I think this is the biggest omission (OK maybe not), but I think Redhat needs to configure itself to automatically mount FAT partitions without requiring the user do that. In fact, it should mount any partitions it recognizes automatically, and give them names in some determined way. This could always be changed in fstab. It really irritates that after installing Redhat 9, I have to mount the partitions manually. I know I can do it during install, but its still too damn hard.
Having the partitions mounted as read/write should be ok too, I really want to write to the windows partitions as a user, no dropping to root for that.
And a graphical client to set up partitions wouldn't hurt either. And neither would one for ftp. I know it might compromise security, but I kind of have been spoiled by Warftp on Windows, and I would like a frontend for vsftpd to do that.
Maynard Kuona wrote:
I think this is the biggest omission (OK maybe not), but I think Redhat needs to configure itself to automatically mount FAT partitions without requiring the user do that.
I think this may have more to do with FAT32 support being technically in *Alpha* stage (or at least that was the warning I saw before installing rhgb) ... though I have not heard of problems with FAT32.
In fact, it should mount any partitions it recognizes automatically, and give them names in some determined way.
That may stir up some controversy... especially if it any corruption of data occurred as a result.
This could always be changed in fstab. It really irritates that after installing Redhat 9, I have to mount the partitions manually. I know I can do it during install, but its still too damn hard.
I think that is the hard part... ease of use, or ensuring other filesystems will stay safe.
And a graphical client to set up partitions wouldn't hurt either.
Agreed... isn't there a way we could run disk druid post install to replace using fdisk and mkfs?.. and have it push changes to the fstab?
-Chris
But Mandrake and others do it, so it must be relative harmless because I do not see complaints about it. Its a easy enough to do it in fstab, but I think it should be available on install. I thought anyoe could do VFAT. I mean, mkfs can make FAT partitions. I do not use NTFS because I want my other partitions to be available under Linux.
On a side note, is there any such thing as ext3 drivers for windows so I could maybe access these partitions under Windows.
On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 04:29, Chris Hillman wrote:
Maynard Kuona wrote:
I think this is the biggest omission (OK maybe not), but I think Redhat needs to configure itself to automatically mount FAT partitions without requiring the user do that.
I think this may have more to do with FAT32 support being technically in *Alpha* stage (or at least that was the warning I saw before installing rhgb) ... though I have not heard of problems with FAT32.
In fact, it should mount any partitions it recognizes automatically, and give them names in some determined way.
That may stir up some controversy... especially if it any corruption of data occurred as a result.
This could always be changed in fstab. It really irritates that after installing Redhat 9, I have to mount the partitions manually. I know I can do it during install, but its still too damn hard.
I think that is the hard part... ease of use, or ensuring other filesystems will stay safe.
And a graphical client to set up partitions wouldn't hurt either.
Agreed... isn't there a way we could run disk druid post install to replace using fdisk and mkfs?.. and have it push changes to the fstab?
-Chris
-- Rhl-beta-list mailing list Rhl-beta-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-beta-list
Maynard Kuona wrote:
But Mandrake and others do it,
install windows after linux, you will have the nt-boot-loader in your mbr.
should redhat follow this but_others_do_it - example too ?
so it must be relative harmless
sorry, i feel really good with the redhat-way,
do you know the average windows-user skills and argumentation ? @home-user or @work-user or @work-admin
eg.
a few weeks agoo @home-user
win-user> can you please install linux on my pc ?
me> sure, dual-boot with existing w2k_fat16 me> but first without access on your win-partition!
a few days later
win-user> since you have installed rhl win-user> the soundcard is damaged! win-user> and this win-program crashes every time! win-user> and this win-problem, and this ...
me> oops, me> i don´t believe me> sound in linux, works me> in windows, no sound - 1 minute later me> do you know the button "mute" ? me> the evaluation-time for this program is exceeded ! me> and ...
win-user> I have done NOTHING! this was LINUX! win-user> LINUX must have changed something on MY WINDOWS-PARTITION! win-user> ...!
me> per default rhl is not able to read/write your win-partition me> this cannot be the reason.
win-users-son> this sound-problem is since 1/2 year, win-users-son> dad bought new speakers, without success :-) win-users-son> the other problems are not new :-) win-users-son> i like linux :-)
because I do not see complaints about it. Its a easy enough to do it in fstab, but I think it should be available on install. I thought anyoe could do VFAT. I mean, mkfs can make FAT partitions. I do not use NTFS because I want my other partitions to be available under Linux.
On a side note, is there any such thing as ext3 drivers for windows so I could maybe access these partitions under Windows.
not tested, but i have really no need for it
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/ext2ifs.htm
you can search google
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 07:50 am, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
should redhat follow this but_others_do_it - example too ?
so it must be relative harmless
sorry, i feel really good with the redhat-way,
I think the point Maynard was making was that the danger might just be over-exaggerated. Red Hat can do it whatever way they see fit, but users like to hear a valid reason and the "Alpha/danger" reason does not appear valid in the face of other practices without some additional substantiation.
HoytDuff wrote:
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 07:50 am, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
should redhat follow this but_others_do_it - example too ?
so it must be relative harmless
sorry, i feel really good with the redhat-way,
I think the point Maynard was making was that the danger might just be over-exaggerated. Red Hat can do it whatever way they see fit, but users like to hear a valid reason and the "Alpha/danger" reason does not appear valid in the face of other practices without some additional substantiation.
i am no lawyer and my panic is over-exaggerated too.
what happens if i install redhat linux as dual_boot eg. in a little productive environment. rhl recognice all fat* (ntfs4, ntfs5, ntfs5.1, ...) partitions and mount it automacillay and i forget to disable this.
normaly there are no problems! can you take a look in the future and can you tell me what ms will do with the next servicepack ?
Maynard: "so it must be relative harmless"
but what happens if the whole fat-partitions including c:\windows are suddenly damaged while you have read-access with linux on this WS. from one day to the other, propably after an windows-update or redhat-update ?
than i can only hope that the backup for this WS (if there is one) is ok and nobody will money back for the none productive time.
my points are: a user who is not able to mount his fat* or ntfs* - partition should wait until he know how to do this.
the default should be: windows has only *local* access on own fs linux has only *local* access on own fs
I did not advocate this be done for NTFS. Only for FAT file system. I really doubt Microsoft is doing much development work on this anymore so I do expect it to be rather unchanging.
I know NTFS is really hard, and even when I had an NTFS partition, I did not really use it under Linux.
As I had said earlier, the reason is I, and probably other people need to use the documents between Windows and Linux. If there was a good IFS driver for ext2/3 under Windows, I would convert to that on my other hard drive. But there isn't.
I do not expect computers to work flawlessly, but the risk of filesystem corruption does seem to be overstated. It does not have to be the default, but it could be an option, with a big red warning label is someone felt so inclined to mount FAT partitions. I think NTFS should be left alone.
-----Original Message----- From: rhl-beta-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:rhl-beta-list-admin@redhat.com] On Behalf Of shrek-m@gmx.de Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:16 PM To: rhl-beta-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Mount Other filesystems
HoytDuff wrote:
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 07:50 am, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
should redhat follow this but_others_do_it - example too ?
so it must be relative harmless
sorry, i feel really good with the redhat-way,
I think the point Maynard was making was that the danger might just be over-exaggerated. Red Hat can do it whatever way they see fit, but
users like
to hear a valid reason and the "Alpha/danger" reason does not appear
valid in
the face of other practices without some additional substantiation.
i am no lawyer and my panic is over-exaggerated too.
what happens if i install redhat linux as dual_boot eg. in a little productive environment. rhl recognice all fat* (ntfs4, ntfs5, ntfs5.1, ...) partitions and mount
it automacillay and i forget to disable this.
normaly there are no problems! can you take a look in the future and can you tell me what ms will do with the next servicepack ?
Maynard: "so it must be relative harmless"
but what happens if the whole fat-partitions including c:\windows are suddenly damaged while you have read-access with linux on this WS. from one day to the other, propably after an windows-update or redhat-update ?
than i can only hope that the backup for this WS (if there is one) is ok
and nobody will money back for the none productive time.
my points are: a user who is not able to mount his fat* or ntfs* - partition should wait until he know how to do this.
the default should be: windows has only *local* access on own fs linux has only *local* access on own fs