Rob Deker <deker@digex.net> wrote:
> > I worked that much out by myself ;-). What it doesn't tell you
> > is what it actually *means*. I think an 'explain' button would be
> > rather useful at the yes/no prompts.

> sure, would you like a GUI by default too? How about a filesystem that is too
> stupid to care if it just gets turned off? Wait! Why don't you try
> a Microsoft product?

Thanks for the helpful and insightful response. No, sorry, that was
a pointless and idiotic response. My mistake.

> > It just seems perverse to use abbreviations like "BLKS" for "blocks".
> > They add a bit of obfuscation for absolutely no gain. And even
> > a single line for each message saying what will actually *happen*
> > if you say yes or no (e.g. "this will lose the data contained
> > within the named file") would be nice.

> Please pardon the operating system for assuming that people with some 
> semblance of a clue are administrating the system...

Fine by me. What I'm unhappy with is the operating system apparently
deliberately going out of its way to make things difficult, and not
going even the slightest bit out of its way to make things easier.
I'm not asking for a lot here.

> Don't forget, a directory has an inode liek everything else. Once it fixes
> that, the next pass of fsck reports more damage...trust us, it's a feature.

Cool. Maybe someday it'll even be documented.

Cheers


Jon
____
\  //    Jon Ribbens    //
 \// jon@oaktree.co.uk //