andre wrote: >On zo, 2001-09-30 at 22:59, Mike & Tracy Holt wrote: > >>civileme wrote: >> >>>Does no one realize that there are THREE variations of the NTFS and that one >>>of them is readable (and experimentally writeable) by linux, and more work on >>>read/write for the newer two is likely to be stalled by threats or the >>>potential for threats of legal action? >>> >>>Microsoft is not going to give us a chance to take their market away, not >>>that we are really trying. We're about choices, but we are being blocked >>> >>>from staying compatible by Microsoft paranoia. >> >>>Civileme >>> >>Civilme, really, not EVERYTHING done by m$ is based on trying to >>sabotage the rest of the market (just MOST of the things ; ) ) >>Anyway, I was under the impression that there are only two versions of >>NTFS (4 and 5); unless of course you're talking about the first attempts >>at it, in which case I don't think that would apply to anyone here >>anyway. The newer version 5 supports the endless amount of redundant >>security options that can be placed on a file within that system. >>I have recently finished beta testing XP (that thing is nothing more >>than a freakin' virus with pretty graphics!!) and I'm pretty sure that >>the NTFS it uses has been updated to support their new licensing format >>but that hasn't been released to the general public yet. >>Which version is supported under linux (read / experimental write)? >> >>Mike >> >> >Win2K >the nt version was almost finished when they released Win2K > >
Are you saying that the version supported is Win2k? If that's the case, then I can't see any complaints. I've been keeping a 5GB fat 32 partition on my drive in case reading / writing to win2k were dangerous, but if I can move to just two operating systems on my main computer, that would be great! How experimental is writing to Win2k? If linux touches my Win2k partition will it kill it? Win2k is touchy enough without outside influence <g> Mike
