michael chang wrote:
On 9/4/05, David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Well, it sounds a bit like a microsoft manager explaining why XP-Home
has no terminal server features ;-)
I think an mkfs-option would be best, with a warning if the value
given by the user is nonsence (3-8% ok?).
Is there a reason we need to specify this at mkfs time? What about a
mount option?
When maybe we'd need to change the metadata. Even in ext2/3 you can
only modify this by "tuning" the fs.
This is a bit arrogant, but I believe that a user that does not know how
to recompile the kernel with the #define changed is not sophisticated
enough to know how much he is going to hurt his performance by going
from 95% to 99% space used, and a user who does not want to bother with
recompiling is not going to study the topic enough to realize he is
making a mistake 80% of the time. It is important to know when
designing a product when your users intuitions are going to be wrong
80%of the time, and while one should always be slow to reach such a
conclusion, I think this is such a case.
I agree here, and anyone who disagrees is either weird, or lacks
common sense.
That's not an argument. As we learned in Philosophy class, that is
called "begging the question."
I'm betting that a user who wants to tune this and understands what it
means won't want to have to recompile just to test out a new setting,
and a user who doesn't understand the mistake they are making probably
won't be able to change a menuconfig option, a mount option, or a tunefs
option by themself anyway. And, if they do, they should realize that it
can be dangerous and/or stupid to tweak these things -- after all, some
options still in menuconfig can cause massive fs corruption, and say so.
And, anyone who disagrees with me must lack common sense :P
