I'm responding to both posters at once, I'm not confused about who said
what ;^)
>>Hi, all,
>>was a bit surprised to learn that it didn't support UMSDOS, which I've
>>been using at home for years with no major problems.
>Yes I see ...
>>IMO, most corporate customers who use NT will not be willing to
>>partition their disks. Or to run out of space in the NT partition
>>when there's still plenty of space in the Linux partition. Or to have
>>to reboot (twice) to read Linux files while they're in NT. Or to
>>develop Linux files without any possibility that they will be backed
>>up.
UMSDOS does not equal interoperability, smbfs, vfat, ntfs, ncpfs,
msdos(fs) and hpfs do. UMSDOS was a kludge. And I have yet to
come across a company who was not willing to toss a gig drive at
Linux, even if they didn't support Linux officially. The current
ntfs is not complete becuase the office NTFS support had to be
pulled back until Gates said it was okay (which he did recently,
and released the official NTFS specs ). BTW it's a really badly
designed FS, which explains why he didn't want to release the specs.
But it does support ACLs. Yay, now he's only 15 years behind UNIX.
I Really have to ask why you are putting anything on a local drive,
I use smbfs to connect to the NT Servers at the companies I contract
for, if I were to keep anything on a local drive I would have my
contract ended immediately and never be hired again, since they
don't back up every workstation, they only backup the servers,
which covers your other point.
Quote:>There is problem there in the fact that unless M$ releases the spec's
>for NTFS. (Could be they have ) and poeple who use NT+Linux get together
>and create a application in NT to read the linux FS. it will be a problem.
>Linux allready has support for NTFS. so you can read NT files from Linux.
I do believe the released the specs now. BTW there has been an IFS for
OS/2 for the ext and ext2 File Systems for a while, becuase IBM released
the specs for their IFS's.
Quote:><cut rant about RedHat>
>>about interoperating from the NT side?
>No ... Because that would require access to the NT source code to implement
>what you want...
Actually, Microsoft still uses alot of the OS/2 IFS code. (Oh, wait
NT is the only OS written from scratch in the last 10 years - NOT!)
Quote:>>It's pretty certain that Red Hat isn't. I hope that someone else is.
>Maybe Caldera is ... but I doubt it .. And this is not that we don't want
>to but it's the fact that NT keeps all of it's code secret. So it would be
>commiting a crime to try and reingeneer NT. to get a hold of the sources.
>Aldo I've read around here that someone is working on such a monster...but
>I don't know any more about the project.
True, say what you will about Microsoft's programmers, but they
definately (sp) have the best Lawyers of ANY company.
Quote:>Michael.
>>--
>>(Email address munged to foil spamsters; to reply, paste "masticol at
>>scr dot siemens dot com).
>--
>Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
>Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
>B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
>Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
-- Keith Moore
President
KMA Computer Solutions, Inc.
--
/*----C/C++--Java--VB--Pro*C--SQL--OCI--Java--Delphi--ODBC--COBOL-----*
* When the project must be saved at all costs: *
* KMA Computer Solutions, Inc. Project Troubleshooting/Recovery *
*---------Linux---AIX---HPUX---SYSV---Novell---NT---OS/2---'95-------*/