fprot for dos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Conor
  • Start date Start date
FWIW, NTFS access thru linux is still noted as experimental.
Although it does work AFAIKT, there are many disclaimers regarding
reliability and data corruption.
Click to expand...

There's been so much FUD over the years about the NTFS capabilities
now in the kernel that I don't think anyone can know without testing
for themselves. Some claim it has been working fine for years, others
say it still is not to be relied on.

FWIW, the capture-ntfs tools did a great job helping me out of a NTFS
mess I created for myself. I wanted to delete some files that I was
locked out of, leftover user profiles after a reinstallation of WinXP.
Microsoft's XcAcls.exe woulda-shoulda-coulda let me change the file
permissions, but I flipped the wrong switch and denied all access to
the files; not even the system could access them then. Captive let me
see inside those profiles to make sure there was nothing I needed to
keep and then let me delete them.

Captive uses the NTFS drivers of the Windows system, so captive won't
be included with most distros, certainly not any Debian-like ones.
It's on System Rescue CD, though.

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

<http://www.sysresccd.org/>
 
Meanwhile in the 21st Century the rest of us have moved on from that
archaic system.
Click to expand...

What's archaic about it? It's a hell of a lot more stable and trustworthy
than the *JUNK* Microsoft is currently shipping these days.....
 
What's archaic about it? It's a hell of a lot more stable and trustworthy
than the *JUNK* Microsoft is currently shipping these days.....
Click to expand...
No it isn't. FAT16/32 is crap from a stability point of view. Suggest
you go and learn about NTFS.
 
No it isn't. FAT16/32 is crap from a stability point of view.
Suggest
you go and learn about NTFS.
Click to expand...

*ALL* Microsoft filesystems are basically crap from a stability point
of view.

Only someone who was never was exposed to anything else would claim
otherwise.
 
There's been so much FUD over the years about the NTFS capabilities
now in the kernel that I don't think anyone can know without testing
for themselves. Some claim it has been working fine for years, others
say it still is not to be relied on.
Click to expand...

Seems to me, clued-in users would opt for backing up Windows to a hard
drive on a removeable tray. I've thrown out System Restore on Win ME,
and I suppose it could be done with XP as well? The trick, of course,
is to be quite sure you're free of malware/spyware when you backup.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
(e-mail address removed) wrote in
Seems to me, clued-in users would opt for backing up Windows to a
hard drive on a removeable tray.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. I back up to a second HDD, not on a slide-out
tray though. Less often I burn the image to CDRs. After my screwup
using xcacls, I think I've finally learned to make sure I have a fresh
image backed up before trying any repairs, whether using Linux or
Windows.
I've thrown out System Restore on Win ME, and I suppose it could
be done with XP as well?
Click to expand...

It can be turned on or off on a per drive basis. I leave it on for
the WinXP partition, just because I have more space than I need. I
would never rely on System Restore, though. ISTR I used it once to
roll back from a screwy USB device driver install, and it worked ok.
The trick, of course, is to be quite sure you're free of
malware/spyware when you backup.
Click to expand...

If I actually had an infestation (as opposed to a couple of worm
droppers in a message store), I'd actually back up the infested system
before repairing. I don't much trust automagic cleaning[1], so I'd
read up and do it by hand, and I'd like the option to start again with
the cleaning in case I made a mistake. Of course I'd back up again
once I was pretty sure the cleaning was successful.

[1] Ever since Nick F. showed me what a sloppy job AVG did with
cleaning a simple macro virus from a friend's Word documents.
After cleaning, the virus was not viable, but AVG left behind a
mess of useless data where the macro had been. This was a few
years back, and IIRC it was one of the Marker variants.
 
(e-mail address removed) wrote in
Seems to me, clued-in users would opt for backing up Windows to a
hard drive on a removeable tray.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. I back up to a second HDD, not on a slide-out
tray though. Less often I burn the image to CDRs. After my screwup
using xcacls, I think I've finally learned to make sure I have a fresh
image backed up before trying any repairs, whether using Linux or
Windows.
I've thrown out System Restore on Win ME, and I suppose it could
be done with XP as well?
Click to expand...

It can be turned on or off on a per drive basis. I leave it on for
the WinXP partition, just because I have more space than I need. I
would never rely on System Restore, though. ISTR I used it once to
roll back from a screwy USB device driver install, and it worked ok.
The trick, of course, is to be quite sure you're free of
malware/spyware when you backup.
Click to expand...

If I actually had an infestation (as opposed to a couple of worm
droppers in a message store), I'd actually back up the infested system
before repairing. I don't much trust automagic cleaning[1], so I'd
read up and do it by hand, and I'd like the option to start again with
the cleaning in case I made a mistake. Of course I'd back up again
once I was pretty sure the cleaning was successful.
Click to expand...

I had in mind the ability to simply restore instead of doing any
cleaning. My Win ME c: drive is fully cloned to spare h.d. d: so I
don't have to be concerned about reinstalling Windows in the event of
any kind of disaster, including h.d. failure. I don't ever want to
have to reinstall Windows since I've made so many changes to it, and
I'd also lose all my settings. In fact, I use redundant backups using
a f: partition of the spare h.d. as well plus a e: partition of the
primary drive (which just backs up Windows and some data)..
[1] Ever since Nick F. showed me what a sloppy job AVG did with
cleaning a simple macro virus from a friend's Word documents.
After cleaning, the virus was not viable, but AVG left behind a
mess of useless data where the macro had been. This was a few
years back, and IIRC it was one of the Marker variants.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but some malware and spyware are getting really nasty
to try to get rid of. That's another reason why the ability to restore
everything is a good idea IMO.

And in the case of NTFS, and the problems with the lack of a
maintenance OS such as DOS available, I'd think this is even more
important. As you had said, there doesn't seem to be any really
reliable system for maintaining NTFS OS and dong "formal" av scans.
Not that I have any experience with it. I just read about all the
problems people have experienced ... plus the hypothetical problems
with some methods. It's a "well sometimes this has worked for me"
kinda thing ... is my impression. And "when all else fails, reformat
and reinstall" :)


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
No it isn't. FAT16/32 is crap from a stability point of view. Suggest
you go and learn about NTFS.
Click to expand...

REAL helpful for the hundreds of thousands of Win98 users around the globe.
It may surprise you, but people still use older systems- they don't need the
latest & greatest to type documents or run a simple cashbook program.
 
Back
Top