Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Linux file systems
- Thread starter Sylva
- Start date
stefanwagner
Programmer
I guess noone, because linux needs the permission-triple rwxrwxrwx (user, group, others: read,write,execute) and a few bits more, which windows doesn't understand.
I heared of software, making linux-filesystem(s) visible for windows, but don't know which, since I don't care about windows.
In emergency, I could use ftp easyly.
seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:
I heared of software, making linux-filesystem(s) visible for windows, but don't know which, since I don't care about windows.
In emergency, I could use ftp easyly.
seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:
- Thread starter
- #3
Hello again Stefan,
Maybe my question wasn't that clear. What I meant was Linux
file systems that can see Windows and MS-Dos files (partitions) when the computer is running Linux. That is, for example, seeing and editing a text file in a Windows or DOS partition.
I know ext2 file system can not do it. What I don't see in SuSE's books mentioned is whether ext3 or Reiser can (or can not) see Windows partitions.
I hope this is clearer.
John.
Maybe my question wasn't that clear. What I meant was Linux
file systems that can see Windows and MS-Dos files (partitions) when the computer is running Linux. That is, for example, seeing and editing a text file in a Windows or DOS partition.
I know ext2 file system can not do it. What I don't see in SuSE's books mentioned is whether ext3 or Reiser can (or can not) see Windows partitions.
I hope this is clearer.
John.
A file that is stored on a Windows partition will be whatever filesystem that windows is using - Fat, Fat16, Fat32, or NTFS. Windows can not read any of the native Linux filesytems. Most recent linux distrubutions can read & write to the Windows Fat filesystems, but only read NTFS. So, if you want to share (read & write) data between Windows & Linux on the same machine, use a Fat32 partition that will be available to both OS's.
chipperMDW
Programmer
I don't think your question makes any sense.
Filesystems don't "see" other filesystems, or even do anything.
A filesystem is a format for storing files on a disk partition. ext2 is one; vfat is another. Linux often uses ext2 (or used to); Windows often uses vfat (or used to).
An OS kernel (or even a user-space utility) can "know" how to deal with one of those formats. That is, it can read, write, create, and delete files and directories, and access and modify any attributes defined by the filesystem it's working with.
The Linux kernel can deal with ext2 (it had better be able to do that...). It can also deal with vfat, as well as a ton of others.
One filesystem Linux has problems with is ntfs. It can read from it, but performing writes to it is dangerous (since no one but Microsoft knows how ntfs really works in that regard).
Filesystems don't do anything; they're formats. You have tools for manipulating data in a filesystem.
.jpegs don't "draw" pictures; they're formats. You have tools for manipulating data in .jpeg format.
So... Linux can read and write to whatever kinds of filesystems for which it has the code to do so.
The filesystems normally don't interact in any way.
Filesystems don't "see" other filesystems, or even do anything.
A filesystem is a format for storing files on a disk partition. ext2 is one; vfat is another. Linux often uses ext2 (or used to); Windows often uses vfat (or used to).
An OS kernel (or even a user-space utility) can "know" how to deal with one of those formats. That is, it can read, write, create, and delete files and directories, and access and modify any attributes defined by the filesystem it's working with.
The Linux kernel can deal with ext2 (it had better be able to do that...). It can also deal with vfat, as well as a ton of others.
One filesystem Linux has problems with is ntfs. It can read from it, but performing writes to it is dangerous (since no one but Microsoft knows how ntfs really works in that regard).
Filesystems don't do anything; they're formats. You have tools for manipulating data in a filesystem.
.jpegs don't "draw" pictures; they're formats. You have tools for manipulating data in .jpeg format.
So... Linux can read and write to whatever kinds of filesystems for which it has the code to do so.
The filesystems normally don't interact in any way.
chipperMDW
Programmer
Sorry; I meant "@ccess" and "Micro$oft"...
Stupid ads will reduce me to using l337-speak...
Stupid ads will reduce me to using l337-speak...
- Thread starter
- #8
John;
Your question is not trivial, afaik. However, it is misleading, but unintentionally.
So let me make sure I've got it - you want to use Windows files (partitions) from a running Linux session or computer. Right?
Thread 54-917614 "How can I get other drive?" answers this question.
If I've got ur question right, then running the mount commands (mentioned in that thread) from the command prompt should make the partitions available. Now, as to how you can get from having them available to seeing them or navigating to them -- well, I'm a newbie myself, and haven't gotten that far yet!
Mark
Mark
<O>
_|_
Your question is not trivial, afaik. However, it is misleading, but unintentionally.
So let me make sure I've got it - you want to use Windows files (partitions) from a running Linux session or computer. Right?
Thread 54-917614 "How can I get other drive?" answers this question.
If I've got ur question right, then running the mount commands (mentioned in that thread) from the command prompt should make the partitions available. Now, as to how you can get from having them available to seeing them or navigating to them -- well, I'm a newbie myself, and haven't gotten that far yet!
Mark
Mark
<O>
_|_
- Thread starter
- #10
Correct, Mark.
When I installed and ran Debian 3.0r2 and SuSE 8.2, I had to give it to Linux that it is developing and advancing by leaps and bounds. Windows is a good system, but extremely expensive, by that I especially mean its Server variants.
But because Windows is all pervasive at home and at work,
I must maintain my skills till Linux becomes pervasive as well.
Windows desktop is also very expensive and you cannot install it but on one machine, which for the home user is a complete disgrace. Hopefully Linux will give Windows great competition. We basically have Microsoft, a bit of Apple and a bit of Unix, which, itself is extremely expensive. This state of affaires must end. Apple is expensive because its hardware is proprietary, therefore one cannot build Macs as he/she builds PCs.
This is my main reason for turning to Linux. In a few years it'll be on par with Windows. And who would have thought that I'll speak in this manner about Linux, I who was so skeptical about it just 2 years back...
John.
When I installed and ran Debian 3.0r2 and SuSE 8.2, I had to give it to Linux that it is developing and advancing by leaps and bounds. Windows is a good system, but extremely expensive, by that I especially mean its Server variants.
But because Windows is all pervasive at home and at work,
I must maintain my skills till Linux becomes pervasive as well.
Windows desktop is also very expensive and you cannot install it but on one machine, which for the home user is a complete disgrace. Hopefully Linux will give Windows great competition. We basically have Microsoft, a bit of Apple and a bit of Unix, which, itself is extremely expensive. This state of affaires must end. Apple is expensive because its hardware is proprietary, therefore one cannot build Macs as he/she builds PCs.
This is my main reason for turning to Linux. In a few years it'll be on par with Windows. And who would have thought that I'll speak in this manner about Linux, I who was so skeptical about it just 2 years back...
John.
My motives are very similar. But Linux is no walk in the park, that's for sure. It is hard work to become familiar enough to make a clean secure install. Learning this has been a much steeper learning curve than ms-dos was 10 years ago. Very similar to learning Novell 3.11/3.12. Bad news, as that was not user friendly.
I'm still hopeful that the desktop will come along. I haven't gotten to one yet, so have nothing to judge by! When I tried to install desktop versions the installs failed. Woohoo!
Best regards;
Mark
<O>
_|_
I'm still hopeful that the desktop will come along. I haven't gotten to one yet, so have nothing to judge by! When I tried to install desktop versions the installs failed. Woohoo!
Best regards;
Mark
<O>
_|_
ericbrunson
Technical User
Are you using strange hardware? I have an HP laptop that works like a charm out of the box, not to mention my Dell server I'm typing on (mach64 embedded video) or my game machine (nVidia GeForce 4) or my old junk machine (GeForce 2 FX).
They all run GUI from install of RedHat, Fedora and Ubuntu.
If you want a simple install with some nice eyecandy, get Ubuntu, it installs in about 30 minutes.
Here's the torrent:
They all run GUI from install of RedHat, Fedora and Ubuntu.
If you want a simple install with some nice eyecandy, get Ubuntu, it installs in about 30 minutes.
Here's the torrent:
- Thread starter
- #13
Well, it's no cakewalk to be sure, but it's getting better.
If only Debian would improve its installation. They are working on an interface (has a code name, I forgot).
As far as Linux's desktop... Although it is the logical and desirable development, I am not very enthused about it. The main reason I am not is the same for which I am so incensed about Microsoft. By splitting the desktop from the server packages, Linux risks to succomb to the same temptations that made Windows so expensive. Now one can find a good complete distro for $10-15. The future may bring such huge differnces in pricing between the desktop and the server versions that the reason for which I took up Linux (the extreme expenses incurred with Windows' server versions) will be dissolved.
Eric, would you please elaborate?
Cheers to both of you, John.
If only Debian would improve its installation. They are working on an interface (has a code name, I forgot).
As far as Linux's desktop... Although it is the logical and desirable development, I am not very enthused about it. The main reason I am not is the same for which I am so incensed about Microsoft. By splitting the desktop from the server packages, Linux risks to succomb to the same temptations that made Windows so expensive. Now one can find a good complete distro for $10-15. The future may bring such huge differnces in pricing between the desktop and the server versions that the reason for which I took up Linux (the extreme expenses incurred with Windows' server versions) will be dissolved.
Eric, would you please elaborate?
Cheers to both of you, John.
- Thread starter
- #14
Well, it's no cakewalk to be sure, but it's getting better.
If only Debian would improve its installation. They are working on an interface (has a code name, I forgot).
As far as Linux's desktop... Although it is the logical and desirable development, I am not very enthused about it. The main reason I am not is the same for which I am so incensed about Microsoft. By splitting the desktop from the server packages, Linux risks to succomb to the same temptations that made Windows so expensive. Now one can find a good complete distro for $10-15. The future may bring such huge differnces in pricing between the desktop and the server versions that the reason for which I took up Linux (the extreme expenses incurred with Windows' server versions) will be dissolved.
Anyhow, a friend of mine who manages the IT dept. for a city of about 200000 souls, had his network and many desktops switched to Linux. He says Linux has matured to the point that they safely can use free and third party software to almost completely satisfy their needs.
Eric, would you please elaborate?
Cheers to both of you, John.
If only Debian would improve its installation. They are working on an interface (has a code name, I forgot).
As far as Linux's desktop... Although it is the logical and desirable development, I am not very enthused about it. The main reason I am not is the same for which I am so incensed about Microsoft. By splitting the desktop from the server packages, Linux risks to succomb to the same temptations that made Windows so expensive. Now one can find a good complete distro for $10-15. The future may bring such huge differnces in pricing between the desktop and the server versions that the reason for which I took up Linux (the extreme expenses incurred with Windows' server versions) will be dissolved.
Anyhow, a friend of mine who manages the IT dept. for a city of about 200000 souls, had his network and many desktops switched to Linux. He says Linux has matured to the point that they safely can use free and third party software to almost completely satisfy their needs.
Eric, would you please elaborate?
Cheers to both of you, John.
ericbrunson
Technical User
Elaborate on what? Ubuntu is a new distro built on debian. I think it's the first to incorporate Gnome 2.8.
That being said, I've been having some flakey problems on my laptop running it. Twice the network has gone bye-bye and once it shutdown when I don't think it should have. It was much more stable under fedora. But, I'm *way* more familiar with RH and Fedora, so I have a hard time debugging the Debian distro. Still, if you want to see a nice desktop, it's an easy on disk install.
That being said, I've been having some flakey problems on my laptop running it. Twice the network has gone bye-bye and once it shutdown when I don't think it should have. It was much more stable under fedora. But, I'm *way* more familiar with RH and Fedora, so I have a hard time debugging the Debian distro. Still, if you want to see a nice desktop, it's an easy on disk install.
stefanwagner
Programmer
I don't understand the 'server-edition'-hype at all.
Guess, it is a marketing gag, and a technique to earn money with linux.
The two valuable reasons for it are support, and a kind of standard-installation, to make integration of different applications more easy.
If you take a low-budget distribution, and have some knowledge, there is no problem in using every linux as a server-base.
I took a debian-dvd from a computermagazin for 3 €, and installed oracle10g on it.
I only needed much time to install oracle - which was my first oracle-installation - because it's installation procedure looked for a file 'release' or similar, containing the string 'Red Hat ... '.
Depending on the internet-bandwith, downloading 500 MB may be expensive too, of course.
seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:
Guess, it is a marketing gag, and a technique to earn money with linux.
The two valuable reasons for it are support, and a kind of standard-installation, to make integration of different applications more easy.
If you take a low-budget distribution, and have some knowledge, there is no problem in using every linux as a server-base.
I took a debian-dvd from a computermagazin for 3 €, and installed oracle10g on it.
I only needed much time to install oracle - which was my first oracle-installation - because it's installation procedure looked for a file 'release' or similar, containing the string 'Red Hat ... '.
Depending on the internet-bandwith, downloading 500 MB may be expensive too, of course.
seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:
- Thread starter
- #17
Eric, I have installed Debian and SuSE on two of my servers.
SuSE's YAST is great, I even got a full desktop from the get go, without much config. Not so with Debian. It took quite lots of fiddling between Debian's config parameters and the monitor and video card's drivers. Debian will have to do something about it. As I understand, they're slower in development and more conservative than other distros, so it'll take some time till they iron out the kinks. I asked you to elaborate on installation and whether you've encountered special problems. Being a Linux newbe from certain points of view, I need other technical people's experiences to learn.
Stefan, as far as the desktop/server parting ways, I just expressed some misgivings. Presently, they're still, more or less, together. I am afraid that if the software will be called Desktop and Server, we'll end up in the not too distant future with huge differences in price/capabilities. Presently a decent distro contains most of the staple servers: mail, Apache, etc. If things will go Windows' way, mail server and Apache and other servers will end up in the Linux Server package and the Desktop will be just that, an interface to run local applications with some network connectivity. A very BAD prospect indeed.
John.
SuSE's YAST is great, I even got a full desktop from the get go, without much config. Not so with Debian. It took quite lots of fiddling between Debian's config parameters and the monitor and video card's drivers. Debian will have to do something about it. As I understand, they're slower in development and more conservative than other distros, so it'll take some time till they iron out the kinks. I asked you to elaborate on installation and whether you've encountered special problems. Being a Linux newbe from certain points of view, I need other technical people's experiences to learn.
Stefan, as far as the desktop/server parting ways, I just expressed some misgivings. Presently, they're still, more or less, together. I am afraid that if the software will be called Desktop and Server, we'll end up in the not too distant future with huge differences in price/capabilities. Presently a decent distro contains most of the staple servers: mail, Apache, etc. If things will go Windows' way, mail server and Apache and other servers will end up in the Linux Server package and the Desktop will be just that, an interface to run local applications with some network connectivity. A very BAD prospect indeed.
John.
stefanwagner
Programmer
I don't think so.
Everybody may create a linux distro, containing all the servers, and sell it - without support - for a very small price.
Beside support, and perhaps a proprietary installation program - for what do you pay for a Professional- Enterprise- Server-edition?
Not for software-licenses.
seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:
Everybody may create a linux distro, containing all the servers, and sell it - without support - for a very small price.
Beside support, and perhaps a proprietary installation program - for what do you pay for a Professional- Enterprise- Server-edition?
Not for software-licenses.
seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:
chipperMDW
Programmer
Read up on the GPL and similar licenses. Your worries are unfounded.
- Thread starter
- #20
- Status
Similar threads