The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> writes:
> On 12/06/2014 at 12:27 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2014 05:06 PM, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 20:59:25 +0000 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But remember our current slogan "Linux is all about choice". One
>>>> can choose to boot with or without "fsck.mode=skip".
>>>
>>> What about the choice to stop fsck it if it has started at an
>>> inconvenient moment ?
>>
>> What is wrong with an fsck?? You've never had an fsck happen without
>> your permission before at boot time?? Isn't it a good thing to have
>> happen once in a blue moon??
>
> The problem is not an fsck, but having a fsck happen _right then_, when
> you need the computer for something else. Schedules and deadlines are a
> thing.
>
(all instances of 'you' and 'your' are meant generically)
Well, it is not as if fscks happen out of the blue. Either you weren't
paying attention and you were hit with the periodic fsck, or you make a
habit of doing dirty shutdowns, and you know the fsck is going to happen
anyway.
Yes, if you were not paying attention, it may feel as a surprise. And if
you are used to the bad habit of interrupting fsck, then not being able
to may feel as a bad surprise, but the problem is still *your* bad
habits.
Mistakes happen, we're all human. Blaming your tools for your own
mistakes is another bad habit though.
Imagine his file system was corrupted. Interrupting fsck wouldn't have
helped, his computer would have been unavailable anyway.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/86tx187uce....@gaheris.avalon.lan
