DVD writing oddity

[Bill Davidsen]

Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 22:45 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 11:33 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 16:01 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>>>> Recompiled them to use --dwis instead.
>>>>> Or you could use a script.
>>>>>
>>>> Scripts only help if you do the same thing over and over. You can define it, too:
>>>> 	DWIS="--some-meaningless-nonsense-someone-thinks-is-cute"
>>>>
>>>> But for one time use not having to enter the options is good, being meaningless 
>>>> they are hard to remember.
>>> If it's one-time use, I don't understand your comment about recompiling
>>> to use a different option.
>>>
>> One of many one time uses, actually. Different enough that a script is not a 
>> time saver.
> 
> You mean you recompile every time there's an update? How is that a time
> saver? Since you're not actually changing the funcionality, just the
> names of some options, I still don't get it.
> 
Recompiled once to use a shorter name for the option. Shorter name gets typed 
whenever a one-off situation requires. Since the command entered is not the same 
each time, even with arguments, scripts are not particularly useful.

If you like the --oh-my-god-I-really-want-to-do-this-so-BAD style options, use 
them in peace. I won't criticize your demonstration of typing skills. I just 
find a 20 character option saying that an operation is dangerous to be silly, 
any operation involving writing raw SCSI commands to a drive as root is 
inherently dangerous.

Time to use the --oh-crap-this-thread-has-gotten-longer-than-the-annoying-option 
option.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot