Talk:fsck

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Use of fsck to check Unix/Linux file systems

I would like to know what is the consequence of running the automatic repair with fsck. I come across the website www.namesys.com, and it claims that reiserFS is the fastest, most stable, and most efficient file system. Moreover, it meets the military standards. One point is that when a filesystem is corrupt, the reiserfsck can rebuild the file and directory tree and minimize the loss of data caused by the corruption. I think it is a neat feature. However, I do want to know the consequences of running fsck in ext2 and ext3 file systems. Can anyone solve my puzzle? Dreamcarrior 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Unix/UNIX

This article uses both 'Unix' and 'UNIX', as does the Unix/UNIX article itself. I do not know what the correct usage is, but I think it is important to at least be consistent throughout each article. Since we cannot correct this by running fsck (unfortunately), I am changing the one instance of 'UNIX' in this article to 'Unix'. Please revert and comment here if you disagree. -- Rishi 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unix" is the more common usage by Unix users today, and was the one originally preferred by the creators. "UNIX" originates from early manuals which typeset "Unix" with small caps, and was adopted by some standards bodies. --FOo 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's "UNIX" (all-caps) and it's a trademark owned by the Open Group as documented here. The mixed-cased usage is likely violating the trademark but IANAL. Argel1200 (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect "Unix" is genericized anyway due to the common usage of "Unix-like", "Unix compatible", and so on. --FOo (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unpronounceable?

I pronounce it just like it's spelled. Awkward, but it can be done. D: FSCK--130.215.171.13 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English speakers get really twitchy around words without vowels. I pronounce it (not that I ever say it outloud, how often is that necessary?) as if there were an 'i' between the 'f' and 's.' Megan 02:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

profanity

Brevity is the soul of wit. We don't need to be so detailed about the off-color aspects. Actually, more humorous that way.

fsck in chat

As far as I know, "fsck" is used in chat instead of the nasty word, since anti-spam bots won't kick you for using that word (as it's a real & innocent word).

I have no "proof" for that, though, nor do I know how to write this without writing profanities and without sounding more confident in it than I am. So if anyone wants to put it in there go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.15.22 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What??

"Some prefer to just pronounce it as "fuck"" Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.216.191 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, it is unnecessary profanity. If someone wants to add it back, please find a more elegant way of saying it. teddybrown (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use as profanity

This section seems somewhat immature and not the type of thing you'd find in a first-class reference. This isn't a very long article to begin with so it is even more noticeable. One would think there is more noteworthy content about fsck that should be added before discussing how a very small part of the tech community has apparently adapted the name of the command into slang. Although somewhat anecdotal, I've worked in many tech shops where Linux is prevalent and I've yet to hear someone say "Go fsck yourself!" And if someone did say this, I'd attribute it more as someone telling me to just "Go fuck myself!" since this strong similarity is obviously the nature of the joke anyway. Remember, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day and I think this is extremely borderline.

A search of Twitter reveals that fsck is used as a form of profanity. It's a fact - period. [|search on Twitter] Barce (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia at its worst

Indeed. The similarity between fsck and the profanity is obvious and I'm sure everyone was aware of it from the start. It is sometimes used in puns, but that's all. Spending so much space on a pointless tangent is very wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.72.148 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering if the section meets WP's [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy. Also, is there a reason why these IPs are adding an "F" to "uck" in the pronounciation section, or is it vandalism? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

The article is tagged for a controversy over whether it's NPOV, but there's no discussion about it here. I'm therefore removing the tag. If someone wants to re-tag it, they need to come in here and explain what they think is NPOV, so we can actually discuss the alleged controversy. 76.92.138.240 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; the NPOV tag was explained in the section above. The article seems to cover how Fsck is a pest more than anything else, and the "Use as profanity" section really throws the article out of balance. Many words are used in lieu of profanity, not just this. SCANDISK has been similarly labeled "ScamDisk," "ScanDick," and "ScamDick," but there's no mention of its haters on its article. ChkDsk is sometimes referred to as ChkDck ("Check Dick" instead of "Check Disk"). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homepage?

Does this software not have a project homepage that contains the source code and binaries? I did a search for "fsck source code" and didn't see anything right off. I thought Wikipedia always linked to a software's home page or source someplace. Yfrwlf (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History section needed

The page lacks the history of fsck(8), the influence of earlier non-Unix systems, the authors, the predecessors to fsck on Unix, e.g. ncheck(8), and more. An example bit of history is at the end of https://www.tuhs.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/tuhs@tuhs.org/message/BRWLRK2AK4KNAHZ2RKWWWTU7FQ6WE7RQ/ with 'Ted' being given his full name at the start. Ralph Corderoy (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://github.com/util-linux/util-linux. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ⸺(Random)staplers 01:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]