Hi Reiner,
> If I remember correctly, the reason why reversing the order is the
> default, was that this guarantees a different order.
Whilst this is true and really useful feature of disorderfs, it's more that
something called disorderfs isn't actually introducing disorder for any
reasonable definition - ie. it's reversing.
In other words, the problem is one of interface, not functionality :) As I
mentioned, even I — who hacked on the source code itself! — keeps assuming
it will randomise by default!
Here are some ways forward:
a) Close this bug, the current default is the best.
b) Change the default to "match" the name (what this bug is currently
advocating)
c) Require that the user specificies one of the behaviours.
d) Print a message on mount telling the user exactly what behaviour they
can expect (eg. "reversing directory entries" / "randomising..." etc.)
I like b, c, d (not in order). Thoughts?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
