> What is absurd is using fsck as the data recovery tool.   That isn't
> what it is for, nor what it does.

fsck's raison d'etre is to bring the filesystem into an internally
self-consistent state, a state that it could have been in upon a clean
shutdown.  It is impossible to do this in the circumstances described
without either losing or recovering the data in question.

> [...] adding a -z flag to fsck [...] - after all, it is just more
> code bloat, and I know the two of you are never bothered by any of
> that...

Not all added code is bloat.  Code is bloat when the price it exacts
(usually in disk space, memory usage, or some such) is too high for the
benefit it provides.

This is obviously a judgement call.  As such, you may think -z is bloat
when I don't.

Bloat bothers me.  Having done the necessary changes to fsck, I know
how much code is involved, and the price is so low that I don't
consider it bloat even though I will probably never use the option (I
have other tools I'd use for recovery in such a situation).

> [...] if it isn't the default, it also isn't really very useful, as
> no-one will think of turning it on until just after the one crash
> where it might have actually saved something really worth daving.

You really think this sort of lossage will happen only once in my (or
greywolf's) career?

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B