Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Accessing NTFS drives in Linux

<< < (3/4) > >>

Calum:

--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---So you have to recompile the kernel to read a differant file system - wouldn't it be easier to just install a driver or something?
--- End quote ---
the answer is: it depends. the drivers being kernel "modules" decision, was taken as a compromise as i understand it between having as much stuff run outside of the kernel as possible (which tends to be difficult to implement and as a result is often not too hot, see HURD project for more info) and having tons of stuff be included in the kernel (easier to implement, due to being simpler, but uses a lot of resources). This isn't my department, so i hope i am not misleading you with inaccurate info, but that's how i understand it. You probably don't have to recompile your kernel to read many filesystems. most linux distributors provide kernels with support for ext2, ext3, reiserfs, fat32, fat, possibly jfs or xfs and some other ones too, it's less likely to see built in support for things like hfs (an old apple filesystem i think) or ntfs maybe because the support is unstable or because nobody uses them so it'd be a waste to make the kernel bigger by compiling support into the kernel. It all comes down to choice, and if you didn't compile your own kernel when you installed linux, then your distributor has made the choice for you. This is the same as ms windows actually, except that with linux, you *can* recompile your kernel to add support for things you want, and remove support for things you'll never need. BUT all this does have the drawback that if you have a kernel that has not been compiled with support for something and you want it, then yes you will need to recompile to get it. Having said that, i bet it'd be just as viable to get a user level piece of software that can access ntfs partitions without touching the kernel, this product we've been on about is probably just such a thing, this probably has its own issues, that come up by having nothing to do with the kernel and so on. i don't know what they are though.


--- Quote ---It is essential for Linux to be able to at least read ntfs for people to migrate from Windows to Linux,
--- End quote ---
to you, perhaps, to me, not at all. as it happens one of my machines has an ntfs partition, windows 2000 is installed there, but the "D:" drive for that system is fat32, and that's where all the documents live (files and system should never be on the same partition), so no problem. and remember that it'll be mainly linux users developing kernel modules, there may be a limit to how important those people will see a project that's designed essentially for windows users, it's possible that those people have no interest in converting windows users.remember linux has nothing to gain by gathering more users, it's the users who ostensibly gain.  it's also possible that there's some deliberate difficulty in figuring out how the filesystem works, instigated by those who made the filesystem specification in the first place and who don't want it reverse engineered. a lack of NTFS support cannot be blamed on linux.

--- Quote ---it's just as important for Linux to run Windows software as lots of people (like myself) would use it more if it did,
--- End quote ---
and i am sure more windows users would run linux software on windows if they could too. sorry, this is just silly. i appreciate what you are saying but it's ridiculous to expect one operating system to run binaries compiled on a totally different unrelated operating system. the veryfact that there are several quite successful projects on the go designed to do exactly this is a testament to the hard work that has gone into trying to make linux more accessible to windows users. This should in no way be criticised. You would never expect to hear somebody demanding that microsoft include a program designed to run linux binaries under windows (certainly not with as much rabid vigour as many windows users demand unidirectional binary compatibility between linux and windows), so why expect this from linux? if you want to run windows programs, run windows, just don't come running when the licence agreement you agreed to bites you on the ass.
--- Quote ---and if Linux could also use Windows drivers it would gain an even higher user base.
--- End quote ---
see above. This is really getting to be a joke. how about this: if windows could run linux and FreeBSD binaries, and use MacOSX and GNU/HURD drivers then it could rule the world, oh wait, it already does, despite its many, many flaws. microsoft does not need to integrate these features into their operating system because they already have most of the users in the world under their thumb. Linux does not need to implement these measures because linux development (we're talking about the kernel here, where all this driver stuff is going on) is not profit driven and does not care how many users it has.


--- Quote ---In short Linux needs to interoperate with Windows to a very high degree before most people will convert.
--- End quote ---

and there's the thing. linux does not care if you convert. it offers you a superior operating system, and invites you to use it. If you want all the home comforts of windows, stick with windows. What you ask is quite silly to my thinking, it's not impossible, and you are justified in asking for what you want, but what you want appears to be ms windows, not linux. linux is not those thigs you ask for.

Aloone_Jonez:
Calum, I agree with just about everything you said and I know you can see my point of view too.

For the hardcore Linux like yourself who has mostly  moved away from Windows (ok I know you use it a bit with your files in a fat32 partition) Linux interoperates with Windows more than well enough.

For me, read access to ntfs is all you really need to copy your stuff to an ext3 partition. But if Linux could run all Linux binarys and drivers then lots of people would move to Linux so more people write Linux drivers and software so the Linux community would gain a hell of a lot - they should care about the number of users. I'm not being critical of Linux for not running Windows binarys. MS word loads word perfect documents in a bid to encourage people to migrate to word, the same principle applies to Linux. Why should MS make Windows run Linux programs and read ext3 when they already have the market share anyway, if the didn't they would do their best to make Windows interoperate with everything else and tht used to be the case too.

I think it makes more sense to separate the drivers from the kernel because it makes the system more dynamic. NT has a separate driver files for it's file system and other stuff. It all boils down to the old microkernel vs monoliuthic system debate: http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/obsolete/msg00000.html
And just for the record: Linux is far form obsolete, this isn't my department either and NT is in no way better than Linux!

I don't really want Windows but I use it for the software that won't run on Linux and if it did I would just use Linux. Maybe then more people like me would use Linux thus giving the the company who writes the software (or a member of the Linux community) more motivation to write a Linux version.

Ultimately more Linux users would make much Linux better and if Linux needs to interoperate with Windows really well to achieve this then so be it.

Aloone_Jonez:
Oh and soffy to double post but shouldn't this be moved to the Linux section?

MrX:


Mr X
was that too useless?

Calum:
Jones, you make a fair point but linux development, as we said already, isn't motivated by market share. microsoft included wordperfect translation in msword purely to snag all the wordperfect users, run wordperfect into obsolescence and gain a monopoly in the word processing arena, this was motivated by a desire for more profit and less competition. linux does not compete with anything, it's a hobby project. it just so happens that the model by which it is put togethr (extensive peer review, the same way scientific theories get refined, in fact) is incredibly good, and as a result many companies and organisations have sprung up, that market operating systems based on linux to the public. if anybody is supposed to care about gaining a userbase, it should be red hat (who have actually thrown in the home-user towel and now only deal with big businesses), SUSE, Mandrake, Turbolinux (again, niche market, japanese speaking businesses this time) and so on and so on. Those companies might have it in their interest to do some work along these lines and contribute to the kernel, but at the end of the day it's Linus Torvalds and his "lieutenants" who have the final say over what goes in and what stays out. ALSO, many companies are reluctant to contribute their work because they know that all submissions for inclusion in the linux kernel have to be released under the GPL, so sour grapes often stops them from even putting in the effort.

At the end of it, linux is a hobby project, we as users are lucky it has gone this far, and the companies who market linux are lucky too, since they have much less control over how it goes than they would probably like (if they did have more control, i think linux would just be another microsoft windows, expensive, buggy bloatware).

It's just a different point of view. Perhaps i could suggest that you get an apple macintosh? :-D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page