Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NTFS-3G Merges With NTFSprogs, Plus New Version

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • deanjo
    replied
    It was a big enough pain in the ass that it caused me to switch back to SuSE way back then and stay with SuSE.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Red Hat has its reason to avoid shipping it. However EPEL project does include ntfs-3g and it is quite a popular repository

    Learn more about Fedora Linux, the Fedora Project & the Fedora Community.


    I wouldn't use EL without it.
    Truthfully don't care what ever the reason was. It was still a pain in the ass.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Not really, that was the days before even Fedora existed and Red Hat wasn't just an enterprise solution.
    Red Hat has its reason to avoid shipping it. However EPEL project does include ntfs-3g and it is quite a popular repository

    Learn more about Fedora Linux, the Fedora Project & the Fedora Community.


    I wouldn't use EL without it.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    I also don't miss having to manually compile and install alsa support from those days.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Yeah, but be honest, if you are using Red Hat you don't need NTFS support because you're migrating from UNIX.
    Not really, that was the days before even Fedora existed and Red Hat wasn't just an enterprise solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Same here, oh how I used to hate having to install a stupid extra external module in Redhat just to get even read support of NTFS.
    Yeah, but be honest, if you are using Red Hat you don't need NTFS support because you're migrating from UNIX.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
    My, that's quite a mouthful! How about ntfsprogs-3g, or nixtfs (a portmanteau of "NIX" and "ntfs"), or something else a bit shorter? :P
    They could have just called it NTFSprogs and made life for people easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • allquixotic
    replied
    Originally posted by phoronix
    ntfs-3g_ntfsprogs-2011.4.12
    My, that's quite a mouthful! How about ntfsprogs-3g, or nixtfs (a portmanteau of "NIX" and "ntfs"), or something else a bit shorter? :P

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by d2kx View Post
    Can't remember when I last thought about NTFS support. For the past years with mainstreams distributions, it just worked (TM).
    Same here, oh how I used to hate having to install a stupid extra external module in Redhat just to get even read support of NTFS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    You usally see no huge problems with older version when you just access a few files. When you copy several gigabytes of data and compare the speed then you will see definitely differences. I usually try to use current versions of ntfs-3g for Kanotix (definitely newer compared to U/D). This time the packageing seems to be more tricky, best would be if the original maintainer would update it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X