Tim Rightnour <root@garbled.net> wrote on Fri, 10 Oct 2003
at 06:57:13 -0700 in <XFMail.031010065713.root@garbled.net>:

> 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.

--jhawk