Norton Utilities vs. "the way things are"

[uunet!bria!mike]

In an article, hussar.dco.dec.com!mjr (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
>In article <465 at bria> uunet!bria!mike writes:
>
>>I stated that I would like to see kernel support for file undeletion.
>
>	The kernel (henceforth known as "the watermelon") is already
>bloated enough because of features being banged into it. Implement file
>undeletion in the application layer, and your life will be much easier.

I doubt that it can be done completely without any kind of kernel support.
The programs that don't mung the kernel don't do a terribly great job of
file recovery under heavy disk usage (which is usually the status quo).

I agree that the kernel is bloated; personally, I don't think that the
filesystem code should even be _part_ of the kernel in the first place.
Detachable filesystem code would be a significant win: it would reduce
the size of the kernel and facilitate changes such as file recovery (as
well as other things, such as mounting foriegn filesystems, etc.)

>	If you're going to hop up and down and be all "death to DOS"
>fascist, don't turn around and contradict yourself by asking for another
>"feeture" in UNIX. Real UNIX gurus never delete the wrong files, and
>even if they did, they'd just fix it with fsdb.

Personally, I whip out my 6150 and endure the pain of the restore -- it
encourages me to be more careful next time.  Again, I would like to see
you use fsdb to restore a file that you discover has been deleted by
another user 3 hours ago, and heavy disk use has been taking place. Not
terribly likely.
-- 
Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own.
Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?