Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2011, 21:49:18 schrieb Henning Brauer: > in these cases - where "runs" is the top priority and manual > intervention is hard - you most probably want to run with ro / and an > mfs or three.
This is one nice approach but doesn't cover features like user changeable settings and parameters, much less local error logs. > this is still a bit like "fixing" holey condoms with duct tape. You fixed the holey condoms issue by replacing them with 5mm thick kevlar. Your solution is certainly very l33t, but only few will want to use it ;) I agree that there are lots of situations where an automated fsck -y in the boot scripts is a bad idea (think of faulty RAM on a file server). I also agree that it's a good idea to use "fsck -p" as the safe default on a fresh install. There are, however, countless situations where "fsck -y" or similar is the most workable solution, and attacking people who use "fsck -y" after careful consideration as irresponsible cheapskates is neither helpful nor professional. Of all the experts here: how many of you have ever intervened in a failed "fsck -p" situation with anything else than an fsck and a barrage of "y" ?
