Linux NTFS Write Support is now avaliable
 

http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/

I'm not sure if anybody has heard about this project, but they've had a complete success in the ability to read, write, modify, etc NTFS Filesystems through Linux and other free operating systems.

I myself have been waiting for this feature for quite some time, and now thats its here, I can just about switch over full time :D
I'm sure this is a strong sway for a lot of people too.

Just thought I'd let everybody know :)

When I was reading this on /. I saw a remark about only being able to rewrite the same file size and cases where this would not work with a small file.
Is this correct? Sounds more like a "possibility" than a "done deal".

I haven't tested this out myself yet so I can't confirm this. :)

Linux NTFS write support has been here for ages.
It's even included in the vanilla 2.6 kernel. It's rather risky and experimental, but it's been here for a long while. That driver is a small improvement, and everyone who uses it is techinally breaking the law. I don't think it's legal to distribute their dll. So no corporate use of it.

Personally, I don't count write support that is experimental and comes with a "probabable file corruption" warning as "been there for ages".
As far as "techinally breaking the law", if one has a valid Windows license, is that the case?

They are saying that it is safe to use, with no file loss, etc whereas the current ones are considered "Experimental". I'd hardly say this has been out for ages when you have the risk of losing all files on that HDD with NTFS. This one apparently doesn't have this problem, so really no, it hasn't been out for ages.

Sorry, Grim Reaper. I know the captive NTFS is new, and am keeping an eye on the news about it like you. My previous post was directed to teval's post which seems to refer to the fact that Linux has neen able to access Window's NTFS partitions for a long time, but not safely.
I like to jump on these posts, sometimes, so more than one POV is included.

heh, yeah my post was in regards to teval's reply also... not yours =)