[ale] [Robert.L.Harris at rdlg.net: Reiser vs EXT3]

[ChangingLINKS.com]

1. I would expect paramedics to try to help if I accidently shot myself in the 
chest. Accidents happen. Even ext3 appologists understand that enough to beat 
the "data back up" drum.

2. When I used rm, I wanted to delete a different file. I understand that I 
communicated something else to the computer.

3. When setting a password, Linux (and other OSs) prompt to repeat it - why? 
Would you also argue that there should not be a "verify password" prompt?

4. Undelete in Windows 3.0 - 98 (not sure about NT, XP and 2000) are not 
user-unfriendly when compared to something like untarring and installing some 
binarys or kernel recompile. The data may lose some of it's format, but 
little time is lost polishing it back up.

5. I clearly remember that _the author_ of ext3 noted this problem as a bug on 
the home page. Why would you take the position that it should be that way by 
design?

6. Finally, we ALL know that the data IS NOT permanently deleted. It has not 
been overwritten. It is still there (and easy for the government to recover) 
but not easily recoverable for the average user AT THIS TIME.

7. Of course this thread is beating a dead horse which is why I replied to you 
off list.

Some people will believe that computers should continue to have features with 
the understanding that accidents happen, AND other people will just support 
the *temporary* bug that did not exist (on Windows Mac or Linux) before ext3.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Drew


On Thursday 31 October 2002 16:39, you wrote:
> ChangingLINKS.com wrote:
> > And you own guns with no safety mechanisms as well? 
> > What about a car that starts when the shifter is not in "Park?"
> > How about the microwave that can operate without the door shut?
> > Geez . . .
> 
> No. But the *purpose* of the "remove a file" command is to, well,
> *remove* a file. Not to move it. Not to hide it. Expecting "rm"
> to not remove a file is analogous to loading a gun, ensuring that
> the safety is off, shooting yourself in the chest, and expecting
> the paramedics to be able to fix you up. You use "rm" when you
> really want the file to be gone forever, so that you can use
> the disk space for something else.
> 
> It's clear to everyone, I expect, that the purpose of the "Recycle
> Bin" on Windows is not to actually remove a file, but to move
> it somewhere where it won't bother you. You can have that
> function, easily, on Linux, and if you want it, use it. The
> fact that a particular filesystem (ext3) really removes a file,
> unrecoverably, when told to do so, is not a reason not to
> use that filesystem; rather, it's a reason to use tools that
> protect you from such mistakes, if that's what you need.
> 
> Note that in general, even on Windows, the command that
> means "Really, I want you too remove this file so I can use
> the disk space for something else" (Empty the trash) results
> in a permanently and totally deleted file - the file may
> be partially recoverable by (user-unfriendly) disk-editing
> tools, but you certainly aren't entitled to *expect* that
> to be the case.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- Joe
> 
> 

-- 
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com

---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.