Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2008,14:51)|
|"More reliable than FAT" isn't much of a recommendation, you know. I haven't noticed MS filesystems really competing with various filesystems developed for Unix. For that matter, any filesystem has the difficulty of being implemented on hardware, so I don't get to feeling good about it until there's multiple redundant copies involved across media, whatever the filesystem employed turns out to be.|
"Network it" doesn't do much in a dual-boot laptop situation, where the host OS is not the one currently running. If I cannot read and write a common filesystem from my multiple OSs without fear that simply doing so will lose me a bunch of data, that filesystem will not be my choice for a data partition, despite the file size and journaling issues.
ETA: Of course, maybe I've been missing an approach to reliable multi-OS access for NTFS, in which case I am all ears.
NTFS and the "various filesystems for UNIX" use the exact same method for keeping the filesystem consistent, so their reliability should be about the same.
And what you want is http://www.ntfs-3g.org/
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris