Hello,
I noticed that the 2.6.7 kernel from Slackware CD has NTFS write support
turned on. I know that "NTFS write support" is no longer marked as
DANGEROUS in kernel config, but on the other hand I still hear many things
like "yeah, go write on that NTFS partition, but better pray first". I
wonder if anyone actually *tried* it without causing any damage? What is
your opinion?

regards, jkb
--
Jacek K. B³aszkowski
GAT/L/MU d+ s+:+ a-- C++$ UL++$ US+> P L++ E--- W+ N++ o+ K- w+$ O?
M> V? PS+ PE++ Y-- PGP++ t 5? X R tv b++++ DI++ D+ G e h-- r++ y++

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:12:16 +0200, Jacek K. B³aszkowski wrote:

> Hello,
> I noticed that the 2.6.7 kernel from Slackware CD has NTFS write support
> turned on. I know that "NTFS write support" is no longer marked as
> DANGEROUS in kernel config, but on the other hand I still hear many things
> like "yeah, go write on that NTFS partition, but better pray first". I
> wonder if anyone actually *tried* it without causing any damage? What is
> your opinion?
>
> regards, jkb

From what I have read write works just fine as long as you don't change
the file size. Like editing or something. I haven't had to worry about it
because I don't use windows at all if I can help it(sorta have to at work).

mAineAc

Hi there,

On 2004-07-05, Jacek K B³aszkowski <cdlxxvi@NOSPAM.ds2.pg.gda.pl> wrote:
> Hello,
> I noticed that the 2.6.7 kernel from Slackware CD has NTFS write support
> turned on. I know that "NTFS write support" is no longer marked as
> DANGEROUS in kernel config, but on the other hand I still hear many things
> like "yeah, go write on that NTFS partition, but better pray first". I
> wonder if anyone actually *tried* it without causing any damage? What is
> your opinion?
>
> regards, jkb

From the kernel configuration help for NTFS Write:

CONFIG_NTFS_RW:

This enables the partial, but safe, write support in the NTFS driver.

The only supported operation is overwriting existing files, without
changing the file length. No file or directory creation, deletion or
renaming is possible. Note only non-resident files can be written to
so you may find that some very small files (<500 bytes or so) cannot
be written to.

While we cannot guarantee that it will not damage any data, we have
so far not received a single report where the driver would have
damaged someones data so we assume it is perfectly safe to use.


So go figure...

My opinion: I haven't got much use for it. My custom kernel doesn't have
NTFS write support turned on.

Have fun,
Martin
--
Martin Boening, mboen@t-online.de

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first
create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Martin Boening <mboen@t-online.de> says...

>My opinion: I haven't got much use for it. My custom kernel doesn't have
>NTFS write support turned on.

I would never allow Linux to write to a Windows file system or
allow Winows to write to a Linux file system. I have a program
that allows windows to read EXT3 and of course linux can easily
read NTFS, so I can always grab a file I need. For sending a
file, I dump it in my FAT16 partition and grab it later when I
am using the other OS.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

Et circa horam Tuesday 06 of July 2004 11:56, clamavit Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com>:

> I would never allow Linux to write to a Windows file system or
> allow Winows to write to a Linux file system. I have a program
> that allows windows to read EXT3 and of course linux can easily
> read NTFS, so I can always grab a file I need. For sending a
> file, I dump it in my FAT16 partition and grab it later when I
> am using the other OS.
I also have one FAT32 partition used by both Linux and Windows. I rather do
not care about Linux writing on Windows root partition (I have more
confidence in Linux and believe it would not be dangerous). On the other
hand, I do not use any Reiser and ext3 (I use both in Linux) driver in
Windows. I think that keeping Windows unaware of existence of Linux is
better; Windows often behaves like it was the only OS in the world
(automatic overwrite of MBR during Windows installation is a good example).
Thus, I do not trust it.

Regards, jkb
--
Jacek K. B³aszkowski
GAT/L/MU d+ s+:+ a-- C++$ UL++$ US+> P L++ E--- W+ N++ o+ K- w+$ O?
M> V? PS+ PE++ Y-- PGP++ t 5? X R tv b++++ DI++ D+ G e h-- r++ y++

"Jacek" wrote in <cce349$r0v$1@korweta.task.gda.pl>:
> clamavit Guy Macon:
> >
> > I would never allow Linux to write to a Windows file system or
> > allow Winows to write to a Linux file system. I have a program
> > that allows windows to read EXT3 and of course linux can easily
> > read NTFS, so I can always grab a file I need. For sending a
> > file, I dump it in my FAT16 partition and grab it later when I
> > am using the other OS.
>
> I also have one FAT32 partition used by both Linux and Windows. I rather
> do not care about Linux writing on Windows root partition (I have more
> confidence in Linux and believe it would not be dangerous). On the other
> hand, I do not use any Reiser and ext3 (I use both in Linux) driver in
> Windows. I think that keeping Windows unaware of existence of Linux is
> better; Windows often behaves like it was the only OS in the world
> (automatic overwrite of MBR during Windows installation is a good example).
> Thus, I do not trust it.

If you must have a dual boot machine, always install 'Doze first, then
Linux. Keep a linux boot disk around, so that if 'Doze trashes the MBR
you can repair it by running LILO.

But it's better to have 'Doze on a separate machine. Network them and
use ftp for file transfer.

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrnce2thv.2jf.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Ned Latham dared to utter,
> But it's better to have 'Doze on a separate machine. Network them and
> use ftp for file transfer.

s/ftp/smb/

Samba works phenominal if you configure it correctly, and allows
seemless sharing of files between unix and windows, whereas ftp does
not.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA64TflKR45I6cfKARAi0uAJ43URkSGYkHELOYjdqj9N QOfgnDpQCfdEuQ
2nGLFb0DRKWii4S3CVf0VJM=
=j4hX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Et circa horam Wednesday 07 of July 2004 04:04, clamavit Ned Latham:

> If you must have a dual boot machine, always install 'Doze first, then
> Linux. Keep a linux boot disk around, so that if 'Doze trashes the MBR
> you can repair it by running LILO.
That is the way I keep it. In case of Windows malfunction & reinstallation I
use bootable Linux CD to restore MBR.

> But it's better to have 'Doze on a separate machine. Network them and
> use ftp for file transfer.
I use it this way at work. But I prefer Samba over ftp.

regards, jkb

--
Jacek K. B³aszkowski
GAT/L/MU d+ s+:+ a-- C++$ UL++$ US+> P L++ E--- W+ N++ o+ K- w+$ O?
M> V? PS+ PE++ Y-- PGP++ t 5? X R tv b++++ DI++ D+ G e h-- r++ y++

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:56:12 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:
> I would never allow Linux to write to a Windows file system or
> allow Winows to write to a Linux file system. I have a program

This is very conservative, probably a bit much so IMO. I'm not aware of
any problems caused by the Linux vfat driver, but when your data is
very important, prudence gives peace of mind.

> read NTFS, so I can always grab a file I need. For sending a
> file, I dump it in my FAT16 partition and grab it later when I

Perhaps you know this already, but for the record, FAT16 would only be
necessary if using one of MS's willfully-crippled releases, such as any
incarnation of NT 4.0, or the Win95 retail release.

If you want to be ultra-conservative on filenames, stick with DOS 8.3
for everything not contained in an archive file (tar/zip), and use the
Linux msdos filesystem driver to mount it in Linux. This will work
regardless of the underlying FAT type.

FAT16 is an abomination on today's hard drives, only allowing up to 2GB
in filesystem size, and it is horribly wasteful in saving files (the
minimum allocation unit being 32KB.)

OTOH it's good for partitions of 256MB and less. My 386 had a 10MB
FAT12 partition as /boot (using umsdos of course.) I think that used a
single sector allocation unit. I had my Linux /boot and a working DOS
fit into that. (I think I only used that DOS once, to set up the
3c509B NIC's' PROM's.)
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

Alan Hicks wrote in <40eb83e1$1_2@127.0.0.1>:
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, Ned Latham dared to utter,
> >
> > But it's better to have 'Doze on a separate machine. Network them and
> > use ftp for file transfer.
>
> s/ftp/smb/
>
> Samba works phenominal if you configure it correctly, and allows
> seemless sharing of files between unix and windows, whereas ftp
> does not.

I have to admit that I'm considering it, but it's not exactly a high
priority. My network is only three machines and file transfers are
few, so I don't see much benefit in adding the extra service. And the
learning curve is a burden I'd just as soon not bother with.

OTOH, I intend to expand the network in due course...

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncepk6v.8e4.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7