[Discuss] Follow up linux version FAT32

[David Lee]

Hi Stephen
Unfortunately, neither eloquence nor oratory is my forte.

When ever I set up my system, I always do a clean install of windows and
linux. So hopefully, all my mount points and partitions are recognized.

My knowledge of mount points and mounting partitions is still a bit
primitive, even after  7 or 8 years.

Anyway, I loaded xp first, then partitioned all the rest with linux
(even a 120g partition fat32).
Windows saw the D drive, linux saw the rest, and they're all mounted in
the right places :)
I didn't know about ext being used in windows. I'll check it out. Thank
you.

David

And yes it did take about 2 hours.


On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 10:42 -0800, stephen hawkes wrote:
> Unfotuneatly it probably will take that long. I read through this thread 
> and still am not sure I understand it, but if you want a partition that 
> can be used by both windows and linux you can still use ext2/3 (there is 
> a windows driver). I have no idea of the performance under windows 
> though, I just know that it seems to work fine and is quick enough for 
> my meager uses.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> David Lee wrote:
> > Thanks David
> >
> > That makes a whole lotta sense.
> >
> > Well I got 3 hours to bung on a small XP system before the missus gets 'ome.
> > (probably take that long)!
> >
> > David
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Bronaugh" <dbronaugh at linuxboxen.org>
> > To: <discuss at vlug.org>
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 9:51 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] linux version FAT32
> >
> >
> >   
> >> David Lee wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Good morning.
> >>>
> >>> I'm trying to re-install my Ubuntu Linux distro after installing a new
> >>>       
> > drive.
> >   
> >>> Master drive 120 g
> >>> Slave (new) 300 g
> >>>
> >>> After 3 months windows free, it was suggested I "put XP back on".
> >>> Windows doesn't give me the option of formatting in fat32, unless I
> >>>       
> > create partitions less than 40g (when installing)
> >   
> >>> I don't mind C being ntfs.60 g, 60 g linux on master
> >>>
> >>> Now, prevailing wisdom dictates that one should format partitions in
> >>>       
> > their own systems.
> >   
> >> I'm not sure *whose* wisdom this is, because so far as I can tell, it's
> >> wrong. You can format fat32 in Linux just fine, and unlike XP, it won't
> >> impose arbitrary limits to try and make you switch to NTFS...
> >>
> >> Also, have you considered running Windows under VMWare on Linux, thereby
> >> avoiding this whole mess?
> >>     
> >>> So my question is: why have fat32 format option available in linux?
> >>>
> >>>       
> >> This question only makes sense if you remove the preceding statement
> >> regarding prevailing wisdom; otherwise it's a rhetorical question.
> >>
> >> Assuming the preceding statement to be false, it's fairly obvious; some
> >> people want to have fat32 partitions accessible by Windows created from
> >> Linux, not Windows, because either they hate Windows with a fiery
> >> burning passion, or they simply don't have it available.
> >>     
> >>> The 300 g drive can be formatted (100g vfat---rest Ubuntu) by linux, but
> >>>       
> > would I have any problems sharing this partition with windows?
> >   
> >> If it's formatted as VFAT/FAT32, you're not going to have problems
> >> REGARDLESS of what operating system you format it in.
> >>
> >> David
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at vlug.org
> >> http://ladybug.vlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>     
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at vlug.org
> > http://ladybug.vlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at vlug.org
> http://ladybug.vlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss