Craig White: >>> Thus the concept of 'users' and 'mapping', though intriguing, would be >>> rather pointless for an NTFS filesystem mounted by ntfs-3g Tim: >> Nup, I'd say it's just as valid as the user ownership in my ext3 /home >> partition. >> >> I could well have three people using a Linux box, and the same three >> people using Windows, and wanting to each own their own files, all of >> the time, no matter where stored. John Summerfield: > However much you wish it, I don't think it would even work for two > Windows systems on the same computer. That would be harder than Windows sharing with Linux, at least we can make Linux do what we want it to. Windows philosophy is that it won't let you customise things exactly how you want it, you have to fit in with how it wants to do things. > For starters, Windows expects to be installed to a primary partition. > This protects one Windows system from another installed on the same drive. I've broken that rule before, but I can't remember which version of Windows. >> Whether ntfs-3g can manage that is another matter, but there's >> definitely good reasons to want seamless different user ownership across >> different file systems. > A problem is whether user "tim" in one context is the same as "tim" in > another. Of course. User mapping would have to be manual, or at least tweaked after an automatic audit. As you say, you might have two different Tims on a system, or differing usernames on the two OSs. -- [tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr 2.6.23.1-10.fc7 i686 i386 Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7. Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
