this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
707 points (98.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

27321 readers
868 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't fucking know why I can't eject USB hard drives. I installed the SysInternals apps, and best they can tell me is that Dropbox is fucking with the drives. I explicitly told Dropbox to not fuck with USB drives. I don't know who's lying, I just want whoever is fucking with the drives to stop fucking with the drives, OK??? OK.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So unplug it? You would accomplish the same thing.

[–] umbraroze@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Which is exactly what I do if sufficiently annoyed! Problem is, Windows is usually hella vague about which particular devices have Quick Removal™®© enabled.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not too versed in the intricacies of Windows, but I don't think that's the case on Linux at least.

There's a difference between telling the processes to "fuck off" (by using umount -f) and actually yanking the drive.

umount -f will at least flush the caches to drive, including all filesystem metadata and journaling, while just yanking the drive off will definitely not, and if you're unlucky you can ruin the FS (especially if it's not a journaling one). I've lost data like that before, been using umount -f ever since.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

OP has done the same. A file is in use/locked by an app even after the have issued an unmount/eject command. The file that’s in use may not survive.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

The file that’s in use may not survive.

Yes, but at least the rest of the filesystem will