On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Jack <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:quiet_celt@yahoo.com">quiet_celt@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top"><br>I'm not being dramatic, merely stating the facts. Feel free to point out which of my statements is not factual, and correct me if you find an error in anything I said. Please be specific and quote verifiable sources for your proofs. </td>
</tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br>Oh please, give me a break. Sources for my proofs? LOL, I didn't realize that you were defending your dissertation.<br><br>I'm not asserting that your statements have no merit, I'm arguing that your presentation was flawed. You quickly turned the thread away from the original poster's intent and turned it into a discussion on your strange hatred of a command line option on a rather mundane tool. I really could have done without that.<br>
<br>Since you wanted examples, here are some of the statements you made that struck me as dubious or hyperbolic:<br><br>* "Fsck -y" is like having unprotected sex with the entire adult entertainment industry. (I actually laughed at this one, but despite its fun factor it's clearly hyperbolic)<br>
<br>* Please, anyone paying attention to this thread do not run "fsck -y".
That is just flat out dangerous, and could really screw up your fs.
Seriously, why did they ever add that option? In fact, I'd recommend
everyone download the source and disable that sick bit of code and
recompile (LOL, let me get right on that one...)<br><br>* Fsck -y is, and was, designed for use by system administrators who know
what they are doing. It's not meant to be the lazy man's alternate to
safe fs recovery. (in this example I'd argue that the exact OPPOSITE is true)<br><br>There is some good information contained in your posts, and I agree that the original poster was probably looking for more information than just "fsck -y". However I didn't like that you felt that you needed to go on this crusade about the -y option. You could have made your point with much less hot air.<br>
<br>I also stand by my assertion that for the majority of people, in the majority of cases of file system corruption, "fsck -y" is the best option. It's also what is generally recommended by others in this profession. Remember, most folks facing this problem aren't experts and don't have the knowledge, tools, or inclination to do a thorough recovery.<br>
<br>My "source" for this opinion is my experience in working with Linux for sixteen years~<br>Jeffrey.<br></div></div>