bpreece1@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John D. <jdii1215@comcast.net>
> To: slug@nks.net <slug@nks.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [SLUG] Question
>
> >diego henao wrote:
> >>
> >> Sir, I know some things about fstab. I want you to read the email again.
> >> First at all, there are two different machines. Second, my windows xp is
> >> not running in fat, it is running in NTFS.
> >>
> >> Thanks Diego
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: slug@lists.nks.net [mailto:slug@lists.nks.net] On Behalf Of Logan
> >> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:22 PM
> >> To: SLUG
> >> Subject: Re: [SLUG] Question
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 21:30, Diego Henao wrote:
> >> > Hello everybody. I want to ask you about something that I have not
> >> tried in
> >> > Linux. I have Redhat Linux 7.3 as a server and windows xp as a client.
> >> What I
> >> > want to do is to share some information in my xp and use this shared
> >> folders
> >> > in my server to be in my FTP, therefore people on internet, they will
> >> be able
> >> > to download whatever they need. I know it is posible in windows 2000
> >> server.
> >> >
> >> > In the other hand, I want to do this becouse my biggest hard drive is
> >> in my
> >> > windows Xp, therefore I have almost all my files in that hard disk.
> >> >
> >> > Any suggestions.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks a lot for read this
> >> >
> >> > Diego
> >>
> >> As root, make a mount point on your linux partition, such as:
> >> mkdir /msdos
> >>
> >> then,
> >>
> >> mount -t vfat /dev/hda1 (or hdawhatever your c: partition is) /msdos
> >>
> >> unless you are using SCSI drives then you would want:
> >>
> >> mount -t vfat /dev/sda1 (or hdawhatever your c: partition is) /msdos
> >>
> >> This will allow you to access your Windoze partition via Linux.
> >>
> >> To make this automatically happen you need to edit your fstab. More
> >> info is available in by typing at the linux prompt:
> >>
> >> man fstab
> >>
> >> Even more clarity to your perplexity may be resolved by browsing here:
> >> http://www.linux-mag.com/1999-10/newbies_03.html
> >>
> >> The Logan
> >> --
> >> 10:15pm up 1 day, 17:49, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.18, 0.11
> >> Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. --
> >> Mark Twain
> >> Registered Linux User 277656 ICQ 72101412
> >/msdos is FAT8 or FAT12, readable by XP, 2000, Linux, Unix, most BSDs,
> >etc. It is another way of running floppy format data on a HD.
> >
> >FAT type is FAT16, which would be my personal favorite. Right now, as
> >far as I know, NTFS 5 and up are not supported fully for WRITE ability
> >except on a formal network. The temporary kludge is to use FAT in one of
> >its variants as a partition on on a common space on the FTP server
> >(which can be either machine)-- FAT16 is used for longer file name
> >support than would older plain FAT. FAT32 (vfat) is "alpha" on some
> >kernels now in use as far as write goes, partly because the long file
> >naming is different than the Unix approach. Samba knows NT 4 journalling
> >structures reasonably well, but not so well does it do NT 5.0 or up
> >writes that the other end will not consider junk due to invalid
> >journalling info(Microsoft does not openly pub its journalling specs in
> >detail, so software dev has to feel its way in part and reverse engineer
> >in other parts). XP Pro will work on a network, except for journalling
> >info passon-- to keep date and time file data in pure sync as it travels
> >(this is the core of why both NT and 2000 got retro patched in large
> >part as journalling in NTFS developed). With FTP, this timing
> >maintainance can be an issue, so usually a commonly addressable file
> >system is used as the easiest fix-- older is more common.
> >
> >John.
>
> The one thing is though NTFS on NT. 4.0 Service Pack 4 is the same NTFS as
> 2000 and Xp Professional.
> Prior version of NTFS on Nt 4.0 SP 3 or less is the same as NTFS from NT 3x
> series.
>
> As for Fat , Fat 16 or Fat 32 there is no good security so sharing a Fat
> directory would not be a good Ideal.
> How ever Fat is much faster. Just no way to Secure it From any version of
> Windows even Nt 4.0 , 2000, or Xp Pro.
>
> That is why they also brought out Directory Services which was a take off
> from Novell. How ever to use Directory services again Nt 4.0 SP4 , 2000 or
> XP Pro on a NTFS partition only so on a Fat Partition it can do nothing for
> security on the Windows Side!
>
> I think though from what the person wanted to know is a way to share through
> the Linux side on a different machine on a different
> drive and to allow sharing through FTP to people to access files and etc.,
>
> If Samba has a problem with NTFS from 2000 and XP which he said he has then
> even if he had NTFS on Nt 4.0 Sp4 or up to 6 it would still have the same
> problems.
Absolutely true, at least for SPs 5 and 6 (SP 4 was a kinda wierd thing,
the journalling was in flux when it was put together). Actually, even 2K
as it first came into being used NTFS 5.0, and XP used 5.1, then 2K was
retropatched to truer compatibility with 5.1. yes, there are lots of
similarities to Novell here, as those NT tree Windows's tended to eb
partially written to be compatible with Novell both as to file
transferring and as to gross overall security structure while not purely
using the same cores.
That was why I was saying that not to use an NTFS partition was correct
as well as the issues I brought up. And you are right, that does mean he
needs to set up the share on the Linux box using a file system common to
Linux and Windows of all types as the most common ground setup. And I
would say sftp or ssh logins into the Linux box, not pure ftp.
John.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 13:00:48 EDT