FAT32 vs NTFS, can Linux be used under NTFS?
RodMcKay
system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
under NTFS. One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32. I now have a hdd
of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
huge deterrent.
But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?
philo
Linux is NOT installed on either Fat32 or NTFS
It's got it's own file system and is typically installed on the ext3
file system.
In the past, Linux did not have write support for NTFS
but most (or all) recent Linux distributions have full read/write access
to NTFS
ArameFarpado
linux has it's own filesystems, ext3, ext4, xfs, reiserfs, etc... for proper
installation
Bryce
Linux can read and write to partitions formatted with NTFS, so you
would not lose access to your data. Linux installs onto a separate
partition (or separate hard drive) that is formatted with a Linux
file system like EXT3 that supports additional file attributes and
permissions Linux needs and Windows hath not.
Some of your Windows programs might work using Wine on Linux, but
don't count on it. Many, many Linux apps available to replace them.
Learning curve? You betcha! Well worth it for me.
Bryce
Unruh
>RodMcKay wrote:
>> I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>> system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
>> under NTFS. One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
>> Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
>> precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32. I now have a hdd
>> of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
>> huge deterrent.
>>
>> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
>> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?
>>
>Linux is NOT installed on either Fat32 or NTFS
Linux can be installed on Fat32-- not sure about ntfs, but it is a bad idea. No
support for file permissions or ownership. No support for large files. Bad idea.
As this response says, use one of the Linux file systems. ext3, reisner, xfs,....
for linux. You install linux on its own partition formatted for its own
filesystem
Ivan Marsh
> philo <ph...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>>RodMcKay wrote:
>>> I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>> system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
>>> under NTFS. One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
>>> Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
>>> precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32. I now have a hdd
>>> of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
>>> huge deterrent.
>>>
>>> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
>>> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?
>>>
>>Linux is NOT installed on either Fat32 or NTFS
>
> Linux can be installed on Fat32-- not sure about ntfs, but it is a bad
> idea. No support for file permissions or ownership. No support for large
> files. Bad idea.
Well... that depends entirely on the implementation. Certainly Linux
shouldn't be installed on FAT32 on a PC you intend to run as a PC. But even
Linux people seem to often forget that Linux isn't a PC OS. There are many
implementations, for various non PC platforms, where installing Linux with
a FAT32 filesystem is perfectly reasonable.
--
"All right, all right, if it will make you happy, I will overthrow society."
- Philip J. Fry
J.O. Aho
> I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
> system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
> under NTFS.
Even if there are Linux distributions that allows to be installed beside
microsoft on an vfat/ntfs file system, it's far better to run Linux on one of
the many Linux or Unix file systems as these are better fir for multi user
environments and are faster than those offered from microsoft, and don't
suffer from the fragmentation issues.
> One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
> Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
> precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32.
The vfat file size limitation is only for your microsoft files that you have
stored on a vfat media, you can always copy those over to a real file system
like jfs, xfs.
When it comes to learning curves, if you know how to operate a computer mouse,
move the pointer on the screen over images (we call those icons) and then
click on the left mouse button, then you know everything you need to know to
be able to do most tasks, if you want to be as cool as all the microsoft
hackers who makes register hacking, then you can spend as much time to learn
how to use the Linux console (sure it takes far less time and easier to learn
than hacking microsoft registers).
When it comes to your games, you can do as Bryce suggest and use a microsoft
windows api for Linux like wine, crossover office or cedega, if thats not
enough to run all your applications, then you have the possibility to use
viritualization (if you have 64bit CPU with virtualization support) and run
microsoft in almost native speed in a window on your Linux machine. If you
just have an older intel 64 bit or a 32bit CPU, then you can use an emulator
like win4lin.
> I now have a hdd
> of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
> huge deterrent.
Thats nothing, I have a 3TB slice for my files, and no, I don't own a 3T hard
drive nor are they RAID:ed.
> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?
Maybe you used bing instead of google and never realized that, the information
can easily be found at google.
--
//Aho
Rikishi42
By now, you have a good number of answers allready.
But I'd like to take away some confusion you seem to have about size limits.
First, a word on installing Linux: do it on an Linux-type partition, such as
ext3, ext4, (not)ReiserFS, .... :-)
Now. Don't confuse your drive size with your partition size. You can easily
set up Linux on a smaller partition of your 200 GB drive. Let's you use 20
GB for a Linux test partition. Keep the rest of the drive in FAT or NTFS for
your data. Both Windows and Linux will be able to access that data.
As Windows doens't "see" an ext3 partition, your Linux partition won't even
show in Windows.
You mension the size of your drives, and I don't really see why. Do you
consider you need to use NTFS because of those sizes? Wrong.
It's true that when you format a drive with Windows, it will only allow NTFS
for drives of such a size. But that's an artificial limit. I have a 300 GB
extrenal drive formatted in FAT32 which both Windows and Linux can use. I
did have to use Linux to format it, since MS decided that drive large than
20 GB _should_ be formatted with NTFS.
The absolute max _partition size_ is of course lower for FAT32 than for
NTFS, but that limit is well over 500 GB.
--
Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked
something.
Maurice Batey
> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
> system that was formatted to FAT32.
Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
can use FAT32.
Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
VFAT) partition.
--
/\/\aurice
(Retired in Surrey, UK) Registered Linux User #487649
Linux Mandriva 2009.1 32-bit PowerPack (i686 kernel)
KDE 4.2.4 Virtualbox 3.0.4 Firefox 3.0.15
(Replace "nomail.afraid" by "bcs" to reply by email)
RodMcKay
<mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>
>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>
> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>can use FAT32.
>
>Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
>an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
>problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
>be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
>VFAT) partition.
Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
(?).
Anyway, now that the size issue has proven to be something I might
have seriously misunderstood, the rest is just a question of figuring
out how to get around.
I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
WordPerfect I believe already has a Linux flavour so no worries there.
Agent may have a Linux equivalent in Pan; Outlook may have Evolution.
Don't know about Filemaker Pro database; since it comes from the Mac
OS system, perhaps they're already into Linux, too. And don't know if
I'll find something as easy to use as DVD Shrink for DVD ripping ...
<sigh> Long work ahead. And that's just scratching the surface ...
<g>
Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
_Anything_, practically, to get away from Window$. :oD
ray
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
> <mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>>
>>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>>
>> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>>can use FAT32.
>>
>>Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>>file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to an
>>NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining problems)
>>so when some of us needed to keep information that could be accessed by
>>both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a. VFAT) partition.
>
> Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
> besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
> for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
> understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
> dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
> another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
> (?).
How is that a drawback to Linux? Linux uses it's own much advanced (in
comparison) file systems. You don't have to format it - the Linux
installation process for all major distributions will give you a choice
of file system to use during installation - none of which is either fat
or ntfs. Yes, the Linux file systems support greater than 30 gig drives -
actually, they support greater than 30 gb partitions.
It's also true that Linux support to read from and write to NTFS
partitions is now mature.
>
> Anyway, now that the size issue has proven to be something I might have
> seriously misunderstood, the rest is just a question of figuring out how
> to get around.
>
> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I absolutely
> need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my Paint Shop Pro
> which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g> WordPerfect I believe
> already has a Linux flavour so no worries there. Agent may have a Linux
> equivalent in Pan; Outlook may have Evolution. Don't know about
> Filemaker Pro database; since it comes from the Mac OS system, perhaps
> they're already into Linux, too. And don't know if I'll find something
> as easy to use as DVD Shrink for DVD ripping ... <sigh> Long work
> ahead. And that's just scratching the surface ... <g>
I've found GIMP to be quite usable. If you're processing raw files, you
might also want to look at ufraw. I believe the Linux wordperfect is
defunct - I have not been able to find one to install for several years.
OpenOffice should fill the bill - if not, there are several other office
suites.
If you do a web search, you'll find several documents where folks have
outlined Linux equivalents for many MS programs - and don't forget WINE
if you absolutely have to have a particular program - many will run on
Linux via WINE.
VWWall
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
> <mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>>
>>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>> can use FAT32.
>>
>> Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>> file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
>> an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
>> problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
>> be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
>> VFAT) partition.
>
> Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
> besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
> for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
> understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
> dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
> another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
> (?).
FAT32 has always "supported" drives larger than the 32GB which Windows
format limits it to. I have a 68.2GB FAT32 partition on a 200GB hard
drive with WinXP in a 76.3GB NTFS partition and five other ext3 Linux
partitions with both PCLOS and Mepis Linux distros installed.
This particular drive is multi-booted with a second 80GB drive with
another two Linus distros. The GRUB Linux boot loader lets me boot to
any of the six OS's on the two drives with a simple menu choice.
I wouldn't recommend this set-up, but it shows file size is not a problem!
--
Virg Wall
Unruh
>RodMcKay wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
>> <mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>>> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>>> can use FAT32.
>>>
>>> Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>>> file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
>>> an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
>>> problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
>>> be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
>>> VFAT) partition.
>>
>> Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
>> besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
>> for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
>> understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
>> dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
>> another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
>> (?).
Fat 32 is useful with Linux only as a vehicle to exchange data with windows.
Otherwise stay away from it with Linux. Linux can support both huge drives and
files.
J.O. Aho
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
> <mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>>
>>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>> can use FAT32.
>>
>> Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>> file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
>> an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
>> problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
>> be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
>> VFAT) partition.
>
> Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
> besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
> for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
> understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
> dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
> another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
> (?).
vfat supports up to 8TiB large partitions with max 4GiB file size.
It's microsoft windows which have had limitations on hard drive sizes and of
course the hardware used.
You should never use vfat as the file system to install Linux on (even if it
is possible), as you will loose all the multi user privileges, as vfat is a
single user no privileges type of file system, one of the worst file system
ever created. The only time you use vfat in Linux is when you mount that vfat
formated mp3, memory stick, camera, your friends usb hard drive... the same
applies to ntfs which supports partitions up to 16TiB and files up to 16TiB.
The default file system used in Linux is ext3, it supports partitions up to
32TiB and files up to 2TiB and it will soon be replaced with ext4 (most likely
next year) which supports partitions up to 1EiB and files up to 16TiB.
Myself I use an industry standard file system as it's faster than ext3 (which
is faster than vfat and ntfs) and has good features as swap over to read only
if it detects problems, this way you don't corrupt the data by mistake.
Just drop that vfat thing completely.
> Anyway, now that the size issue has proven to be something I might
> have seriously misunderstood, the rest is just a question of figuring
> out how to get around.
No only that, but that Linux would use a lousy file system which isn't made
for multi user usage.
> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
> absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
> Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
If you don't like Gimp which IMHO is quite good, except it's GTK based, you
can try Pixel and can be found at http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/
> Don't know about Filemaker Pro database;
Glom http://www.glom.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
> And don't know if
> I'll find something as easy to use as DVD Shrink for DVD ripping ...
k9copy http://k9copy.sourceforge.net/
> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
> in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
The difficulties all lies in your brain, just drop those thoughts and you will
see it don't take so much time to learn how to use Linux and for most
microsoft users it's a big surprise that you can do all the things without the
use of console, just point and click. Most of the point and click things goes
a lot faster to do in the console.
--
//Aho
Maurice Batey
> don't forget WINE
> if you absolutely have to have a particular program
Or try Virtualbox, under which I happily run Quicken and TomTom
Home.
--
/\/\aurice
TJ
>
> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
> absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
> Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
>
Gimp is a lot more powerful than it often gets credit for. The main
thing is, it has a user interface that's very different than other image
manipulators, and it takes some getting used to. One place you might
want to look at is http://meetthegimp.org/ This site has a series of
weekly video podcasts on using The Gimp, starting with the most basic of
functions and proceeding to the more advanced stuff. All "episodes" are
available for download. Be sure to start with #1 by clicking on the "Get
all videos" link on the home page. By the time you get through all 120+
episodes, you should be very comfortable with the Gimp interface.
> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
> in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
>
Don't believe all the "learning curve" hype. How long did it take you to
learn enough about Windows to become a power user? Years, I'll bet. It
won't take nearly as long to become comfortable with Linux. New users
who never touched a computer don't take any more time to learn enough to
use Linux than they do to learn Windows. IMHO, the learning curve from
Linux to Windows would be MUCH steeper than the other way around. Of
course, since so few would do such a crazy thing, practically no studies
have been done.
> _Anything_, practically, to get away from Window$. :oD
>
Amen.
TJ
Aragorn
as J.O. Aho wrote...
> worst file system ever created. [...]
Actually, as far as I know, it is impossible to install a GNU/Linux (or
other UNIX) operating system on a /vfat/ *natively* - that is to say,
in order to install GNU/Linux or another UNIX on a FAT-based
filesystem, one has to use the /umsdos/ filesystem instead, of which
I'm not sure whether kernel 2.6 still supports it.
/umsdos/ is physically a FAT-style filesystem, but if a UNIX-style
operating system is installed on it, then from within the operating
system itself, it will look and feel like a UNIX filesystem, with
ownerships and permissions. At the physical disk storage level, those
ownerships and permissions (and long, case-sensitive filenames) are
then stored in what DOS considers hidden files.
Without the /umsdos/ translation layer however, you wouldn't be able to
install any UNIX-style operating systems on FAT. Everything would be
way off, from permissions to ownerships. Possibly it could be made to
boot, but the system would go haywire soon afterwards.
>> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
>> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
>> in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
>> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
>
> The difficulties all lies in your brain, just drop those thoughts and
> you will see it don't take so much time to learn how to use Linux and
> for most microsoft users it's a big surprise that you can do all the
> things without the use of console, just point and click. Most of the
> point and click things goes a lot faster to do in the console.
It really *is* a different paradigm. A UNIX system is logical, makes
perfect sense and Just Works (TM). A MICROS~1 FascistOS system on the
other hand lies about what a computer is, how it behaves or should
behave, and what one is allowed to do with it, and most users have
simply acquiesced to that without questioning the junk that was
installed on their computers and turned them into kitchen sink
appliances.
In addition to all of the above, FascistOS is also spyware; it phones
home at least once every week. (This can be disabled but it requires a
third-party freeware tool to do so.) FascistOS was never designed for
a networked and multi-user environment, and its code quality has so far
never exceeded that of a poor beta product. Even compared to other
proprietary operating systems - e.g. IRIX, HP/UX, AIX, et al - the
coding quality in FascistOS is abominable.
--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
J.O. Aho
> On Saturday 14 November 2009 10:44 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying
> as J.O. Aho wrote...
>> You should never use vfat as the file system to install Linux on (even
>> if it is possible), as you will loose all the multi user privileges,
>> as vfat is a single user no privileges type of file system, one of the
>> worst file system ever created. [...]
>
> Actually, as far as I know, it is impossible to install a GNU/Linux (or
> other UNIX) operating system on a /vfat/ *natively* - that is to say,
> in order to install GNU/Linux or another UNIX on a FAT-based
> filesystem, one has to use the /umsdos/ filesystem instead, of which
> I'm not sure whether kernel 2.6 still supports it.
There are PHat Linux and Armed Linux, which both can be installed on the same
partition as your current win98 installed on. I remember a colleague of mine
installed some wifi scanning linux distribution on USB formated as fat, this
had just a "root" user.
> Without the /umsdos/ translation layer however, you wouldn't be able to
> install any UNIX-style operating systems on FAT. Everything would be
> way off, from permissions to ownerships. Possibly it could be made to
> boot, but the system would go haywire soon afterwards.
Theoretically you can mount the fat as all files owned by root with all
permissions enabled, of course symlinking won't work. Of course this will be
an insecure one user distro.
> In addition to all of the above, FascistOS is also spyware; it phones
> home at least once every week. (This can be disabled but it requires a
> third-party freeware tool to do so.) FascistOS was never designed for
> a networked and multi-user environment, and its code quality has so far
> never exceeded that of a poor beta product.
Don't forget that it had to steal open source code to get a working tcp/ip
stack and now they had to steal more open source code to make the USB
installer to work. The OS is okey for a game console where random crashes
don't matter.
--
//Aho
J.O. Aho
--
//Aho
RodMcKay
wrote:
This is what I love about ngs, I learn something new in and amongst
responses. I'm not sure about the terminology but have looked at
virtualization in last year, so this looks like something to look
into. Like the "fussy windows user" that switched to Linux (there's
an article by that name that I found googling), I _am_ fussy. Once I
get used to an interface, etc., I tend to like it. I'm finding the
"replacements" not always what I'd like, though I'm still determined
to switch over. But if I can virtualize apps that will run _on_ the
Linux machine, that sounds much better than the dual-booting approach
and having to switch back and forth for those apps I can't yet find a
replacement for.
I'm unsure about my PC. I'll have to look into that as although it's
only 2 years old, not sure if mine isn't just plain old 32bit still
... anyway, I don't know much about hardware but suspect I'll learn in
this transitional period.
>> I now have a hdd
>> of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
>> huge deterrent.
>
>Thats nothing, I have a 3TB slice for my files, and no, I don't own a 3T hard
>drive nor are they RAID:ed.
So, still feeling my way around this issue, if I have (for now) a
dual-boot system, I'm guessing that it'll remain ntfs as I have it now
but when I install Linux, it'll reformat the partition I use to a
Linux-oriented one like this ext3, etc ... very kewl if that's the
case. The absolutely _only_ reason I switched from Win98SE, btw, is
because of the need for a larger hdd, which at the time was a huge
step up (I went from an hdd 2 years ago of 11 gigs to a 200 gig one;
augmented by an external hdd that I bought last year of 500 gigs!).
Though my Win98SE ran my first external hdd of 80 gigs quite well,
didn't want to risk it by seeing how long Win98SE would (could??)
handle the 200 gig on <g>.
>> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
>> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?
>
>Maybe you used bing instead of google and never realized that, the information
>can easily be found at google.
<lol> I don't even know what bing is, but like anything, the trouble
with googling or using any search engine is that you have to know the
terminology to use in the search. All I knew was fat32 and ntfs, but
I now know the terms ext3, etc., so now that will open up my results!
<g>
RodMcKay
<skunk...@rikishi42.net> wrote:
>On 2009-11-12, RodMcKay <NoJun...@No.com> wrote:
>> I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>> system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
>> under NTFS. One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
>> Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
>> precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32. I now have a hdd
>> of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
>> huge deterrent.
>> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
>> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?
>
>By now, you have a good number of answers allready.
>
>But I'd like to take away some confusion you seem to have about size limits.
>
>First, a word on installing Linux: do it on an Linux-type partition, such as
>ext3, ext4, (not)ReiserFS, .... :-)
>
>
>Now. Don't confuse your drive size with your partition size. You can easily
>set up Linux on a smaller partition of your 200 GB drive. Let's you use 20
>GB for a Linux test partition. Keep the rest of the drive in FAT or NTFS for
>your data. Both Windows and Linux will be able to access that data.
Sounds very reasonable.
>As Windows doens't "see" an ext3 partition, your Linux partition won't even
>show in Windows.
Yes, I saw that there's a way around that issue. No worries. I know
myself. Once I make the switch, even if it takes time, I'll migrate
over completely, eventually. The only issue will be learning to deal
with the navigational issues in Linux that I'm not comfortable with.
It gives me that feeling like the MAC does. In this one way, I do
prefer how files and folders are navigated in Windows (EXCEPT of
course for the stupid drive letter shortsightedness of window$
courtesy of stoopid Bill Gates!).
>You mension the size of your drives, and I don't really see why. Do you
>consider you need to use NTFS because of those sizes? Wrong.
Now I _am_ confused ... I'd been told time and time again that fat32
has a partition/drive limit of 30 gigs with a file size limit of about
4gigs, now you say that's not the case. I was told that my Win98SE
wouldn't be able to handle my 200 gig drive so that's why I stayed
with the WinXP that was installed on it ... otherwise, I would have
reformatted to Win98SE. Despite a lot of justifiable attacks on
Win98SE (i.e., crashes, lack of support for the newer peripherals), it
_obeys_ ME and doesn't control the situation like XP always insists on
doing. I've had to live with things in XP that I didn't have to with
98SE. I'm looking to get a lot of that control back with Linux plus
the power! Taking DOS away from the user was a big mistake in my own
personal opinion. That's why some of what I've experienced with Linux
has been pleasant as I feel that type of control back in my hands.
>It's true that when you format a drive with Windows, it will only allow NTFS
>for drives of such a size. But that's an artificial limit. I have a 300 GB
>extrenal drive formatted in FAT32 which both Windows and Linux can use. I
>did have to use Linux to format it, since MS decided that drive large than
>20 GB _should_ be formatted with NTFS.
Well, what do you know. Always makes me wonder what to believe ...
!!! No wonder my Win98SE never balked at the first external drive
that I bought, the 80gig one, which I still use! Humph ... !
>
>The absolute max _partition size_ is of course lower for FAT32 than for
>NTFS, but that limit is well over 500 GB.
Well, turn! Thanks. Learn something new every day, as the old adage
goes.
RodMcKay
<mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>
>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>
> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>can use FAT32.
>
>Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
>an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
>problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
>be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
>VFAT) partition.
Excellent. That's good to know. I am going on 2-year old data, so
very pleased to see that that's now definitely outdated, if I even
understood the whole issue correctly to being with <g>.
RodMcKay
<mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:22:13 +0000, ray wrote:
>
>> don't forget WINE
>> if you absolutely have to have a particular program
>
> Or try Virtualbox, under which I happily run Quicken and TomTom
>Home.
Somehow, virtualization sounds nicer. Thanks for the name. Much
easier to search for something when you know the name for it <lol>.
RodMcKay
wrote:
>RodMcKay wrote:
Excellent. Thank you. I think I can lay this whole FAT32/NTFS thing
to rest. I'm so pleased. I just knew at the back of mind that
something must be wrong. Linux would not be where it is today if
these issues were indeed true.
>> Anyway, now that the size issue has proven to be something I might
>> have seriously misunderstood, the rest is just a question of figuring
>> out how to get around.
>
>No only that, but that Linux would use a lousy file system which isn't made
>for multi user usage.
>
>
>> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
>> absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
>> Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
>
>If you don't like Gimp which IMHO is quite good, except it's GTK based, you
>can try Pixel and can be found at http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/
I just found some of the processes difficult to transition to. Once
you're used to one type of interface, adapting to another is tough, as
anyone knows. Also, the "open" interface is one I've never been
comfortable with. I really get distracted with seeing other windows
in between portions of the type of interface GIMP uses, so that
doesn't help. Though there's a lawsuit pending as well, I took a look
at GIMPshop and it doesn't seem to have put a solid background to the
interface either.
I'm actually going to head over to a couple of GIMP ngs and forums and
take a look around. Perhaps there are plugins that get around some of
the interface/process issues. I remember having to take several steps
to do something in it, as well, that only require one step in other
image apps, so if there are ways to customize it, perhaps that might
be the avenue to explore.
If I could get paid for all the time over the years finding/testing
software whenever I needed to do a new chore, I'd be rich! This is
just going to be more of the same but on a scale I haven't done since
I first went on a 32bit system from a 16 one! <g>
Ah well ...
>> Don't know about Filemaker Pro database;
>
>Glom http://www.glom.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
>
>
>> And don't know if
>> I'll find something as easy to use as DVD Shrink for DVD ripping ...
>
>k9copy http://k9copy.sourceforge.net/
Oh, wow, thanks! This is loads of help. I'm used to looking for
software but it always helps to have names. <g>
>> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
>> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
>> in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
>> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
>
>The difficulties all lies in your brain, just drop those thoughts and you will
>see it don't take so much time to learn how to use Linux and for most
>microsoft users it's a big surprise that you can do all the things without the
>use of console, just point and click. Most of the point and click things goes
>a lot faster to do in the console.
Nah, it's the pressures of time, is all. I'm used to all of this it's
just that I have to do it all on such a massive scale this first time
because I do so much work on the computer on tons of apps. Once I get
at least a few of the basic apps for Linux that should ease. But it's
going to take probably at least 6 months to be even close to what I do
now. This much I do know. <g>
Thanks everyone!
RodMcKay
<ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>On Saturday 14 November 2009 10:44 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying
>as J.O. Aho wrote...
>
>> RodMcKay wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
>>> <mau...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
[snip]
>> The difficulties all lies in your brain, just drop those thoughts and
>> you will see it don't take so much time to learn how to use Linux and
>> for most microsoft users it's a big surprise that you can do all the
>> things without the use of console, just point and click. Most of the
>> point and click things goes a lot faster to do in the console.
>
>It really *is* a different paradigm. A UNIX system is logical, makes
>perfect sense and Just Works (TM). A MICROS~1 FascistOS system on the
>other hand lies about what a computer is, how it behaves or should
>behave, and what one is allowed to do with it, and most users have
>simply acquiesced to that without questioning the junk that was
>installed on their computers and turned them into kitchen sink
>appliances.
>
>In addition to all of the above, FascistOS is also spyware; it phones
>home at least once every week. (This can be disabled but it requires a
>third-party freeware tool to do so.) FascistOS was never designed for
>a networked and multi-user environment, and its code quality has so far
>never exceeded that of a poor beta product. Even compared to other
>proprietary operating systems - e.g. IRIX, HP/UX, AIX, et al - the
>coding quality in FascistOS is abominable.
I so _totally_ agree! I've never believed, even before colleagues
ever heard of all these issues, with all that Micro$oft has forced
upon us, it never seemed right, and we have had to PAY for all these
privileges. Dumb ... ! That's why a MAC always appealed to me but I
couldn't pursue it. Linux came along for me 2 years ago and I've
always known my future would lie with it. I've gotten tired of being
the family's go-to person to "fix" their computers of malware and the
hours I've spent re-formatting and reinstalling for them! This has
always seemed just so very wrong!! And for me, even though I've
narrowed the process down, since the stupid Window$ rollback has never
worked and I could never get the stupid thing to image properly, I
then focused on speeding up the manual process. Yet me, with all my
experience at doing this, it still takes me 3 hours to get back up to
�75% speed (partitions and standalones being main reason it's that
"quick" re my manual reformat/reinstall), and then about another 2-3
weeks of working in my spare time to install the apps that won't run
as standalones. Lately I've virtualized some of the more complex apps
to install so even that's been cut down but what sort of OS is it that
there is this stupid downtime to begin with, esp. when I'd heard about
UNIX and how some of those servers and systems have been on FOR YEARS
with NO downtime!!!? Stupid, stupid, stupid Window$! Reminds me of
the whole Beta/VHS stupidity that happened all those years ago. But
that was"Sony"'s fault. The creator was so greedy and he tried to
control everything and so lost out to the inferior VHS! But we're not
stuck like we were with VHS inferiority - thanks to Linux, there's a
way out of this stupid mess <g>.
J.O. Aho
The new search engine from microsoft, if you are looking for porn, it's
supposed to be the best search engine of those not specialized in porn.
> but like anything, the trouble
> with googling or using any search engine is that you have to know the
> terminology to use in the search. All I knew was fat32 and ntfs, but
> I now know the terms ext3, etc., so now that will open up my results!
> <g>
Sure, it's true that it can be difficult to know the right words to use in the
search therm. It can be better to take a step back instead of searching for
something specific, instead of fat/ntfs had you used "file system" you would
have got better results.
Google is kind enough to supply you with a search engine which filters the
results to be more for Linux, check http://www.google.com/linux
--
//Aho
RodMcKay
>RodMcKay wrote:
>
>>
>> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
>> absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
>> Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
>>
>Gimp is a lot more powerful than it often gets credit for. The main
>thing is, it has a user interface that's very different than other image
>manipulators, and it takes some getting used to. One place you might
>want to look at is http://meetthegimp.org/ This site has a series of
>weekly video podcasts on using The Gimp, starting with the most basic of
>functions and proceeding to the more advanced stuff. All "episodes" are
>available for download. Be sure to start with #1 by clicking on the "Get
>all videos" link on the home page. By the time you get through all 120+
>episodes, you should be very comfortable with the Gimp interface.
You know, you're right. I'm thinking that if I can find a way to make
it so that I don't have those holes in the interface (I hate those
open backgrounds, Ultimate Paint is like that, too <yech>) and perhaps
plugins to get around some of the clunky procedures issues I had with
it, I think that I could make the switch. I keep forgetting the
troubles I had with Paint Shop Pro until I created a customized
workspace, perhaps there's the ability to do the same in GIMP. I'll
check it out.
Thx.
>> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
>> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
>> in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
>> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
>>
>Don't believe all the "learning curve" hype. How long did it take you to
>learn enough about Windows to become a power user? Years, I'll bet. It
>won't take nearly as long to become comfortable with Linux. New users
>who never touched a computer don't take any more time to learn enough to
>use Linux than they do to learn Windows. IMHO, the learning curve from
>Linux to Windows would be MUCH steeper than the other way around. Of
>course, since so few would do such a crazy thing, practically no studies
>have been done.
<rofl> Very true!
RodMcKay
wrote:
>RodMcKay wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:59:57 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
>>>> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?
>>> Maybe you used bing instead of google and never realized that, the information
>>> can easily be found at google.
>>
>> <lol> I don't even know what bing is
>
>The new search engine from microsoft, if you are looking for porn, it's
>supposed to be the best search engine of those not specialized in porn.
<lol> No wonder. I'm a babe in the woods with worldly things like
that. <g>
>> but like anything, the trouble
>> with googling or using any search engine is that you have to know the
>> terminology to use in the search. All I knew was fat32 and ntfs, but
>> I now know the terms ext3, etc., so now that will open up my results!
>> <g>
>
>Sure, it's true that it can be difficult to know the right words to use in the
>search therm. It can be better to take a step back instead of searching for
>something specific, instead of fat/ntfs had you used "file system" you would
>have got better results.
>
>Google is kind enough to supply you with a search engine which filters the
>results to be more for Linux, check http://www.google.com/linux
Wow, thanks! That should help.
J.O. Aho
>>> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
>>> absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
>>> Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
>> If you don't like Gimp which IMHO is quite good, except it's GTK based, you
>> can try Pixel and can be found at http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/
>
> I just found some of the processes difficult to transition to. Once
> you're used to one type of interface, adapting to another is tough, as
> anyone knows. Also, the "open" interface is one I've never been
> comfortable with. I really get distracted with seeing other windows
> in between portions of the type of interface GIMP uses, so that
> doesn't help.
Just run GIMP on it's own virtual desktop and the other application on another
virtual desktop. Myself I run different application on different virtual
desktops, that way they don't mess up with each other.
> I'm actually going to head over to a couple of GIMP ngs and forums and
> take a look around. Perhaps there are plugins that get around some of
> the interface/process issues. I remember having to take several steps
> to do something in it, as well, that only require one step in other
> image apps, so if there are ways to customize it, perhaps that might
> be the avenue to explore.
You can build your own scripts to do things for you, never done that myself as
I don't do much with GIMP more than resize and sometimes add some small things.
--
//Aho
Aragorn
as RodMcKay wrote...
>> [...]
>> Just drop that vfat thing completely.
>
> Excellent. Thank you. I think I can lay this whole FAT32/NTFS thing
> to rest. I'm so pleased. I just knew at the back of mind that
> something must be wrong. Linux would not be where it is today if
> these issues were indeed true.
Also please bear in mind that a lof of what you hear about GNU/Linux is
deliberate FUD ("Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt") spread either by MICROS~1
directly through their websites or anything from slight innuendo to
outright lies in interviews with senior MICROS~1 staff, or spread by
paid MICROS~1 shills on Usenet.
The latter is an area they have a longstanding reputation in, dating
back to the days of the OS/2 newsgroups on Usenet when Usenet was still
running off BBS machines, long before the internet was released to the
public. I would advise you in this regard to do a Google search
on "the Barkto incident".
Of course, these were incidents in which MICROS~1 was sloppy enough to
leave evidence floating around, but bear no mistake: they are still
doing it, albeit in a much more refined way. I have personally already
encountered and confronted a few MICROS~1 shills in various GNU/Linux
newsgroups - and I am not talking of comp.os.linux.advocacy, because
that would be too obvious; the enemies of GNU/Linux who reside there
are simply hyperconservative and ultrarightwinged Wintendo zealots who
absolutely hate GNU/Linux and think that Wintendo is the greatest
invention since sliced bread - and when confronted and thus exposed,
these individuals rapidly disappear from the newsgroup or change their
posting pseudonym.
They typically also don't participate in every thread but will single
out just one or possibly two threads in which the original poster is a
very obvious newbie looking for answers. The shills will then move in
witch great subtlety, pretending to be very helpful and friendly, and
overwhelming the newbie with a plethora of (pseudo-)technical
information - of which they know that the newbie is insufficiently
skilled to ascertain the validity - which in the end always makes
Wintendo seem "just a little bit better" than GNU/Linux.
I guess we can only surmise that, if MICROS~1 is going to such great
lengths to make GNU/Linux look bad that they have to infiltrate
GNU/Linux-related newsgroups and tell outright lies, then yes,
GNU/Linux must be that good. And well, yes, it is. ;-)
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> GNU/Linux must be that good. And well, yes, it is. ;-)
I think I spotted one of these snakes in the current (December 2009) Linux
Journal "Letters" section. A certain "Richard" whines about troubles using
Linux on a laptop. The signature phrase concerning Linux usability:
it is light-years away, strictly for computer specialists
and
Kernels, shells, command prompts--these things are of no interest to me
Gee, where have I heard that BS before. Is that you, Flatfish?
As mentioned: IMO a sign Redmond is desperate, and in a panic about Linux.
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).
RodMcKay
Actually, that's good to know. I haven't actually participated in any
Linux ngs before now or really had exposure to anything on other
non-Linux ngs. Forewarned is forearmed, though, as the saying goes.
<g> I think so, too, despite the challenges I've been facing. I'll
figure everything out eventually ... <g>
Baron
> In <hdpp2t$i7o$4...@news.eternal-september.org> Aragorn:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> GNU/Linux must be that good. And well, yes, it is. ;-)
>
> I think I spotted one of these snakes in the current (December 2009)
> Linux Journal "Letters" section. A certain "Richard" whines about
> troubles using Linux on a laptop. The signature phrase concerning
> Linux usability:
>
> it is light-years away, strictly for computer specialists
>
> and
>
> Kernels, shells, command prompts--these things are of no interest to
> me
>
> Gee, where have I heard that BS before. Is that you, Flatfish?
>
> As mentioned: IMO a sign Redmond is desperate, and in a panic about
> Linux.
Yes ! I read that one and came to the same conclusion.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Snowbat
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:24:57 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
> You know, you're right. I'm thinking that if I can find a way to make
> it so that I don't have those holes in the interface (I hate those open
> backgrounds
Single window mode will be an option in GIMP 2.8
http://www.gimpusers.com/news/2009-09-19/single-window-mode-gimp-2-8-confirmed.html
RodMcKay
wrote:
There, isn't that great? The best of both worlds for everyone, those
who want it can have it, those who don't, don't have to use it!
That's the way it should be and that's what customizing should mean,
the broadest available means of satisfying everyone!
Don't know if this is a conception drawing or an actual one of the
single window mode, but here's what it might look like (posted dated
Sunday, October 4, 2009):
http://www.chromecode.com/
picture by itself:
http://www.chromecode.com/temp/gimp-single-window-mode-in-progress.png
Hopefully each component can be docked _anywhere_, too, and we're not
forced to the exact view as shown in the above picture.
As I mentioned briefly, I couldn't get a handle on PSP until I was
able to customize my workspace exactly as I needed it. The problem
with PSP is tutorials on the net were written for versions 5 and up
and each had different locations for the steps so it was a nightmare
until I personally located where I wanted, say, gaussian blur to go.
Then was able to learn PSP since it didn't matter where the tutorial
said it was for a particular version, I just went to where I put it.
This is very promising for GIMP. I foresee no real difficulties using
it now! Best news possible <g>
No release date yet, but one post said they believed it would come out
this year. I can live with the GIMP versions usu. found on Linux
LiveCDs until then. By then I'll have probably dumped Window$ for
good at home and installed Linux permanently <crossing fingers>.