Prev: For your consideration
Next: Did you switch from Windows to Linux? How did you find the process?
From: Aragorn on 14 Nov 2009 23:33
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
>> <maurice(a)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. [...]

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)
From: J.O. Aho on 15 Nov 2009 03:26
Aragorn 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
>>> <maurice(a)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. [...]
>
> 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.
>


--

//Aho
From: RodMcKay on 15 Nov 2009 12:53
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:59:57 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user(a)example.net>
wrote:

>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.
>
>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.

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>

From: RodMcKay on 15 Nov 2009 13:02
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
<maurice(a)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>.

From: RodMcKay on 15 Nov 2009 13:11
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:44:34 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user(a)example.net>
wrote:

>RodMcKay wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
>> <maurice(a)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.

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!

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: For your consideration
Next: Did you switch from Windows to Linux? How did you find the process?