Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:13 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
That's a very reasonable attitude. What disturbs me about it is not
that Linux perhaps cannot do what I want so much as it is that everyone
at the time told me I was hallucinating, and that Linux had perfect
read access. But I tried multiple distros on an NTFS partition, and
all of them had problems reading that partition, which worked perfectly
with Windows NT. The file names which got screwed up were different
each time I tried the copy, even without changing the distro.
Did you use any with the 'captive' driver approach?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_NTFS
Yes, I tried the "captive" driver approach, though not with
the system I needed to get the information from. That was a
real NT system, but NT had been purged from it.
I found that I had problems reading my XP disc using the "captive"
approach. I don't recall what they were. Perhaps install problems. It's
difficult to understand how the "captive" approach could fail,
unless it was due to install problems, because after all it's
MicroSoft's own code. But that was even before I tried to recover
the data on the other machine, and my memory of that is hazy
now. My memory of the failure using straight Linux mounts
without "captive" MicroSoft code is not hazy, since I really
wanted to get that data, and was not just fooling around
like I was with my own system earlier.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
