regular fsck runs are too disturbing

[Luke Yelavich]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:08:05AM EST, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> If you want fsck then you should be able to turn it on, but please
> don't assume that anyone else wants to have fsck enabled, by default.
> As many people have reported, it takes awfully long to boot with fsck
> and that's incredibly annoying.
> 
> >From my own experience, the average person will react very negatively
> to fsck increasing their boot time by 10-40min, especially if XP&Vista
> (how about other Linux distros or OS X?) don't do this annoying check.

So what happens when users install a distro that either doesn't check their filesystem 
regularly, or attempts to check in background, which can't be completed due to system activity 
etc, and they loose their data? I'd be thinking that having the filesystem periodically checked 
would be a good thing, to ensure my data stays in tact.

> Seriously, why should we accept being disturbed by fsck?

To keep our data in tact.
- -- 
Luke Yelavich
GPG key: 0xD06320CE 
	 (http://www.themuso.com/themuso-gpg-key.txt)
Email & MSN: themuso at themuso.com
Jabber: themuso at jabber.org.au
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHACsMjVefwtBjIM4RAvOiAKCpNAFx1yLpLNDFfCuS75AdO4Ik3gCguH0Y
9RUb5CIKuuvygcbCZQaasy4=
=39DP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----