Any plans for Linux <=> NT file interoperability?

Any plans for Linux <=> NT file interoperability?

Post by Michael C. Vergall » Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:00:00




>Hi, all,

>I've just had some interesting conversations with Donnie Barnes at Red

>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.

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.  
<cut rant about RedHat>
Quote:>about interoperating from the NT side?

No ... Because that would require access to the NT source code to implement
what you want...
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.

Michael.  

Quote:>--
>(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
 
 
 

Any plans for Linux <=> NT file interoperability?

Post by John Wiltshi » Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:00:00



Hayduke) wrote in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:

>Hi, all,

>I've just had some interesting conversations with Donnie Barnes at Red

>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.  

>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.

>(Barnes' comment from the Red Hat FAQ: "...you don't ``need'' DOS on
>your machine anyway".  In other words: "Mr. Customer, your needs are
>silly.")

>The lack of file-system interoperability will be a serious impediment
>to corporate acceptance of Linux, in departments that have been
>ordered to run NT.  Until the Linux community gets serious about
>interoperability from an NT-centered viewpoint, Linux will always be a
>follower, a toy, a step behind the times.

>My question: Is the general Linux community ever going to get serious
>about interoperating from the NT side?

>It's pretty certain that Red Hat isn't.  I hope that someone else is.

There is an NTFS file system driver available for Linux AFAIK.  It
would certainly be possible to have the Linux system files on a Linux
partition for booting and mount the NTFS partition as the user's home
directories - after all there is little point in sharing executables.

On the other hand, Microsoft has only recently released their file
system driver specs (at the cost of three souls of close relatives) so
the Linux community has hardly had the time (or the inclination) to
develop the Linux file system driver for NT!!

John Wiltshire

 
 
 

Any plans for Linux <=> NT file interoperability?

Post by John Wiltshi » Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:00:00



(Michael C. Vergallen) wrote in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:


>>Hi, all,

>>I've just had some interesting conversations with Donnie Barnes at Red

>>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.
>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.  

This makes no sense:  First you say it can't happen because no one
knows how NTFS works and then you say it has already happened because
of the NTFS driver for Linux...

The truth is that the NTFS specs are out there (whether official or
not) as NTFSDOS and the Linux NTFS driver clearly show.  Whether they
support the fault tolerant sets is another question...

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...

No you don't.  NT is a modular system so all you need is the interface
specifications to the file system drivers (which has been released
btw).

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.

Why the mad rush to look at source when an interface spec is much
cleaner and produces far more modular systems?

John Wiltshire

 
 
 

Any plans for Linux <=> NT file interoperability?

Post by Gene Wilbur » Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:00:00



> 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.

IMO, partitioning systems is a waste of time and resources, period. Set
up one machine for NT and another for Linux and you can get excellent
interoperability.  Put 'em side by side and use both and pretty soon
you'll be wondering if NT is really worth the price of admission :)

Gene

 
 
 

Any plans for Linux <=> NT file interoperability?

Post by Keith E. Moo » Thu, 03 Apr 1997 04:00:00


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-------*/

 
 
 

Any plans for Linux <=> NT file interoperability?

Post by Michael Howa » Fri, 04 Apr 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>  UMSDOS does not equal interoperability, smbfs, vfat, ntfs, ncpfs,
>msdos(fs) and hpfs do.  UMSDOS was a kludge.  And I have yet to

is there some FAQ about different filesystems?   I thought NTFS was
the greatest thing until I read this.
-------------------

PC/Mac technical support
Tutoring and english/computerese translation/interpreting
Humanist world revolutionary
 
 
 

1. <><><> MOUNTING EXTENDED PARTITION <><><>

I have a 10 GB UDMA IDE drive formatted with Windows.  The first partition
is FAT32, and the second is NTFS.  I can successfully mount the first, but
not the second.  Any ideas?

Suse 7.2 on i86
the drive is mounted on /dev/hdc, and I CAN see hda1, but not hda2

2. Where Can I Download Netscape for Linux?

3. Wanted: <><><> Unix Specialist <><><>

4. What is required to do SET transactions ?

5. LILO help <><><><><><>

6. How do you use vmstat output?

7. *{<><>}*Linux*Screen*Difficulties*{<><>}*

8. Upgrading slackware with CND?

9. (<><>)*Linux*Screen*Difficulties*(<><>)

10. Samba problem: WinXP <-> ADSL <-> Internet <-> Cable <-> Linux

11. {<><>}*Linux*Screen*Difficulties*{<><>}

12. >>> NT remote contol via SUN <<<

13. >>>HELP LINUX INSTALL <<<<