Re: A couple of questions

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Kuba Ober wrote:

>>>What I'm thinking of is this:
>>>to the user, which most users w/o intimate filesystem knowledge won't be
>>>able to answer at all?
>>>      
>>>
>>Unix traditionally wasn't aimed at the point-and-click users without
>>knowledge.
>>    
>>
>
>Yep. But the thing is that either fsck can restore the data or not. There's no 
>way in between.
>
>What more can unix-poweruser do about recovering a filesystem, other than 
>running a disk editor (say a reiserfs-customized version of norton disk 
>editor, which used to be a good thing for hand recovery of fat fs before it 
>became crap) ?
>
>What kinds of questions can fsck really ask without having to present user 
>with a lot of intricate data, which is better visualized graphically or, at 
>least in a more interactive ui?
>
>Example: If e2fsck starts asking questions like "inode counts don't match for 
>groups (a long list of groups). fix them <y>", what should I answer? no? that 
>would be nonsense.
>
Yeah, I agree with this one.  Especially when there is usually 
absolutely no place where it is documented what in the world these sorts 
of messages mean.  Which is one of my pet peeves with our reiserfsck and 
journaling code, I am simply unable to convey that a message that is not 
explained such that the average user can understand it is programming 
malpractice.

>  
>
>>for some strange reason no fsck behaves like that.
>>    
>>
>
>Because most fscks are hacks. They are useful, they mostly do their job, but 
>they are far from full-features tools, and that's the reality. I don't 
>complain. I just say that their functionality isn't optimal, and shouldn't be 
>cited as something that's the way to go, or as something that should be a 
>design goal. They are effects of how much time did the fs-knowing people have 
>to put in them.
>
Yes, very true.  Sigh.  Norton was the exception to this, and it was not 
produced by the author of the FS.

>
>Cheers, Kuba
>
>
>  
>