Re: OT - Desktop Linux

In article <nLydnSu3zIj7K43ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
"$Bill" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sports Fan wrote:

Ugh, because YOU wanted to delete a file out of the blue?
File is locked, and you have to find out who is locking it.

I shouldn't need to do that if a proper file delete were in place.

You must be kidding.

You don't seem to be understanding. I just copied an executable and
ran it (put it in a sleep loop). Then I deleted the executable and
the program kept running and the executable was gone (at least from
obvious presence in the file system). I can then copy that same executable
back in and run that one and have two running, but only one executable
present. Each running executable is running from a different copy of
the orig executable - no problem. On UNIX when you delete a program,
the use count determines when it actually (physically) gets deleted.
It will disappear from the directory listing as soon as you delete it
regardless of whether it's in use or not. When the last copy of the
program that is running exits, the use count goes to 0 and the actual
(hidden) executable is physically deleted.

Do you have to trace down a file user in UNIX ? The answer is no.

Actually yes, if the file is in use.

No you don't - you can always delete a file without having to trace
usage down on UNIX - try it some time.

You delete the file and if the use count goes to 0, the file gets deleted.
Not so on broken Windoze delete.

You keep repeating this until you believe yourself.
Try deleting the Apache executable while Apache is running, for example.
You can't.

Try it instead of telling me you can't. The problem with an example
like Apache is that it uses fixed ports - so after you delete it, when
you start another copy, it will fail to start since the ports are
still in use by the running version of the executable you deleted.
You would need to HUP it instead of starting a new one.

You can still delete a file that's in use under UNIX -

Not always.

I've never encountered one that couldn't be.



regardless of whether it's in use or locked or whatever.

Incorrect.

Quit saying incorrect and go try it.

You delete a log file that is being opened by an application or a
service, you can get away with it, but you can't, I repeat, you can't
delete a file that is in use, and locked.

Try it.


I just tried it again, Apache refused to be deleted and so did other
system services executables.
Some of them are delete-able, and it really depends, just like I said,
on the way the file is being locked.


That's not a good idea, if you ask me.
Losing all the functionality, stability and security by going back.

At the time I set it up non of that was an issue.

If you have an old Windows 9x/ME computer, then use this.
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/NtfsWindows98.html

If you have Linux or other OS, almost all of them can mount NTFS shares.

I wouldn't do that, if I were you.

At the time that I set it up it made sense. I'm not worried about security
or functionality and I don't think FAT32 is going to be unstable vs NTFS,
but I could be wrong.

I'd rather install an FTP server to allow accessing the data instead of
crippling the OS.

It doesn't seem crippled to me.

How?
You just complained about it being crippled and you are missing the fact
that it is because you are running on FAT32.

I don't need most of the NTFS added
functionality - it's a single user system.


Even single user systems, NTFS is preferred, unless your hard drive is
20GB - 32GB in size.


You also lose performance, waste more space, have larger RAM footprint ,
have limited maximum files, and it is almost impossible to recover the
partition table as FAT32 doesn't have MFT.
NTFS is a journaling file system, which makes recovery possible and
FAT32 is not.

NTFS has Data Streams feature, which makes compatibility with other file
systems easier, and offers less defragmentation than FAT32, also
supports much better compression (if you are using it), and allows
encryption, and automatically fixes failing clusters on the fly.



You can read more about the comparison here.

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm
http://www.thundercloud.net/information-avenue/ntfs-vs-fat32/
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q184006/
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx


Even administrator shares are not possible when using FAT32.


Or do it the other way, share the volumes on the Windows 9X/ME computer
and copy the data from the Windows 2000/XP computer instead.

If I were doing it today I'd do it different, but like I said - I don't need
most of what you're purporting.


I still don't understand your reason for choosing FAT32 because of
compatibility and shared volume accessibility, but maybe I am missing
something.

That should be no problem, as shared volumes are accessed no matter what
file system is on them, since all file operations and things like that
are handled on the computer where the shared volume exists on.

If that volume is on the same computer, then yes, I see the reason for
staying with FAT32.


Apparently you would need NTFS for this feature (mounting a drive on
an empty folder) also.

That is correct.
Symbolic links, mount points, DFS points all need NTFS.

You can convert NTFS without data loss (although you need to backup your
data incase something went wrong before conversion), on Windows XP, and
all you need to do is click Start, Run, type CMD, and then click OK.

In the DOS window, type the following.

convert [Drive:] /FS:NTFS

As [Drive:] should be replaced with your drive letter.
If you are converting a boot partition, you will be asked if you want to
do in upon reboot, because that needs exclusive access to the partition.

Will check if that's feasable to do now - I've been considering converting
at least one partition to NTFS so I can work on some scripts that need
NTFS FSs.


Shared volumes are accessible no matter what file system you have.
The only case that would make you use FAT32 for compatibility is dual
booting from the same partition, which I strongly advise against.

But since you are considering conversion, make sure you backup your
data.
Although I never had a problem with conversion in the past, but few user
reported data loss because of hard drive failure, power failure,
OS/hardware issues, ...etc.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sorry to have to ask this.
    ... The file system on a CD is CDFS which can be read by other OS'es.. ... MVP - Windows Shell/User ... >>> dilemma of whether or not to go with NTFS or stick with FAT32. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: NTFS vs FAT32
    ... > Meaning my XP is running in NTFS, but my data is saved in FAT32 Disk D. ... to be less severe than on a FAT32 file system. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Sorry to have to ask this.
    ... And now I'm faced with the old dilemma of whether or not to go with NTFS or stick with FAT32. ... Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP ... Instead, because WinXP is descended from the WinNT/2K OS family, it has a command line utility called "Chkdsk," which performs much better. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: XP Pro (Fat32 vs. NTFS) Is it easier/harder/no difference to upgrade motherboard/video card with
    ... XP uses NTFS and FAT32. ... Now if I under stand what you said you have one of each file system? ... Because you are running XP SP2 you need a slipstremed CD containing SP2 ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Boot.ini question
    ... its just an executable that is file system aware. ... plenty of executables do that. ... this software to provide them with various common core services. ... control nor provides any services for the running applications is a pretty ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)