Re: "clean" to be replaced with "flawless" or "faultless" ?
Hello Justin,
Justin B Rye schrieb am 5. August 2016 um 22:05
> As I understand it, when fsck says something is "clean" it just means
> that the filesystem doesn't have the "dirty bit" set. That used to be
> a FS metadata thing that was left set to "dirty" on mounted disks and
> wiped during a routine shutdown, though these days ext4fs might use
> some journal feature instead/as well.
> If fsck successfully fixes a filesystem after a crash, the last thing
> it'll do is report the fact that it has marked it as "clean". So it
> doesn't mean "flawless" so much as "finished" - it'll still report the
> same thing even if the run was a "fsck -n" and didn't change anything!
> > I really dislike using "sauber" in German translations and would
> > prefer the neutral word "intakt" which means "without damage" Part
> > of my attitude emerges from the fact that the related nouns
> > "clean-up" and "Säuberung" are euphemistic for political
> > persecution.
If, as you explain, "clean" just means "dirty bit not set" and
actually does not reflect the result of a file system check, the
adjective "clean" should not be used.
> Perhaps some equivalent of "unmarked" would work?
I would not use "unmarked" (en) or "unmarkiert" (de) as it raises the
question what kind of mark it refers to.
In a Linux-Book for Beginners, the author Michael Kofler speeks of a
"valid bit" in the superblock of an ext2 file system. The description
there would favor usage of the adjective "clear" in a message that
states that there is no need to check the data on a file system.
Best regards
Markus
PS: Tatsaya, maintainer of w3m package, recently informed me that
w3m-0.5.3-30 will contain the last versions of w3m.1, w3mman.1,
FAQ.html and MANUAL.html and the respectiv German translations.
Reply to: