FAT32 or NTFS

[cheshire057]

i know NTFS is good for windows but is it the same for linux? or is FAT32 better for linux?

[xandrosuser]

I'm not a Linux expert but you should use one of the many Linux file systems. NTFS and FAT 32 are for windows only but can be overwritten by Linux. However most Linux OS's can format a partition in NTFS and FAT 32 which can be useful on a windows network.

[saikee]

I would say a Fat32 partition can be read and written by either Windows or Linux any time without loading a driver. Fat32 has a limit that no single file cannot be larger than 4Gb.

NTFS partition can be read by all Linux but to write on it reliably the current practice is to load the ntfs-3g driver.

[shadebug]

unless you're working a lot with windows, your best bet would be to use one of the more traditional linux file systems, like ext3.

If you are using windows a lot then make a shared partition formatted to ntfs (because it's better than fat32 by far) and make sure you have the ntfs 3-g driver installed, that way windows can see the partition without too much effort

[JohnT]

unless you're working a lot with windows, your best bet would be to use one of the more traditional linux file systems, like ext3.

If you are using windows a lot then make a shared partition formatted to ntfs (because it's better than fat32 by far) and make sure you have the ntfs 3-g driver installed, that way windows can see the partition without too much effort

Yes we don't windows to exert anymore effort than necessary.:p

[infiniphunk]

I take it you want a partition that both Windows and linux will be able to write to? What is the specific purpose of the partition?

[shadebug]

Yes we don't windows to exert anymore effort than necessary.:p

it's all that excess weight, it could have itself a heart attack if it's not careful

[cheshire057]

well i wanted to format it for linux but if i ever had to take the hard drive out and put it in my windows computer i wanted it to be able to be recognize, i would use fat32 but i would prolly have files bigger then 2gig so i ntfs is my best bet, or else if i don't care about it being seen my windows ever then ill just use ext3. :) but thank you guys for your help.

[shadebug]

yeah, with linux partitions you have your basic filesystem which is ext2. Ext3 is a bit quicker and fancier. Those two will work in any linux machine. The other ones like reiser or xfs should work in most nixes but they're not so widespread and unless you're doing something a bit interesting ext3 should suit you fine.
Of course, I'm no expert on these things, but there's no law against the blind leading the blind

[cheshire057]

haha yes that is true. thank you. :)

[JohnT]

Ext3 is a bit quicker and fancier.
As in its got these handmade blocks by old world artisans with precision tools in a little shop in the alps of Andorra. Very costly.:cool:

[infiniphunk]

I don't know that I would EVER want to try installing linux onto a partition formatted as NTFS or FAT. Why would you want to do that??????

OFFTOPIC:

I used to use ext3, but no longer, now its usually reiserfs. Which is better?

[JohnT]

I don't know that I would EVER want to try installing linux onto a partition formatted as NTFS or FAT. Why would you want to do that??????

OFFTOPIC:

I used to use ext3, but no longer, now its usually reiserfs. Which is better?

1.Because it would overwrite any Windows install.
2.My experience with reiserfs has not been the best...I find ext3 much easier to work with and repair.

[infiniphunk]

No, what I meant was, why would you want to install linux on a partition formatted as NTFS or FAT32? Is it even possible??

[JohnT]

Some people do it as a convenience.
Is it even possible??...Zipslack,PuppyLinux to name two.

[saikee]

I believe the Linux inside a Windows partition is a special version of the Live CD.

The entire filing system is still in Linux but compressed into a single file so that it can be stored in any partition. There are a few essential files too that can be used to assist the booting of the big compressed file.

When the compressed file is booted the kernel will expand it into a full Linux filing system held in the ram to operate as a normal Linux. On exit it is like a hotdog store. Everything is packed into a compressed file again and there will be no trace of an operating system.

This type of Live CD can be placed inside a Windows partition.

A normal full size Linux always resides in a partition formatted in Ext3 or Resierfs. At least that is the normal practice.

[bwkaz]

You can't do file permissions on vfat or ntfs, so most of the security of Linux would be completely destroyed if it got installed (directly) onto a vfat or ntfs partition. (NTFS in windows has permissions, but its ACLs don't map to anything in Linux, so ntfs gets treated like it can't do permissions.)

However, if the installation was onto a single file in the vfat/ntfs partition, then that file would actually contain a real Linux FS structure (e.g. ext3/reiserfs/whatever), which would support permissions, so it'd be OK. :)

[paj12]

However, if the installation was onto a single file in the vfat/ntfs partition, then that file would actually contain a real Linux FS structure (e.g. ext3/reiserfs/whatever), which would support permissions, so it'd be OK.
Is this the approach behind the old UMSDOS file system, or is that something totally different? I seem to remember you could install a Linux system to a FAT16 volume using UMSDOS to preserve the file permissions.

[Exodus2001]

You can't use NTFS or FAT32 for / in Linux. They don't support unix device nodes or symbolic links. You can't get the kernel to open the first console without /dev/console so that makes it dead in the water right there. Imagine trying to use Linux without proper symbolic links.

[bwkaz]

Is this the approach behind the old UMSDOS file system, or is that something totally different? I've never used UMSDOS, but from your description, I suspect that this probably is the same approach. :)