Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 02:30 UTC
GTK+ FreeSoftwareMagazine has an article about burning software available for Gnome. Two more interesting choices are the GTK-based Graveman! and Nero which released NeroLinux 3.0 beta very recently.
Order by: Score:
What about gnomebaker?
by markuz on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 03:07 UTC
markuz
Member since:
2007-04-22

Gnomebaker [ http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnomebaker ] is my default burning suite, it works really really nice form me, and it uses GTK+.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What about gnomebaker?
by Lunitik on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 03:22 UTC in reply to "What about gnomebaker?"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

You obviously didn't even look at the article... good job.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What about gnomebaker?
by kaiwai on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 03:29 UTC in reply to "What about gnomebaker?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry to sound negative, but when a project hasn't been updated in almost 6months, it sends the message that the project is dead and unmaintained - just like pan the usenet reader.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: What about gnomebaker?
by raver31 on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE: What about gnomebaker?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

WHAT ????

Pan is dead ?

Nooooooooooo

Hmmmm, lets see what happens next. I have a theory about open source, the theory goes like this.

The original programmer(s) get bored/dead/married and the project does not get any work done on it. However, the source code is available, so, it sits there for a week or two, or even a year, and no-one updates it.

But the project has a forum, there is a lot of people asking for updates, and a programmer comes along and thinks, "yeah, that is a good idea, and I think I might be able to do that for them.... if I just had the source code.... oh, wait !"

So he takes the source code, makes changes and releases them, hence the software rises from the dead. Ack, did he now create a zombie process ?

Anyway, my point is... wait and see if Pan comes back, it was probably the best newsgroup reader I have ever used on any platform.

Now, back on topic.

I am using Gnome at the minute, and tried Gnomebaker, it is spartan. I did like Brasero, but as usual I ended up with "aptiutude install k3b"

I know, sacrilege, but as people around here keep saying, use the best tool for the job... k3b is it, there is simple no rivals from Gnomeland. Sorry.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: What about gnomebaker?
by SlackerJack on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 07:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about gnomebaker?"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

It's not about K3b, you say it's the best based on what?

The main advantage of K3b is it's development time, but that don't stop the KDE people trying to spoil this thread.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: What about gnomebaker?
by raver31 on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about gnomebaker?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

read my post again... I said I am a GNOME user

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What about gnomebaker?
by SlackerJack on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about gnomebaker?"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Why did my post get modded down so much, the person who I responded to was off topic and modded up.

Terrible people in here using there mod points to mod up the KDE fans, it's not even on topic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What about gnomebaker?
by raver31 on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 07:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about gnomebaker?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

What part of "I AM A GNOME USER" does not register with your brain ?

I said I prefer k3b because it is the best tool for the job. I do not prefer KDE.

KDE has only 2 killer apps.
k3b and Amarok
They can Keep the rest.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What about gnomebaker?
by GhePeU on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE: What about gnomebaker?"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry to sound negative, but when a project hasn't been updated in almost 6months, it sends the message that the project is dead and unmaintained - just like pan the usenet reader.

Ah-ehm. Pan releases since October 22, 2006:

November 2, 2006: 0.118: "Gustaf Von Musterhausen"
November 10, 2006: 0.119: "Karma Hunters"
January 2, 2007: 0.120: "Plate of Shrimp"
January 22, 2007: 0.121: "Dortmunder"
February 3, 2007: 0.122: "Not Even Wrong"
February 6, 2007: 0.123: "El Nuevo Barretto"
February 12, 2007 - Pan 0.124: "Goblin Worlds"
February 21, 2007 - Pan 0.125: "Potzrebie"
March 28, 2007 - Pan 0.126: "Demon Sweat"
April 12, 2007 - Pan 0.127: "Eckythump"
April 21, 2007 - Pan 0.128: "SR/CL: Leitmotiv: Toynbee Idea"

Pan has been redesigned and now is being rewritten in C++, so, no, pan is not dead or unmaintained: http://pan.rebelbase.com/.

Reply Score: 4

Bonfire
by Lunitik on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 03:16 UTC
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

This is probably the best standalone client for Gnome and CD burning.

I'm not really sure why the nautilus CD burning util isn't good enough though? It's pretty simple, but how much more features do people need? It does the job just fine in most cases...

Perhaps it's just not discoverable easy enough?

Why did it change its name to Brasero?

Edited 2007-04-22 03:21

Reply Score: 3

best tool
by collinm on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 03:51 UTC
collinm
Member since:
2005-07-15

we can say a lot of thing but the best linux burning tool is k3b

Reply Score: 5

Hmm
by Xaero_Vincent on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 03:56 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Graveman looks interesting but I'll probably go with Nero 3.0 just to support a commercial company interested in Linux.

I hope more people do the same.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hmm
by flanque on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 03:59 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Does Ahead release the source for their Linux version?

Edited 2007-04-22 03:59

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm
by kaiwai on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't want to sound negative, but do you know *stupid* that sounds? its a commercial application.

And you wonder why Adobe are hesitant about developing applications for Linux with views like *that* - spend millions porting to Linux and find no one buys it because they want it for free with the source code.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Hmm
by flanque on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I actually agree with you. I probably should have encapsulated it in <sarcasm></sarcasm>. It was a stab at the purists. If I were on a Linux workstation I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Edited 2007-04-22 06:34

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmm
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Why pay for something which isn't better than what you can get for free - and even get the source code for (important for those of us who can actually modify it - and irrelevant for those who can't, of course) ?

AFAIK those "purists" you talk about hardly exists. Most users are pragmatic which can be seen from most linux installations. A blend of FLOSS and proprietary software. Primarily FLOSS (but that is also true for many Windows installations) but also some proprietary software (skype, flash, even opera - though it is bloated like FF).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmm
by kaiwai on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

AFAIK those "purists" you talk about hardly exists. Most users are pragmatic which can be seen from most linux installations. A blend of FLOSS and proprietary software. Primarily FLOSS (but that is also true for many Windows installations) but also some proprietary software (skype, flash, even opera - though it is bloated like FF).


Mate if you think that there are superior alternatives out there (which there are), then argue the case based on merit rather than philosphical BS like 'ooh, it has source code!'.

For some out there, Nero is a great tool, and for $20 per copy, its pretty damn cheap when compared to their Windows offerings. With that being said, however, K3B does a pretty damn good job; unless Nero has features and applications which the 'free' burners don't have, such as encrypted dvd play back, dvd video creation and video conversion, its going to be a hard sell considering that most users who use Linux are technology savvy already, and happy to use slightly more complex applications if they're free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmm
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Mate if you think that there are superior alternatives out there (which there are), then argue the case based on merit rather than philosphical BS like 'ooh, it has source code!'.


Eeeh? Get a grip on yourself. Your reply has nothing to do with that quote. I wrote nothing in the post you quoted from about FLOSS being superior. I replied on a post about alleged "purists". Personally I use a blend of FLOSS and proprietary. This is true for my Win2K3 Server installation and my Gentoo Linux installation. I did not argue in any way for FLOSS being superior. It is in some cases but you can also find situations where proprietary solutions are superior to FLOSS solutions. uTorrent vs. Azureus comes to my mind. Azureus is FLOSS but I wouldn't recommend it under any circumstance.

Having access to and right to modify source code is not "philosophical BS" as you so offensive state. It can be be "philosophical BS" but only if you don't have the gifts to use it. I have so for me it is a practical matter. But I never choose software based on licenses solely. It _may_ make a difference between two equal technological solutions, but it is no guarantee. Sometimes the proprietary tool is better than the FLOSS tool. In those cases I choose the proprietary tool. That's what being "pragmatic" means.

Somehow you seem to think I'm claiming Nero is crap. I have NOT claimed that. Au contraire! I have written it is not a bad tool. I don't consider it better, nor do I consider it worse. It is however more expensive but if it fits your need then please go ahead and use it. I am not religious about licenses.

I fail to see why encrypted DVD play back is relevant for a CD/DVD Burner. It is relevant for Media Players and open source apps can actually play encrypted DVD's. Legally in fact (though not in USA and a few other irrelevant countries).

Nautilus can be used to create Movie/Video DVD's and there are other GUI tools to easily convert videos. In that regard Linux isn't missing anything. You don't have to use command line for that. Converting videos isn't something I'd expect to see in a CD/DVD Burner - nor is playback. It is irrelevant for the task. One application for each task, please ;)

Finally: I agree with you that choosing software solely based on licenses is BS. I also consider source code access irrelevant if you cannot do anything with that access (e.g. code or otherwise contribute to the project). In those cases you are right about "source code access" being philosophical BS. But ONLY in those cases.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Hmm
by Doc Pain on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"With that being said, however, K3B does a pretty damn good job; unless Nero has features and applications which the 'free' burners don't have, such as encrypted dvd play back, dvd video creation and video conversion, its going to be a hard sell considering that most users who use Linux are technology savvy already, and happy to use slightly more complex applications if they're free."

This is a result of the typical "Windows" philosophy. Instead of having tools that do one task (and do it very good), "Windows" users demand on tools that to everything. Maybe this is due to a lack of the ability to perform a complex task in less complex steps and then combine the results? Feel free to look up "eierlegende Wollmilchsau" in your dictionary, this is what "Nero" can be described best. While "Nero" is quite okay for simple tasks where it's not up to compatibility, it's okay. Unexperienced users can handle it well. But it does not create standard ISO9660 + RockRidge extension CDs, nor does it create standard full CD images (binary format); maybe the Linux version does.

Functions like video editing, playback, encryption and conversion do not belong to the stuff a CD mastering tool should do. I've seen VCDs coming out of "Nero" that you could describe as anything... but not a VCD. Sadly, you can use "Nero" to create the strangest results... which we call "Bierdeckel" in Germany - a CD you can put your glass of beer on. :-)

In my personal opinion, K3B is a better solution. Along with some KDE tools, it's really awesome. (Okay, would not be my choice.) But to come back on topic, Gnome / Gtk can be used to do the same, no matter which CD / DVD recording application you use, gmencoder, gstreamer and even Gimp provide means to create nearly every imaginable media content.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Hmm
by flanque on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Why pay for something which isn't better than what you can get for free - and even get the source code for (important for those of us who can actually modify it - and irrelevant for those who can't, of course) ?


Because I like to support software, commercial or not, if I think it's worth supporting. If I want to pay for software, that's my choice. Isn't this the point of the FOSS philosophy?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hmm
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Because I like to support software, commercial or not,


Eeehh? You surely mean proprietary? FLOSS is also commercial. Don't fall for Steve Ballmer's and Bill Gates' lies about FLOSS being communistic and anti-commercial. FLOSS is very much commercial. FLOSS is however not proprietary in the usual sense.

However, I like the fact you are willing to pay for software you like.

if I think it's worth supporting. If I want to pay for software, that's my choice. Isn't this the point of the FOSS philosophy?


FLOSS is about contribution so yes. A monetary contribution can be a part of it. $1 is reasonable for a minor tool like Ahead Nero. $10 would be reasonable for Vista. $20 would be reasonable for a major game due to the extra resources spent on artwork.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Hmm
by flanque on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmm"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I mean, if I think closed source, non free (as in beer and philosophy) software is worth paying for then I will do just that. Ahead Nero is a quality tool, which I will pay for in a Linux OS. The fact that is proprietary, means to me that Ahead would like to recoup their costs and make a profit. I have no problem with this.

It's my choice and I will buy whatever I feel is worth the money.

As for Bill Gates.. I try to form my own opinions and not be fooled by marketing. I'm a suspicious individual when it comes to many things, including technology. I accept that FLOSS can be commercialised. I have no problem with this.

As for Balmer.. I think he's a raving lunatic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm
by fffffh on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
fffffh Member since:
2006-01-04

And you wonder why Adobe are hesitant about developing applications for Linux with views like *that* - spend millions porting to Linux and find no one buys it because they want it for free with the source code.

And why Autodesk sell expensive Maya 8.5 for Linux, for priceses from ~ 2000$ to 7000$ for Linux, when any one can use Blender or K3D for free ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmm
by kaiwai on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 07:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Niche products, not mainstream desktop software - different market, different issues at play.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmm
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Adobes products are also niche products ;)

Different market, same shit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Hmm
by kaiwai on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Adobes products aren't niche's. Adobe makes consumer products like Photoshop Elements and Macromedia Homesite.

There is a HUGE difference between specialty Cad and 3d animation and Adobe applications that are bundled with virtually every camera, scanner and computer that is shipped.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Hmm
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Macromedia Homesite and Photoshop Elements are definitely niche products!

They are not even the least bit close to be mainstream. No more than AutoDesk Maya 8.5 or AutoCAD.

Mainstream products are products like Firefox, IE, Thunderbird, MSN Messenger, Ga...Pidgin and other such normal tools. I'll bet you that less than 1% of the PC's in this world has Macromedia Homesite or Photoshop Elements installed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[8]: Hmm
by WereCatf on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Hmm"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Firefox may be very mainstream..but atleast from what I know Photoshop Elements are installed on more computers than Pidgin.. So if Pidgin ain't a niche product, neither is Photoshop Elements =)

Cheers ^^

EDIT: typo

Edited 2007-04-22 14:32

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm
by happycamper on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

/*Does Ahead release the source for their Linux version? */


why do want Nero? k3b it's much better and it's free.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hmm
by Hiev on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 04:38 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Indeed, same here, Im glad Ahead ported Nero to Linux even before to OSX and the fact they used GTK for it is a plus.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Hmm
by porcel on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 12:27 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

I am very glad to see Nero ported to Linux. The beta on that page offers a nice interface that is a huge improvement over the crappy one they were using before.

That said, they have a big hill to climb after neglecting Linux for as long as they have. Had they done this in 2000-2001, they would absolutely rule as cdburning apps sucked pretty badly back then.

Nonetheless, good luck to them and I may be using it in the future for people who feel more comfortable with a known name.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hmm
by jaylaa on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 12:48 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

Graveman looks interesting but I'll probably go with Nero 3.0 just to support a commercial company interested in Linux.

What? Why? Developers donate their time to give you Free products but you feel you must instead support a company just because it deigns to offer us lowly Linux users a product? Where's the logic in that?

If you actually prefer Nero, then fine, but supporting it just because it's a company is worse, IMO, than when us FOSS advocates support Free software just because it's Free.

If the people behind Graveman start a company, close the source and sell it to us will you support them then?

Reply Score: 5

I like NeroLinux 3.0 Beta
by Unbeliever on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 04:59 UTC
Unbeliever
Member since:
2005-07-09

just installed it, and kind of impressed. It looks pretty good with GTK2. I like GnomeBaker as well, as Graveman never really worked for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I like NeroLinux 3.0 Beta
by Lobotomik on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:35 UTC in reply to "I like NeroLinux 3.0 Beta"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

I like Nero on Windows, and I like the fact that there are commercial consumer-software vendors starting to offer products for Linux. However, I don't foresee a very rosy future for Nero in this arena.

Nero Linux just does not seem to be necessary: K3B is almost as good, and might get to be better in a couple iterations; and Gnome burning functionality keeps getting better. Plus, I see a trend I like a lot of integrating burning functionality into apps, such as Banshee or Nautilus, rather than in a dedicated burning application.

But then, Nero is starting to get pressure on the Windows side too: There are free apps such as InfraRecorder that do an excellent job for all of $0, and they don't try to take over your computer with 200 different thinly related, mediocre media apps.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I like NeroLinux 3.0 Beta
by zsitvaij on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: I like NeroLinux 3.0 Beta"
zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14

There _is_ a dedicated burning application. It's called cdrecord/cdrkit. Every single on of the apps mentioned here use that. (Discounting experiments like libburn and co.)

Kinda like how you only have a single kernel no matter the distro. (Again, discounting experiments like Gentoo/FreeBSD.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I like NeroLinux 3.0 Beta
by leech on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like NeroLinux 3.0 Beta"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

The funny thing is people really don't realize this very often.

Everything is simply a front-end to these things. Everyone always states that "k3b is the best burning software for Linux!" when it technically doesn't do any of the actual burning. It's just a GUI laid on top of the same program that all the other GUIs use to burn under Unix operating systems.

The only difference between k3b and the various GTK front-ends are the options that are visually laid out. Which is appropriate considering the difference in the desktop philosophies (Gnome trying to be more simplistic and easy to use and KDE being the "let's show every conceivable option we can think of" desktop. Both have their places, but one application looks very out of place in the other set up.)

Reply Score: 2

Hmm...
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 05:18 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

like burning or ripping an ISO file
Oops, author. The author assumes that Nautilus cannot be used to burn ISO-files. It can. It cannot rip anything, but you do that with other tools in Gnome.

Burning movie- & audio DVD's and audio CD's can also be done using Nautilus (even with autostart though it requires some jumping through hoops). A little bit of improvement here wouldn't hurt. Integrated ripping would also be nice (better integration with Sound Juicer and other packages).

GnomeBaker isn't a bad option, despite being long between updates. But it is still being maintained. Nero can be used but it feels weird. But that is however a matter of preference. It is not a bad tool.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm...
by SlackerJack on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 05:39 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Yes Nautilus burner gets left behind for some reason, it's a great integrated burning solution and burns ISO's in just two clicks.

I wish the nerolinux people would use the Tango icons, I bet it would be less work than converting there own icons ported from Windows.

Edited 2007-04-22 05:44

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm...
by Moochman on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

On the other hand, I could see having the exact same interface as the Windows version (including icons) being a great help to ex-Windows users making the switch. The only thing that seems to be missing judging by the screenshots (correct me if I'm wrong) is Nero Express, which is a shame because its simpler interface is more newbie-friendly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm...
by SlackerJack on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Yes I see what you mean but we dont want messy inconsistant UI's from Windows programs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm...
by GhePeU on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 08:40 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

Oops, author. The author assumes that Nautilus cannot be used to burn ISO-files. It can. It cannot rip anything, but you do that with other tools in Gnome.

True, and burning ISO files with nautilus is easier and quicker than launching a new application.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/5691/cdburnervm2.gif

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hmm...
by Temcat on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 09:44 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Nautilus doesn't even give me the option to erase the CD-RW.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmm...
by NxStY on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12
RE[3]: Hmm...
by Temcat on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Oh, thanks for enlightenment, didn't know it! Ok, at least it does that in a not-so-discoverable way, because if I don't see the option to erase, I presume it is absent.

Reply Score: 2

graveman
by happycamper on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 06:26 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

great, I did not know about graveman.I'll emerge it.Nero looks good, but i think k3b is much better then Nero.

Reply Score: 5

RE: graveman
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:06 UTC in reply to "graveman"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Busted. A gentoo user ;)

Reply Score: 2

soundjuicer
by netpython on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 08:31 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

i like to rip CDs with soundjuicer.It enables me to produce high quality mpeg4 *.m3u's.

Reply Score: 2

I prefer gnome myself
by anyweb on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 09:41 UTC
anyweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

but without a doubt, when I burn any cd's in linux I use k3b, it is such a nice package and works wonderfully in Gnome. k3b installs easily too in Fedora

yum -y install k3b

screenshot > http://www.linux-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2611

cheers
anyweb

Edited 2007-04-22 09:45

Reply Score: 4

Wonder
by B. Janssen on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 10:24 UTC
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

I wonder, why would anybody use a CD/DVD-Burning-Application to rip Audio-CDs or Movie/Audio-DVDs?

OTOH, I can understand moving burning abilities into the normal file management workchain, like they are doing with Nautilus-Burn.

And a comment on Nero: Just because a proprietary company is gracing GNU/Linux with its product makes it not better by default. Proprietary software has to compete on merits as much as any FOSS software and they have to compensate their price tag, too. It is not enough that Nero is as good as K3B or Brasero, it has to be at least 20$ better. Since I'm one who sees FOSS as a value add, I apply a 100% penalty on proprietary software, so Nero has to be 40$ better than any competing FOSS software. And Nero is plainly not.

Reply Score: 4

Gnome burning
by WereCatf on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 12:32 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I haven't yet installed any CD burning apps besides Nautilus which works just fine, but I'm just looking for some easy-to-use solution for also burning audio CDs with support for CD-TEXT. Nautilus is just perfect for everything else, it's so easily available whenever I need it, it's simple, fast and integrated too.. And since it can burn .bin/.cue and .iso files, I don't have need for anything else =)

But about k3b.. A lot of people here says it's simply THE app to use, but I just gotta say I disagree.. It may have lots of functionality, but since it's a QT app it doesn't look and feel familiar on my GNOME desktop..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Gnome burning
by superstoned on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 18:04 UTC in reply to "Gnome burning"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

It's weird you don't pick an app because it looks different, even though the competition sucks... I prefer KDE apps, but I use amule anyway. In KDE, of course, we have the luxury of the GTK-QT theme, so the Gnome apps look like KDE apps, but you could also choose a KDE theme which looks similair to your gnome theme. Besides, most Gnome desktops have a mix of Gnome and plain-gtk apps, some don't follow the guidelines anyway, so you won't have a perfect consistent desktop anyway...

Still KDE and Gnome are both ahead in consistency on Win and Mac ;-)

Reply Score: 2

check it out in action
by anshu on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 19:50 UTC
anshu
Member since:
2005-09-03

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3mhlF1SBo

If you are used to Nero interface for long time , you are really going to like this.

Reply Score: 1

codergeek42
Member since:
2006-01-07

I know this is somewhat off-topic, but it is related and tangential to this. Why does one need a CD/DVD-burning software suite in the first place?

For example, I have music player X...so does burning an audio CD require application Z instead of being part of the music player?

Or secondly: I want to burn a backup of my data, so I use a specific data-burning application. Why can't I just use the same file-manager interface I'd use to move files between directories?

I really love the way the GNOME desktop handles this: Creating an audio CD in Rhythmbox is as simple as dragging the tracks you want to a new playlist on the left listing, then selecting that and choosing the "Write Audio CD..." option.

Similarly, Nautilus (the GNOME file manager) has a special "CD/DVD Creator" virtual folder that you can drag-and-drop files into, then click the "Write disc..." button at the top to burn it to a CD/DVD (automatically detected, even! COOL!).

I am very big fan of drag-and-drop, and things like this make me greatly question current UIs in a lot of ways.

Reply Score: 1

Gnome?
by FunkyELF on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 14:50 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Which of these actually use gnome and which use GTK+?

Couldn't these also be thought of as burners for XFce or any other GTK+ based window manager?

K3b works in gnome....is it a gnome cd burner too?

Reply Score: 1