Re: Windows 2000 NTFS - Portable

This is a discussion on Re: Windows 2000 NTFS - Portable ; Frank Scully wrote: > Can Linux write to a mounts NTFS drive without corrupting it? No. > I am afraid to touch /dev/hda1 as I have no way to restore it if I screw it > up. You can always ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

  1. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    Frank Scully wrote:
    > Can Linux write to a mounts NTFS drive without corrupting it?


    No.

    > I am afraid to touch /dev/hda1 as I have no way to restore it if I screw it
    > up.


    You can always back it up with tar!

    Peter

  2. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    Peter T. Breuer wrote:

    > Frank Scully wrote:
    >> Can Linux write to a mounts NTFS drive without corrupting it?

    >
    > No.
    >
    >> I am afraid to touch /dev/hda1 as I have no way to restore it if I screw
    >> it up.

    >
    > You can always back it up with tar!


    Can you restore ntfs partitions with tar, if writing to ntfs can cause
    corruption?

    --

    Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

    To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
    james.knott.

  3. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    James Knott wrote:
    > Peter T. Breuer wrote:


    >> Frank Scully wrote:
    >>> Can Linux write to a mounts NTFS drive without corrupting it?

    >>
    >> No.
    >>
    >>> I am afraid to touch /dev/hda1 as I have no way to restore it if I screw
    >>> it up.

    >>
    >> You can always back it up with tar!


    > Can you restore ntfs partitions with tar, if writing to ntfs can cause
    > corruption?


    Think about it. You have the implication and the hypothesis right. Now
    you need to apply modus ponens, and the law of contradiction. Writing
    to ntfs partitions DOES cause corruption.

    Peter

  4. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    Peter T. Breuer wrote:
    > James Knott wrote:
    >> Peter T. Breuer wrote:


    >>> Frank Scully wrote:
    >>>> Can Linux write to a mounts NTFS drive without corrupting it?
    >>>
    >>> No.
    >>>
    >>>> I am afraid to touch /dev/hda1 as I have no way to restore it if I screw
    >>>> it up.
    >>>
    >>> You can always back it up with tar!


    >> Can you restore ntfs partitions with tar, if writing to ntfs can cause
    >> corruption?


    > Think about it. You have the implication and the hypothesis right. Now
    > you need to apply modus ponens, and the law of contradiction. Writing
    > to ntfs partitions DOES cause corruption.


    Writing from linux, that is. Restoring from windows is fine.

    Peter

  5. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    Sz. Csetey wrote:
    > James Knott wrote in message news:...
    >> Peter T. Breuer wrote:
    >>
    >> > Frank Scully wrote:
    >> >> Can Linux write to a mounts NTFS drive without corrupting it?
    >> >
    >> > No.


    > Yes, the rewritten NTFS driver doesn't corrupt data (anyway, write is


    Yes it DOES corrupt data, when used normally.

    > also disabled in the old driver). But its write capability is pretty
    > limited,
    > only file overwrite ...


    And not truncate? Or extend? You don't know, and the driver won't stop
    you, will it?!

    > BTW, I don't know if Paragon's NTFS driver corrupts or not NTFS but it
    > is also a Linux ntfs driver, the 3rd one.


    Peter

  6. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    "Peter T. Breuer" wrote in message
    > >> >> Can Linux write to a mounts NTFS drive without corrupting it?
    > >> >
    > >> > No.

    >
    > > Yes, the rewritten NTFS driver doesn't corrupt data (anyway, write is

    >
    > Yes it DOES corrupt data, when used normally.


    Check out the linux-ntfs mailling list and archives. Nobody reported
    corruptions and actually quite many people use the new driver
    successfully. TopologiLinux running read-write from NTFS, the ntfs
    resizer, etc.

    > > also disabled in the old driver). But its write capability is pretty
    > > limited,
    > > only file overwrite ...

    >
    > And not truncate? Or extend? You don't know, and the driver won't stop
    > you, will it?!


    Exactly. The new NTFS driver will STOP you. You can see it in the
    logs. Moreover I also checked it in the sources (and never had
    problems).

    You're probably talking about the old, unmaintained NTFS driver. But I
    didn't.

  7. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    Sorry, but I can't seem to find this list.
    Can you post the full name?

    As an aside, the above discussion is a perfect example of the challenge of
    replacing "commercial" software w/ Linux. I never really wanted to know
    that much about the software. I have been forced to, but for me, the
    computer is just a tool I use for my business. I believe most people use a
    clock just to tell the time, but what if you told people that the clock you
    want them to use will only work if they can take it apart and successfully
    reassemble it?


    Sz. Csetey wrote:

    > linux-ntfs mailling list




  8. Re: Windows 2000 NTFS

    Frank Scully wrote in message news:<3f421328_3@news1.prserv.net>...
    > Sorry, but I can't seem to find this list.


    First hit, entering "linux-ntfs" into google,
    http://linux-ntfs.sf.net. However the exact mailing list name is
    linux-ntfs-dev, sorry. The web pages and kernel docs are somewhat
    outdated, it's worked on (as I wrote before, the best source is the
    emailing list).

    > As an aside, the above discussion is a perfect example of the challenge of
    > replacing "commercial" software w/ Linux. I never really wanted to know
    > that much about the software. I have been forced to, but for me, the
    > computer is just a tool I use for my business. I believe most people use a
    > clock just to tell the time, but what if you told people that the clock you
    > want them to use will only work if they can take it apart and successfully
    > reassemble it?


    This is true for all systems. However on Linux, if you are able, you
    can fix the problems yourself (or ask/pay somebody to fix it for you).
    This is not always true for closed source software or it maybe toooooo
    costy (time and/or money). It's exactly what you say, Linux helps to
    keep the "bussines" running. And if it doesn't for you for some
    purpose, use what better fits your demand. It's that simple.

+ Reply to Thread