[SOLVED] Easy file sharing question

[linuxforever]

Yes, good saying gogalthorp, it's always windows that stinks (lol)!
Windows is normally blind for linux partitions.
Unless some entrepeneurs make proper drivers that do the job.

It's true that you can access the linux files, and even change them from windows.
If you use a proper (windows) editor.
And this is the case for ext3 FS.
But on the other hand, why should you use windows to do the job, as you have a better linux system to do it?

Maybe ext4 is better, but I haven't experienced any problems with ext2/3.
So, what should be used is up to the personal choice.
Ext4 is fine if you only use linux.
And probably a proper windows ext4 driver will also soon arrive.

[previso]

Example:
A mixed platform network with shared folders. If accessing the Linux box from a Windows box, the file structure is completely innaccessible with ext4 in the Linux box, but accessible if the Linux box has ext3 and Windows has the ext3 driver installed.
Theory is fine, but experience trumps it, some times.
I agree Windows is crippled, but >80% of PCs run it. We should purvey for their existence.

[gogalthorp]

Thats just silly. I have ext4 and I can share files across a network just fine with my XP netbook. Ever here of samba?

The only time the underlying FS comes into play is if you are dual booting and want to read/write files on a Linux partition from a Windows partition. But put XP in a VM (much more sensible then dual booting IMHO) and you can still share files, I do it every day. The only real reason any more to dual boot is to play high end 3D windows games everything else can be done in a VM Windows install.

I have seen about a 15-25% faster disk access from ext4 from ext3

[linuxforever]

Yes, the file-system only applies to the way they are stored on your hard drve.

Remember that most servers on the net were and are running on linux.
You can access them with a web-browser or ftp client from windows machines.
And you don't need to install any ext2/3 drivers to access them.

[previso]

VB.net IDE doesn't run too good on vbox. There's still a few assets M$ won't release (PPS creation anyone?). And that whole Macromedia mess. While no one would play 3D on vbox, they are not the only high-resource set of applications which perform natively better.

[gogalthorp]

Vbox is not the only VM. Vmware is in some respects better but you do need to pay for it. But there are others to like xen based solutions. The point is that in general you should not artificially limit yourself if you don't need to. ext4 is a definite step forward and you should not let a small thing like Windows inability to read anything but Windows FS stop you from using it. You have to add third party to Windows in any case to read any other files system. And there is ext4 programs for Windows coming.

[previso]

Given that ext3 can be converted to ext4, does it make sense to use ext3 until an ext4 driver is available for M$ platforms?

[Jonathan183]

I am not going to dual boot, I will only be running SUSE 11.2

does it make sense to use ext3 until an ext4 driver is available for M$ platforms?

status of M$ driver is not relevant for OP ... keep or remove ntfs partition was asked. For Linux only then Linux file system is preferred.

[previso]

true, must go ext4.
Google

[JMCC]

Thanks everyone. I used a second HDD for my install, and linux handled all the partitions perfect.

Jay