Ethan == Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ethan On 9/1/2000 Brian May wrote:
Brian [1] Dos/windows copes with this problem in a different (IMHO
Brian broken) way - it keeps track of which disk is inserted, and if
Brian it needs to read/write to another disk, it complains to the
Brian user
Fish Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The bottom line is, it isn't appropriate for my
machine to be making decisions as to whether it is
appropriate to eject a dis(k/c) or not. I should be
making those decisions because the machine is
unreliable and if I make a bad decision then I, as the
I agree completely.
Sean
Joachim Trinkwitz wrote:
Fish Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The bottom line is, it isn't appropriate for my
machine to be making decisions as to whether it is
appropriate to eject a dis(k/c) or not. I should be
making those decisions because the machine
On 10/1/2000 Brian May wrote:
However, I see you are now correct. Now data is written to the disk
almost immediately (1 second delay) after it is dirty. This means the
developers have put the safety of the disk ahead of performance
issues...
this is not necessarily the case, from my tests
rather
than ext2. This is one reason why I only use FAT floppies. (The
other is I'm worried about people thinking ext2 floppies are
corrupted and throwing them away when they can't read them.)
Perhaps the real problem with soft ejects is that
current
implementations make it to easy to override, eg
don't deserve to. Leave this domain to those of us who do
Fish care to learn.
It is not only newbies that can make stupid mistakes, and remove a
floppy disk that is currently mounted...
Perhaps the real problem with soft ejects is that current
implementations make it to easy to override, eg
On 9/1/2000 Brian May wrote:
[1] Dos/windows copes with this problem in a different (IMHO broken)
way - it keeps track of which disk is inserted, and if it needs to
read/write to another disk, it complains to the user to reinsert the
original disk. Why is this mechanism broken? For starters:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 23:09:43 -0900, Ethan Benson writes:
On 9/1/2000 Brian May wrote:
as far as to suggest that the CD-ROM might be dirty. Now thats what I
call machine is smarter!!!
which reminds me of a user crying:
you dumb computer, do what I want, not what I say!
*g*
rw
--
-- +++
--you just get an error
message, have to unmount and remount.
Perhaps the real problem with soft ejects is that
current
implementations make it to easy to override, eg when
the power is off.
Personally, I think I would much prefer the risk of
not being able to
eject a disk, rather then the risk
Fish == Fish Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not only newbies that can make stupid mistakes, and
remove a floppy disk that is currently mounted...
Fish I was taught in kindergarten /never/ to remove a disk when
Fish the light was on, and I never do it. Removing while it
Disclaimer: Some of this can probably be interpreted
as flame bait. So let 'er rip =)
I've hever been able to open a CD drive without
unmounting the
volume -- the
drawer won't open.
Along the same linesthis is the one mechanism
of mac/sun/other(?)
floppies that I would like to see
Brian Servis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*- On 7 Jan, Carl Fink wrote about Re: umount - URGENT
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 01:52:15PM -0500, Michael Stenner wrote:
while it's a good habit to demand successful umounts before removing
media, remember that it IS a cdROM after all. You're
Gary Hennigan said:
My SGI is entirely soft button. If it crashes sometimes I can't even
turn the power off on it, I end up having to unplug the stupid thing
to reset it!
That's excessive, of course, but I'd like to see something along the lines of
the option on most ATX BIOSes to have a
13 matches
Mail list logo
