regular fsck runs are too disturbing
themuso at themuso.com
Sun Sep 30 23:02:36 UTC 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
GPG key: 0xD06320CE
Email & MSN: themuso at themuso.com
Jabber: themuso at jabber.org.au
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss