Subject: Re: dd could replace rawrite
To: Tim Rightnour <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
Date: 10/10/2003 09:59:11
Tim Rightnour <email@example.com> wrote on Fri, 10 Oct 2003
at 06:57:13 -0700 in <XFMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> That depends on who you are being friendly to. To someone like me,
> to whom a windows machine is an unfamiliar and scary place, rawrite
> is far more intimidating than dd.
I'm sorry, I don't believe you.
As a person well-used to command line tools, I have great difficulty
believing you'll be "intimidated" in any real why by using rawrite.
On the other hand, for people who have barely ever used any command-line
interface, dd can really be intimidating.
Admittedly our installation has lots of other intimidating portions,
but that's no reason to make it any _more_ intimidating, especially
before it really even starts.
> Also.. wouldn't the exact combination of options for dd on win32 be
> pretty consistent across all win32 machines? As long as we give
> them a command, rather than say "it's dd, the commands may differ,
> good luck" we won't be bad off.
I don't see how this is a win over rawrite.
Let me be clear; I have no problem with efforts to make dd build and
work under Win32. I just don't think it should replace rawrite in our
instructions if the user interface is less friendly than rawrite's.