Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?
From: Rick Moen (rick_at_linuxmafia.com)
Date: 09/29/05
- Next message: Enrique Perez-Terron: "Re: Getting signal 15 after boot"
- Previous message: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- In reply to: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- Next in thread: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- Reply: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:05:41 -0400
szcs@abuse.co.uk wrote:
> BTW, ntfsmount from the latest ntfsprogs CVS supports file and
> directory creation, modification, removal, rename, hard links, etc. It
> needs FUSE in the kernel and it works quite fine for me!
Hooray! Szabolcs, does I correctly infer that "modification" includes
writes that change file sizes?
-- Cheers, Rick Moen Support your local medical examiner: Die strangely. rick@linuxmafia.com
- Next message: Enrique Perez-Terron: "Re: Getting signal 15 after boot"
- Previous message: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- In reply to: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- Next in thread: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- Reply: szcs_at_abuse.co.uk: "Re: Why is NTFS writing recommended against?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|