<<
For this to be true, you need another assumption: All hardware is
absolutely reliable which just is not the case.
...
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 chk
Ok--I'm sorry, but none of what you said made any sense to me.
> I don't see the point why filenames needs to be tab-completed on default, it
> does it when it's necessary.
I'm asking why tab-completion changed from allowing tab-completion of EVERY
file to being restricted.
It sounds like you ar
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 08:20 +0800, Joel Bryan Juliano wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and
> firefox popped up and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit
> 'OK' and it saved 'g
Op woensdag 10-10-2007 om 12:19 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Matthew
East:
> Me too. This whole fsck business is a really ugly hole in the Ubuntu
> experience; first the fact that it can't be aborted,
Doesn't Ctrl-C work?
(Not really discoverable for new or inexperienced users of course.)
> and
On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and firefox
> popped up and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit 'OK' and it saved '
> genpdf.asp' into my downloads folder. I was surprised to find bash
> wouldn't tab-compl
On 11/10/07 02:36, Phillip Susi wrote:
> 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.
>
Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and firefox popped up
and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit 'OK' and it saved 'genpdf.asp'
into my downloads folder. I was surprised to find bash wouldn't tab-complete
the filename.
Apparently there is new (newer than dapper) bas
The main roadblock in my mind is that few people use LVM as the main installer
doesn't support it.
Also, I have no idea how sane this idea is in terms of the abilities of ext3.
It's an interesting solution but probably too insane to ship in a distro.
Something like autofsck is easier/less risky t
I completely like the LVM idea, as I was saying on IRC a bit ago, that
would really be an elegant system. LVM up root, and whatever other
chosen disks, and safely check that in the background (possibly a nice
notification icon even?) and pop up a ping box when an error is found
(the level of er
Matthew East wrote:
> I understand that there are technical issues behind this which I don't
> have the knowledge to address properly, but the target must absolutely
> be to solve this problem, rather than make excuses from it.
>
> Has someone created a specification about the issue?
>
https://w
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 l
A partial check doesn't make sense with the current fsck tools AFAIK. We
should do a full filesystem check if anything, and if a user decides to abort
it, it's his choice.
There should be a graphical or otherwise easily accessible way of re-touching
the /forcefsck flag so that users can choose whi
Hi,
I am the mirror administrator of cn.archive.ubuntu.com from Shanghai
Linux User Group.
Below is the email conversation between us and it can be a bit
follow-up on wenzhuo's post.
Regarding the upstream mirror source, we found planetmirror which is
located in Australia is a quite a good sourc
On 10/10/2007 Christof Krüger wrote:
> However, I strongly agree that the user should be given the option to
> abort the scan. This also implies that the user is being informed on the
> splash screen first and that he knows what is actually about to happen.
Problem is that users will just skip the
On 10/10/2007, Christof Krüger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I strongly agree that the user should be given the option to
> abort the scan.
Me too. This whole fsck business is a really ugly hole in the Ubuntu
experience; first the fact that it can't be aborted, and secondly the
fact that i
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 12:02 +0200, mike corn wrote:
> How about running fsck only when the file system was not properly
> unmounted the last time it was online? (crash, power fail)
>
> Assuming the file system is robust and bug-free, this should be
> adequate.
For this to be true, you need ano
How about running fsck only when the file system was not properly unmounted the
last time it was online? (crash, power fail)
Assuming the file system is robust and bug-free, this should be adequate.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Emmet Hikory wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Wenzhuo Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps the country level CNAMEs should resolve to archive.ubuntu.com when
>> the mirrors are more than one day behind.
>
> This is rarely best. In the common case, an
18 matches
Mail list logo
