FAT32 vs NTFS, can Linux be used under NTFS?

I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
under NTFS. One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32. I now have a hdd
of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
huge deterrent.

But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?

RodMcKay wrote:





Linux is NOT installed on either Fat32 or NTFS

It's got it's own file system and is typically installed on the ext3
file system.

In the past, Linux did not have write support for NTFS


but most (or all) recent Linux distributions have full read/write access
to NTFS

Em Quinta 12 Novembro 2009 12:09, RodMcKay escreveu:


linux has it's own filesystems, ext3, ext4, xfs, reiserfs, etc... for proper
installation

RodMcKay wrote:


Linux can read and write to partitions formatted with NTFS, so you
would not lose access to your data. Linux installs onto a separate
partition (or separate hard drive) that is formatted with a Linux
file system like EXT3 that supports additional file attributes and
permissions Linux needs and Windows hath not.

Some of your Windows programs might work using Wine on Linux, but
don't count on it. Many, many Linux apps available to replace them.

Learning curve? You betcha! Well worth it for me.

Bryce

philo <philo@privacy.net> writes:







Linux can be installed on Fat32-- not sure about ntfs, but it is a bad idea. No
support for file permissions or ownership. No support for large files. Bad idea.
As this response says, use one of the Linux file systems. ext3, reisner, xfs,....
for linux. You install linux on its own partition formatted for its own
filesystem

Unruh wrote:


Well... that depends entirely on the implementation. Certainly Linux
shouldn't be installed on FAT32 on a PC you intend to run as a PC. But even
Linux people seem to often forget that Linux isn't a PC OS. There are many
implementations, for various non PC platforms, where installing Linux with
a FAT32 filesystem is perfectly reasonable.

--
"All right, all right, if it will make you happy, I will overthrow society."
Â* - Philip J. Fry

RodMcKay wrote:

Even if there are Linux distributions that allows to be installed beside
microsoft on an vfat/ntfs file system, it's far better to run Linux on one of
the many Linux or Unix file systems as these are better fir for multi user
environments and are faster than those offered from microsoft, and don't
suffer from the fragmentation issues.



The vfat file size limitation is only for your microsoft files that you have
stored on a vfat media, you can always copy those over to a real file system
like jfs, xfs.

When it comes to learning curves, if you know how to operate a computer mouse,
move the pointer on the screen over images (we call those icons) and then
click on the left mouse button, then you know everything you need to know to
be able to do most tasks, if you want to be as cool as all the microsoft
hackers who makes register hacking, then you can spend as much time to learn
how to use the Linux console (sure it takes far less time and easier to learn
than hacking microsoft registers).

When it comes to your games, you can do as Bryce suggest and use a microsoft
windows api for Linux like wine, crossover office or cedega, if thats not
enough to run all your applications, then you have the possibility to use
viritualization (if you have 64bit CPU with virtualization support) and run
microsoft in almost native speed in a window on your Linux machine. If you
just have an older intel 64 bit or a 32bit CPU, then you can use an emulator
like win4lin.



Thats nothing, I have a 3TB slice for my files, and no, I don't own a 3T hard
drive nor are they RAID:ed.



Maybe you used bing instead of google and never realized that, the information
can easily be found at google.


--

//Aho

On 2009-11-12, RodMcKay <NoJunkMail@No.com> wrote:

By now, you have a good number of answers allready.

But I'd like to take away some confusion you seem to have about size limits.

First, a word on installing Linux: do it on an Linux-type partition, such as
ext3, ext4, (not)ReiserFS, .... :-)


Now. Don't confuse your drive size with your partition size. You can easily
set up Linux on a smaller partition of your 200 GB drive. Let's you use 20
GB for a Linux test partition. Keep the rest of the drive in FAT or NTFS for
your data. Both Windows and Linux will be able to access that data.

As Windows doens't "see" an ext3 partition, your Linux partition won't even
show in Windows.

You mension the size of your drives, and I don't really see why. Do you
consider you need to use NTFS because of those sizes? Wrong.

It's true that when you format a drive with Windows, it will only allow NTFS
for drives of such a size. But that's an artificial limit. I have a 300 GB
extrenal drive formatted in FAT32 which both Windows and Linux can use. I
did have to use Linux to format it, since MS decided that drive large than
20 GB _should_ be formatted with NTFS.

The absolute max _partition size_ is of course lower for FAT32 than for
NTFS, but that limit is well over 500 GB.



--
Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked
something.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:


Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
can use FAT32.

Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
VFAT) partition.

--
/\/\aurice
(Retired in Surrey, UK) Registered Linux User #487649
Linux Mandriva 2009.1 32-bit PowerPack (i686 kernel)
KDE 4.2.4 Virtualbox 3.0.4 Firefox 3.0.15
(Replace "nomail.afraid" by "bcs" to reply by email)

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
<maurice@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:


Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
(?).

Anyway, now that the size issue has proven to be something I might
have seriously misunderstood, the rest is just a question of figuring
out how to get around.

I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
WordPerfect I believe already has a Linux flavour so no worries there.
Agent may have a Linux equivalent in Pan; Outlook may have Evolution.
Don't know about Filemaker Pro database; since it comes from the Mac
OS system, perhaps they're already into Linux, too. And don't know if
I'll find something as easy to use as DVD Shrink for DVD ripping ...
<sigh> Long work ahead. And that's just scratching the surface ...
<g>

Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.

_Anything_, practically, to get away from Window$. D