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?
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
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
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
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
--
//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
<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
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!
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!
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. ;-)
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>.