Quote:
|
If Linux is to survive then it needs to appreciate that that people _must_ use XP for all the reasons that are well documented elsewhere.
|
Linux needs windows to survive, that's funny!
You don't get it. It's *window* that can't natively read anything else that their filesystem, its *not a linux problem*
Have a look at linux capabilities:
http://www.linux-m32r.org/lxr/http/s...n/filesystems/
I wasn't able to find the same document on micro$oft web site..
Go on msdn forum and tell them that other filesystem exist. Tell them that they could code a driver for, say, ext2.
Could it be that they are unable to code it?
Or do you think its because of STRATEGICAL and MARKETING reasons?
You choose
Meanwhile, they are doing something else:
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+...3-6025447.html
Anyway I don't want to enter in the big mega thread windows vs linux, that's a waste of time. After 20 years next to computers, I have made up my mind
Use FAT for exchanging. I still don't see any reason for modifying critical permissions and stuff from window...
I just came accross this interesting link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
Quote:
|
Windows 2000 and Windows XP can read and write to FAT32 filesystems of any size, but the format program on these platforms can only create FAT32 filesystems up to 32 GB. Thompson and Thompson (2003) write[5] that “Bizarrely, Microsoft states that this behavior is by design.” Microsoft's knowledge base article 184006[4] indeed confirms the limitation and the by design statement, but gives no rationale or explanation. Peter Norton's opinion[6] is that “Microsoft has intentionally crippled the FAT32 file system.”
|
