE for
automated backups where defect management is nice to have and where the
ability to rewrite individual files is also important. I haven't timed
creating an image then burning it against just burning files. I suppose
I should at some point.
Brasero, which the OP wants to use, is supposed to be able to handle BD
media, as can k3b.
I can understand CD-R to distinguish it from CD-ROM, but that
really should be CD-W because both CD-R and CD-ROM are readable.
CD-R means "Compact Disc Recordable".
CD-RW means "Compact Disc ReWritable".
I rather wonder why BD-R is not "BD+R" and BD-RE is not "BD-RAM".
Thechnically these would be the natural names derived from the DVD
nomenclature.
Well, its all about marketing and trademark licenses.
I'm aware of the meanings of CD-R etc.. I just don't like them. :)
Using the W for the Writable part of ReWritable doesn't really go with
using R for Recordable. Consistency dictates calling CD-RW CD-RR
(ReRecordable). Using two terms to describe the same thing is awkward
but when you include CD-ROM for Read Only Media, you now have R standing
for Read, Recordable and Re(writable). If we used CD-RR, then R stands
for two different things in the same name. The whole thing gets really ugly.
It makes much more sense to just use W when you mean you can write to
it. Using E to indicate that you can erase it doesn't really capture the
essence that you can overwrite existing sectors with new data.
The + in DVD+ media distinguishes it from the - variety, but the
distinction isn't needed for BD. Both BD-R and BD-RE use the + disc
track/sector structure that was originally in DVD-RAM and adopted by
DVD+, which is why I think of BD as super DVD-RAM. I'd go for BD-RAM
instead of BD-RE but I still prefer using a W when you mean you can
write to it and a RW when it is ReWritable. :)
Too late to expect the world to operate reasonably though.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5144f5d9.7020...@rogers.com
