Nero for Linux!!!!!!

[GenuineAdvantage]

Heh, I knew this would happen in this thread when I first saw it posted. Anyways, the only thing I liked about Nero, back when I used it, was the image burning option. I have to admit that the .nrg format is one of the better ones for ripping a disk image. And yeah, it was proprietary unlike .bin or something else, but a lot of free apps used it to load CD images anyways, and it compressed a lot better. That's how I used to rip and play PS1 games through Daemon tools.

There's no such virtual drive daemon on linux which supports it, so I'd have little need for Nero. And I'll use any of the apps on linux to burn CDs. I'm very not picky in this case. As long as the CD burns without errors I'm happy. Gnomebaker, K3b, XFburn, they've worked for me.

[a1mck]

Whoooaaaaaaa!!!!

Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.

As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.

I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.

Anyway, you guys rock, and happy burnin';-)

a1mck

[H_TeXMeX_H]

How do you know what you like until you've tried all possibilities ?

[Aloone_Jonez]

I'm not going to let that happen to Linux

Why do you think this will happen with Linux?

Just because masses of people who don't agree with the GNU it doesn't mean that everything will become closed source.

I don't agree that Linux should be like some sort of religion where you have to agree with a certain philosophy, if all open source software is going to be like that then give me Microsoft any day.

Wait, you see my point?  Then why deflect to the straw-man "software has morals" argument?

I was under the impression that your opposition to closed source software is a morral one. Perhaps I was putting you in the same crowd as piratePinguin who often makes claims about the evilness of proprietary software; if I'm wrong then I appologise.

I'd expect that you, of all people, would see the advantages in clear-box code where particularly amoral or immoral organisations may be concerned.  

I do see the advantages but of open source but I don't mandate it.

My major problem with proprietary software isn't that it's proprietary, believe it or not.  My major problem is what's so bad about the source that the issuing company doesn't want me to see it?

What about sharred source software then?

Would you consider buying a piece of proprietary software that comes with source code but prohibits you from redistributing it?

Would you buy a car if the hood were riveted shut?

That's almost the case with some modern cars these days anyway, you can't tinker with them like you used to and this is why I've known poeple who prefer classic cars. Personally I don't care about modifying or tinkering with my car, providing I can do a basic service I don't care, actually I tell a lie, I normally send it to the garrage for a service, all I ever do is check the oil, water, break fluid, tires etc.

How about a house with the windows boarded up and the doors nailed closed?

That's a silly annalogy and you know it.

How can someone guarantee a quality product if you can't "wander through it" if you so desire?

But you can still only see what's on the surface.

Do you know how secure the foundations are?

Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?

Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?

How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.

Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't agree with the perspective you're espousing.

Likewise.

It sounds remarkably like someone who's been gaming on a PS2 a little too long, and forgets that the Revolution and 360 are still viable options.

Nope, don't play computer games. :p

More reverse engineering than anything, particularly before they put that bastard clause in the licence.

The MASM32 forum explains it all.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0
I was tempted to join and do some trolling, but I thought I should do some reading first and decided against it. There's some interesting debate on there surounding licences but I'll discuss this in the MASM32 thread.

The only thing I'm really against is closed standards whether it be the file format a piece of software uses or the latest music or video format. I promote royalty-free open standards over free software because they are more fair on the software developers. I actually advocate the scrapping of all laws regarding interlectual property where system compatability is concerned. Developers don't have to release the source but they shoudn't be allowed to sue if someone reverse engineers their file format.

[Orethrius]

This is a long one, so batten down the hatches and prepare for a long rant.  Hope I make some sense here.  

There's no such virtual drive daemon on linux which supports it, so I'd have little need for Nero.

For ISO or NRG?  ISO's can be mounted on a local loopback, like so.  NRG will probably see support for this before too much longer, since Ahead is porting over to Linux.

Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.

On the contrary, it's good to have healthy debate time and again.  It helps to reinforce our stronger beliefs and to sway our weaker thoughts.  I think it's GREAT that Ahead sees Linux as a real enough threat to the Windows marketplace to bother porting to it.  I do not, however, agree with their licensing methods.

As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.

From a commercial standpoint, this is a perfectly viable stance.  Unfortunately, when it comes down to determining the legal origins of software, there are some things you can find out with open source that you just can't with proprietary software.

I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.

Well, that's what the community is all about, the freedom to make a decision.  However, were I to agree with proprietary philosophies, I'd probably stick with Nero, too.  It's representative of what that community should be rather than the horror show we have today.  

Anyway, you guys rock, and happy burnin';-)

Actually, I'd like to thank you - and so should the forum - for bringing this to our attention.  As much as I don't like some of their finer-grained business policies, Ahead supporting Linux is HUGE news. :cool:

Why do you think this will happen with Linux?

If you've not noticed this before now, as much as I don't want to flame you, I can't help wondering if you've been reading anything I said.  I watched this happen with DOS.  Hell, remember Amiga?  Ever see AROS recently?  It's atrocious.  I just don't want to see a decent development community go down the crapper because of some bad legal and business decisions.

Just because masses of people who don't agree with the GNU it doesn't mean that everything will become closed source.

Fair enough, there are other alternatives, and I'm not saying everything needs to be GPL per se.

I don't agree that Linux should be like some sort of religion where you have to agree with a certain philosophy, if all open source software is going to be like that then give me Microsoft any day.

I'm assuming you're not a total nihilist here, please correct me if I'm wrong.  Isn't it easier to determine the legality of copyrighted source, to find the true origins of so-called "intellectual property", by making the process as transparent as possible?  If so, I'm left to wonder what proprietary vendors have to gain from keeping source closed.

I was under the impression that your opposition to closed source software is a morral one. Perhaps I was putting you in the same crowd as piratePinguin who often makes claims about the evilness of proprietary software; if I'm wrong then I appologise.

That's understandable, but Penguin's views are actually quite in-line with my own.  The key difference is that he's gone ahead and applied an intrinsic characteristic of evil practices to an a device that is, in and of itself, neither good nor evil.  More often than not, he's referring to the corporations that close source for nefarious purposes - Sony comes to mind, XCP in particular.

I do see the advantages but of open source but I don't mandate it.

What's the problem with mandating clear-box code?  Aside from the loss of questionably-gained profits, I don't see much else wrong with it.  I don't think proprietary code should necessarily be punishable by incarceration, but I do happen to believe that detrimental acts should be punished by severe fines.  Let me put it this way: if I had my way, by now Sony would have to sell its drive manufacturing plants to Fujitsu and split off Epic into its own independent agency just to stay afloat.  I don't think ignoring the crime encourages anything but recidivism in the perpetrator.

What about sharred source software then?

I'm tempted, but I'd have to say categorically: no.  I've seen far too much bullshit along the lines of "we'll share this, this, and this, but module X is a confidential trade secret" when module X contains damning code.  It's like buying a dozen eggs that may or may not contain a shellacked hand-grenade.

Would you consider buying a piece of proprietary software that comes with source code but prohibits you from redistributing it?

That depends, the software or the source?  If you mean the software, then I don't see that as a huge problem.  If you're talking about the source under an NDA, though, then I have to question again - why isn't this public knowledge?  What if I find out about a number of felonies committed in the acquisition of the source code, but the NDA prevents me from saying anything for fear of reprisal?  I'd just as soon not enter into such an agreement, thanks.

That's almost the case with some modern cars these days anyway, you can't tinker with them like you used to and this is why I've known poeple who prefer classic cars. Personally I don't care about modifying or tinkering with my car, providing I can do a basic service I don't care, actually I tell a lie, I normally send it to the garrage for a service, all I ever do is check the oil, water, break fluid, tires etc.

You're missing the point.  You can't observe any problems under the hood when you can't open it, so even those simple diagnostics can't be done.  You'd have to rely on the idiot panel, which can be notoriously inaccurate (read: bad ABS sensors).  You couldn't take it to your neighborhood mechanic, either - you'd have to get a new one from the manufacturer.  My point is this: why do people put up with this shit from software vendors, when hardware manufacturers doing the same would cause bloody riots?

That's a silly annalogy and you know it.

Silly doesn't mean invalid.  If you got the message, it worked. :p

But you can still only see what's on the surface.

Do you know how secure the foundations are?

Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?

Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?

How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.

I get the idea.  Around here, at least, we have building codes to address those issues.  Stiff fines and prison sentences are associated with persistent violators.  What's so bad about doing this for something else millions of people use on a daily basis?

Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.

My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software, my television doesn't tell me what to watch (not even ONE properly configured V-chip in this household), and my calculator doesn't tell me not to include Liquid Paper as an office expense.  All of those have open initiatives in one form or another to prevent that from happening in the future.  Why should I settle for whatever short-sighted purpose the original vendor decided to give my 1's and 0's?  Why should I PAY to see their short-sighted purpose?  If they want to help me adapt, by all means, charge for that.  But I don't appreciate being told to pay for something I can't adapt to my needs.  I wouldn't buy a car without asking questions about the engine, and if the hood won't open, I won't buy it.

Likewise.

Fair enough, I suppose I've let my emotions into this, but I can't really help that when I feel as passionately about something like this.  

Nope, don't play computer games. :p

Wiseass.  You got the point.  

The MASM32 forum explains it all.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0
I was tempted to join and do some trolling, but I thought I should do some reading first and decided against it. There's some interesting debate on there surounding licences but I'll discuss this in the MASM32 thread.

Wise decision.  I didn't mean to argue about MASM but it seemed a decent example.  

The only thing I'm really against is closed standards whether it be the file format a piece of software uses or the latest music or video format. I promote royalty-free open standards over free software because they are more fair on the software developers. I actually advocate the scrapping of all laws regarding interlectual property where system compatability is concerned. Developers don't have to release the source but they shoudn't be allowed to sue if someone reverse engineers their file format.

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-DMCA as the next anarchist.  My main concern is that open standards are just one step shy of real, legally-enforceable licence agreements.  If someone can see the source, there's no question about what was created by whom when.  I don't mean this individually, but from a corporate and bureaucratic standpoint, the current licensing situation is a literal nightmare.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

That's the longest rant I've see in a while ... but you lost me after the 6th or 7th paragraph (I'll try again later)

[pofnlice]

Umm...Who cares?

The more mainstream software that ports to linux, the more credibility linux gains. It's EXACTLY this kind of software that people say is why they won't switch. Well here they come. Next thing you know, Games will be ported (yeah right, in about another 30 years).

[Pathos]

Umm...Who cares?

The more mainstream software that ports to linux, the more credibility linux gains. It's EXACTLY this kind of software that people say is why they won't switch. Well here they come. Next thing you know, Games will be ported (yeah right, in about another 30 years).

agreed. The more proprietry software available for linux based systems the more interest hardware vendors will take.

[Calum]

nero on linux. who cares? i use xcdroast because when i moved to linux it was at least as good as nero. it's not the same but fuck it, linux isn't the same as windows.

and i agree that people should want to use windows because they want freedom, but you have to realise that more and more people want to use linux because it's cool.

those people probably also think that distributing serial numbers for proprietary apps is cool. they have less ability to ratiocinate than the traditional linux using crowd, but if linux *is* to move ahead, perhaps these types will have to be welcomed and possibly pandered to.

EDIT: PS pofnlice is 100% right. for years on these very forums we've been saying if you want your programs on linux natively (rather than under wine for instance, mostly this is in response to the old "my xxx games don't run in linux" chestnut), then write to the vendors to package it for linux. now they start doing it, people complain?

[toadlife]

I see a few people here complaining about Nero and their evil proprietary CD burning app "poluting" linux.

In FreeBSD, I use xcdroast too - but in order to get everything working properly with my DVD Writer, I had to use the binary/closed source version, which is free for non-commercial use.   All of the  free/open source cd writing apps would not work quite right with my Plextor DVD Burner.

I've read that this is not a FreeBSD only issue. Via mailing lists, I've read that Linux users with certain DVD Burners have had the same issues that I had, and the close source version of xcdroast is the only thing that worked for them too.

So if the open source community can't provide a proper solution for all of users, what's so bad about companies like Nero, and the author of xcdroast coming providing one?

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Well, other than they are one of the ones who caused the problems you are talking about in the first place and now are making you pay for them to fix the problems they caused ... nothing.

[yahurd]

I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.

well its a utility, which says it all, linux has EVERY UTILITY IMAGINABLE,utities make up roughly 90% of foss

So can we do a comparison ... what can nero do that k3b can't ?

fuck up every iso ive tried to burn, so much i ordered ubuntu(ah my first trip to linux), other than that IDENTICAL

My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it. The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model. It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.

i went to linux through ubuntu, and the technical design but later ventured to be a foss-fanboy in about a month, so its a good thing that vendors are considering linux but, i doubt a cd app is going to push throngs over to linux

There again why should people switch to Linux for wanting freedom, why can't they switch because they prefer it to the alternatives?

i sort of agree, honestly, did YOU orethrius come because of free as in freedom, free as in beer, or technical differances?
gael duval switched for free as in beer

Were some of these products to be airplanes, you can bet the FAA would be dealing with an epidemic of crashes this very moment. God forbid Windows should ever make it onto a Boeing in anything but an entertainment center.

its in more places than you think ive seen bsoded atms and terminals at airports so lord knows it may be but airport makers probobly dont want a bsoded plane so it may be linux embedded

As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.

nay, because proprietary is sometimes a way to hide stolen code *cough*microsoft*ahem* we cant have "protection" for coders this way without protected code-stealing arsebags who claim they innovated, once again,*cough*microsoft*ahem*

But you can still only see what's on the surface.

Do you know how secure the foundations are?

Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?

Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?

How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.

Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.

thats what you need the code for!

nero on linux. who cares? i use xcdroast because when i moved to linux it was at least as good as nero. it's not the same but fuck it, linux isn't the same as windows.

and i agree that people should want to use windows because they want freedom, but you have to realise that more and more people want to use linux because it's cool.

those people probably also think that distributing serial numbers for proprietary apps is cool. they have less ability to ratiocinate than the traditional linux using crowd, but if linux *is* to move ahead, perhaps these types will have to be welcomed and possibly pandered to.

EDIT: PS pofnlice is 100% right. for years on these very forums we've been saying if you want your programs on linux natively (rather than under wine for instance, mostly this is in response to the old "my xxx games don't run in linux" chestnut), then write to the vendors to package it for linux. now they start doing it, people complain?

that used to be me! i used to be like that but a wine-ubuntu combination brought me to being such a foss fanboy, ive started to resemble stallmen
so more apps for linux is definitely great!

[piratePenguin]

Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.

That's still shitty, and I will likely support any efforts to produce, in a community rather than corporate manner, to build free....anything.

Upheaveling proprietaryness, in this world.. very respectable.

[worker201]

That's still shitty, and I will likely support any efforts to produce, in a community rather than corporate manner, to build free....anything.

Upheaveling proprietaryness, in this world.. very respectable.

Some things can't be free.  Much of the development of our beloved Linux is actually paid for by firmware, hardware, and software products.  If everything was free, we'd go back to having just community members doing the work.  That wouldn't be so bad, but we wouldn't see the rapid progress of the past few years anymore.  So a few things actually have to be paid for.  It's just a question of what.  I think I can live with proprietary calculators as long as Firefox can remain free, know what I'm saying?

[piratePenguin]

Some things can't be free. Much of the development of our beloved Linux is actually paid for by firmware, hardware, and software products. If everything was free, we'd go back to having just community members doing the work. That wouldn't be so bad, but we wouldn't see the rapid progress of the past few years anymore. So a few things actually have to be paid for. It's just a question of what. I think I can live with proprietary calculators as long as Firefox can remain free, know what I'm saying?

Firefox isn't free

I think I get what you're saying but I wouldn't agree. First of all I mean free as in freedom ONLY - I would still pay for a free calculator. I don't know of a free (hardware) calculator that meets my needs, so I've a very proprietary one. Secondly.. It's a two way street. Releasing the secrets of how the things we pay for work could well lead to much MORE rapid development, too. I wouldn't be quick to cop out either way, I didn't in what I said in that post. It's just how I feel.