🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 21 Nov 1995 02:42:23 GMT, Shannon Stewman <stew@news.fyi.net> wrote:
>SaskPower (spc@leroy.cc.uregina.ca) wrote:
>: than changes to a filesystem... ext2 is just GREAT the way it is... 8^)
>
>Why not complete it with ACL's and the proposed undelete system. Nothing is 
>so great it cannot be improved. A transaction log would help, as well.
NO! There is absolutely no reason to patch into kernal source
features that are easily implemented as a simple shell script.

It is basicly an issue of adding the supporting code for
the desired functionality in a place where those of us
who actually use rm to clear disk space can eject it
easily. I know that if it is built into the filesystem
it can be ignored or disabled, but for people running on
systems that are marginal on memory or disk space, features
like this are an unnecessary luxury.

Yes, undelete is a LUXURY. It allows you to spend a bit less
thought on removing files because if you remove the wrong thing
you can say <oops!> and get it back right away. Without undelete
you have to actually watch what you are doing, or keep backups.
(Preferrably both).

And yes, I have deleted files that I immediately missed and
would have liked to have unrm available. BUT I still feel
the same way. It is a feature for user space.

Dan Taylor                  danielt@dgii.com
#include <std.disclaimer>