John Dong wrote: > I agree with everyone who says that the current fsck experience is a blemish > to Ubuntu's general user-friendliness, and also that we should not be entirely > removing the regular fsck as it catches hardware irregularities and potential > software bugs with ext3.
When was the last time you had a fsck find and fix errors? I have two machines that have been running reiserfs for 2 years now and have never had to fsck, and on the rare occasion that I am bored and feel like forcing one, nothing wrong is found. The vast majority of users will be in this same boat. The vast majority of the time there simply is no reason to fsck. You might suggest that they do it every once in a while, but most people will just say no, and the only result will almost certainly be that they spend less time waiting to boot up. Windows runs on the same "potentially flakey" hardware that Linux does, and it doesn't routinely perform a chkdsk. Most people are quite happy with this and only need to chkdsk when something goes wrong and they suspect filesystem damage. The argument about random hardware corruption does not hold up in the face of this evidence. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
