Re: Why is Brasero so awful
Back when i used gnome, i used gnomebaker. Now that i use xfce, i use Xfburn.
It seemed to me brasero used the drive more directly, not as a simple frontend for cdrecord/wodim/etc. This was good and bad at the same time, seemed fine when cdrecord didn't like your drive, bad when you had another problem with the drive for whatever reason; then the drive would remain unusable until reboot.
I also had the experience of k3b totally ruining brasero (and the other way around), it seemed to conflict with some kde libs trying to use the drive at the same time as brasero, leaving it in an unusable state, or coaster factory (Nautilus messing didn't help either).
From this experience i stick to a single burning solution, and preferably remove the others, i would specially uninstall brasero.
BTW: you have to remember when installing packages, "recommended" packages are assumed as dependencies. That can be changed for apt and synaptic, no idea about software center. So that long list of k3b dependencies can probably be reduced a little.
With apt, all you need is an /etc/apt/apt.conf with the option:
APT::Install-Recommends "0"; or use the option: --no-install-recommends (ie: sudo apt-get install --no-install-recommends k3b).
But these days i rarely burn discs anymore, seems the technology will last even less than floppies, made obsolete by usb sticks and sd cards.
Long term backup storage remains the puzzle, off line HDs? Mass pile of SD cards? (SDXC is coming with 64g sizes now...)
i5-2500, Asus p8p67le, 8g ddr3, gtx460. Eeepc 701 4g surf.