Mount Other filesystems

[Maynard]

I did not advocate this be done for NTFS. Only for FAT file system. I
really doubt Microsoft is doing much development work on this anymore so
I do expect it to be rather unchanging.

I know NTFS is really hard, and even when I had an NTFS partition, I did
not really use it under Linux.

As I had said earlier, the reason is I, and probably other people need
to use the documents between Windows and Linux. If there was a good IFS
driver for ext2/3 under Windows, I would convert to that on my other
hard drive. But there isn't.

I do not expect computers to work flawlessly, but the risk of filesystem
corruption does seem to be overstated. It does not have to be the
default, but it could be an option, with a big red warning label is
someone felt so inclined to mount FAT partitions. I think NTFS should be
left alone.

-----Original Message-----
From: rhl-beta-list-admin at redhat.com
[mailto:rhl-beta-list-admin at redhat.com] On Behalf Of shrek-m at gmx.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:16 PM
To: rhl-beta-list at redhat.com
Subject: Re: Mount Other filesystems

HoytDuff wrote:

>On Wednesday 30 July 2003 07:50 am, shrek-m at gmx.de wrote:
>  
>
>>should redhat follow this  but_others_do_it - example  too ?
>>    
>>
>>>so it must be relative harmless
>>>      
>>>
>>sorry, i feel really good with the redhat-way,
>>    
>>
>
>I think the point Maynard was making was that the danger might just be 
>over-exaggerated. Red Hat can do it whatever way they see fit, but
users like 
>to hear a valid reason and the "Alpha/danger" reason does not appear
valid in 
>the face of other practices without some additional substantiation. 
>

i am no lawyer and my panic is over-exaggerated too.

what happens if i install redhat linux as dual_boot eg. in a little 
productive environment.
rhl recognice all fat* (ntfs4, ntfs5, ntfs5.1, ...) partitions and mount

it automacillay and i forget to disable this.


normaly there are no problems!
can you take a look in the future and can you tell me what ms will do 
with the next servicepack ?

Maynard: "so it must be relative harmless"


but what happens if the whole fat-partitions including  c:\windows  are 
suddenly damaged while you have read-access with linux on this WS.
from one day to the other, propably after an windows-update or 
redhat-update ?

than i can only hope that the backup for this WS (if there is one) is ok

and nobody will money back for the none productive time.


my points are:
a user who is not able to mount his fat* or ntfs* - partition should 
wait until he know how to do this.

the default should be:
windows has only *local* access on own fs
linux has only *local* access on own fs


-- 
shrek-m


--
Rhl-beta-list mailing list
Rhl-beta-list at redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-beta-list