N
Norman Peelman
Because it never happened.
Because it never happened.
Itś an illegal Windows ¨LiveCD¨ of sorts.
Because there´s nothing honest about it.
Because it never happened.
Because it never happened.
Itś an illegal Windows ¨LiveCD¨ of sorts.
Because there´s nothing honest about it.
R
RayLopez99
Liar. Have to resort to lies to make your case eh Norm Pee-man?
It was Windows XP, and the Live CD was I believe Mint. And yes it
happened--twice in fact. I figured out it was Linux only after the
second time.
RL
W
William Poaster
In reply to Alan Mackenzie who posted:
Not surprising. RayLopez99 is s known troll. Bin it & move on, is my
advice.
Not surprising. RayLopez99 is s known troll. Bin it & move on, is my
advice.
B
Bobbie Sellers
Indeed you should doubt a troll so notorious that even I
have kill-filled him. Especially when the x posting includes
an advocacy newsgroup.
later
bliss
N
Norman Peelman
It was -you- not shutting down your system properly.
A
Aragorn
+100
W
William Poaster
In reply to Norman Peelman who posted:
" RayLopez99" Either the dumbass is 99 years old & senile, or he was born
in 1999 is only 12 years old....although i know some 12 year olds smarter
than he is.
The incompetent Dopez99 showing his ineptness again.
" RayLopez99" Either the dumbass is 99 years old & senile, or he was born
in 1999 is only 12 years old....although i know some 12 year olds smarter
than he is.
R
RayLopez99
That's correct: I did do a 'hard reboot' by turning off the power.
But it's the fault of the Linux CD to corrupt my XP HD such that it
failed in the way it did. Linux is very temperamental when it comes
to recovering after a hard reboot, as evidenced by the above.
RL
R
RayLopez99
"Please don't feed the troll" isn't that what you usually post for me?
Idiot.
Linux user, it figures.
RL
T
The Natural Philosopher
I think he is about 14.. from the language, which features 'dog poo' andWilliam said:
'retard' a lot.
A
Alan Mackenzie
Not sure how you work out that it's Linux. Just because Windows can't
recover from a deliberately induced error condition? I suggest you try
the same thing with a Live CD from a non-Linux OS. ;-)
o - Linux booted from a live CD doesn't know which HDD partition is /.
o - Therefore this Linux cannot find /etc/fstab.
o - Therefore the Linux could only mount filesystems, (including the NTFS
ones), at random mount points, something it definitely won't be doing.
o - Therefore the Linux cannot write to a HDD partition.
o - In particular, the Linux can't alter the Journal on an NTFS partition.
The only exception to the above would be a malicious CD. Are you
suggesting your Mint CD was malicious?
As proven by me above, the Linux Live CD isn't the problem. The OP, Paul,
must have been mistaken about the cause of his corruption.
My Linux boxes have never had a corrupt filesystem after an inopportune
hard reboot, at least, not one which wasn't trivially fixable.
recover from a deliberately induced error condition? I suggest you try
the same thing with a Live CD from a non-Linux OS. ;-)
o - Linux booted from a live CD doesn't know which HDD partition is /.
o - Therefore this Linux cannot find /etc/fstab.
o - Therefore the Linux could only mount filesystems, (including the NTFS
ones), at random mount points, something it definitely won't be doing.
o - Therefore the Linux cannot write to a HDD partition.
o - In particular, the Linux can't alter the Journal on an NTFS partition.
The only exception to the above would be a malicious CD. Are you
suggesting your Mint CD was malicious?
As proven by me above, the Linux Live CD isn't the problem. The OP, Paul,
must have been mistaken about the cause of his corruption.
My Linux boxes have never had a corrupt filesystem after an inopportune
hard reboot, at least, not one which wasn't trivially fixable.
R
RayLopez99
You misread my post, you dumb Nazi kraut.
I was using a Windows XP OS pc, not a Linux, and with this Windows PC
was using a LiveCD, I think Mint. Then I did a hard reboot (turned
off the power--if memory serves I was trying to kill the KDE but could
not). Then, without the Linux CD, my Windows XP refused to load until
I used chkdsk from an external CD to fix the corrupted HD--corrupted
by Linux.
GOT IT NOW?
RL
P
Paul
Alan said:
I don't think the conversation which Lopez99 decided to cross-post,
talked about corruption.
There is some detail about journal handling, and moving between
Windows and Linux and back again. I'm not going to look up the
details now, but if you shut down Windows "dirty", then boot
Linux, it is possible when next Windows is booted, the
journal will not be available for repair purposes.
That's not a corruption as such. It's a common sense issue,
as participants have noted.
I'm not 100% positive about what percentage of NTFS features
are in the NTFS driver. I've heard there is no equivalent
of CHKDSK in the Linux NTFS driver, and a corollary to that,
is the journal may not be used.
So it's really a detailed question of how Linux handles the
NTFS journal, and whether moving back and forth between
OSes is perfectly transparent. Under normal circumstances,
as tested here, it works well. But I haven't gone out of
my way to test corner conditions (such as shoving a "dirty"
file system into a Linux system).
Now, if I was stupid enough to turn off the power on my
Windows PC, my next move would not be booting a Linux LiveCD.
I would reboot into Windows and make sure everything was
clean, before doing anything else. I have enough questions
about journal handling, not to do that. The only time I'm
going to be booting a Linux LiveCD, is when Windows has shut
down cleanly.
I understood Linux can set the "dirty bit", in the same way
fsutil can, so the next time Windows starts, CHKDSK will run.
But that is for the purpose of encouraging Windows to repair
the file system.
There is apparently one commercial product available for Linux,
which has additional capabilities over and above what the
free Linux software provides. But it's not like I'm going to
run out and waste money on that, when simply avoiding any
corner conditions is sufficient for most normal usage. I
don't think I've ever seen or demonstrated any NTFS damage,
even when using marginal versions of Knoppix (where the
NTFS driver had just become available). So I have nothing
to complain about here. It's all a matter of common sense...
I've also not experienced any issues with FAT32, and
since that is not a journaled file system, it is even
more exposed than NTFS. And again, I wouldn't purposely
create a "dirty" shutdown, by powering off the Windows
PC in mid-session, and then booting Linux to look at the
FAT32 partition afterwards. I'd boot Windows first, make
sure everything is clean, reboot, and use my Linux LiveCD.
Even Windows is not guaranteed to recover FAT32, if
you go around powering off the PC in mid-session.
Eventually, you'll have a problem, sooner or later.
FAT32 is not bulletproof.
Paul
P
Peter Köhlmann
RayLopez99 said:
Idiot
With an apology to all the "real idiots" out there, to be compared to suchg
a braindead cretin like RayLopez.
You are doing a fine job of painting the windows users out there as dumb and
totally worthless crack addicts, RayLopez
A
Alan Mackenzie
Hi, Paul.
Good to see you in the thread at comp.os.linux.setup.
OK. What RayLopez99 missed out was the fact you were _using_ the NTFS
filesystem on Linux. That makes things very different.
NTFS is more than read-only on Linux, but doesn't have full write
capability. Quoting from the NTFS documentation from a recent Linux
kernel:
The biggest limitation at present is that files/directories
cannot be created or deleted.
.....
The driver currently supports read-only mode (with no
fault-tolerance, encryption or journalling) and very limited,
but safe, write support.
This is a bit vague on what write operations do with journalling. I
would guess that if the journal isn't being read, it's not written
either. If the journal is "dirty" when the NTFS is mounted on Linux, and
Linux writes to it, the journal will no longer match the state the files
are in. Maybe. But you probably know all about these things anyway.
Full details are meant to be at http://www.linux-ntfs.org/, but that site
seems to have been purloined by a company.
We can safely leave that to RayLopez99.
I would certainly do that, too, if I were moving between Windows and
Linux.
[....]
FAT32 is fully supported by Linux (it's called "vfat" here). I've
recovered FAT32 systems on USB-sticks after accidentally pulling them out
in the middle of a write operation. :-(
No, indeed not.
Good to see you in the thread at comp.os.linux.setup.
In comp.os.linux.setup Paul said:
OK. What RayLopez99 missed out was the fact you were _using_ the NTFS
filesystem on Linux. That makes things very different.
NTFS is more than read-only on Linux, but doesn't have full write
capability. Quoting from the NTFS documentation from a recent Linux
kernel:
The biggest limitation at present is that files/directories
cannot be created or deleted.
.....
The driver currently supports read-only mode (with no
fault-tolerance, encryption or journalling) and very limited,
but safe, write support.
This is a bit vague on what write operations do with journalling. I
would guess that if the journal isn't being read, it's not written
either. If the journal is "dirty" when the NTFS is mounted on Linux, and
Linux writes to it, the journal will no longer match the state the files
are in. Maybe. But you probably know all about these things anyway.
Full details are meant to be at http://www.linux-ntfs.org/, but that site
seems to have been purloined by a company.
We can safely leave that to RayLopez99.
I would certainly do that, too, if I were moving between Windows and
Linux.
[....]
FAT32 is fully supported by Linux (it's called "vfat" here). I've
recovered FAT32 systems on USB-sticks after accidentally pulling them out
in the middle of a write operation. :-(
No, indeed not.
A
Alan Mackenzie
In comp.os.linux.setup RayLopez99 said:
Yes, I got it right at the start. Quite frankly, I just don't believe
you. If it was just once, well coincidences happen. But twice? Sorry,
but no.
J
JeffM
In a thread massively cross-posted by a WinTroll,
Read the EULA: A list of preemptive excuses for its failure.
(For them it would be an embarrassing read, I'm quite sure.)
Windoze isn't guaranteed by its vendor to do *anything*.Paul said:
Read the EULA: A list of preemptive excuses for its failure.
No one is; M$ won't publish specifications for their junk.
(For them it would be an embarrassing read, I'm quite sure.)
Name *anything* that M$ makes that even comes close.
K
Krypsis
I use both Linux (LiveCD & Installed) and Windoze. Never had Linux pooch
a filesystem but had Windoze do it many times.
Krypsis
A
Aragorn
Hi, Paul.
Good to see you in the thread at comp.os.linux.setup.
NTFS is more than read-only on Linux, but doesn't have full write
capability. Quoting from the NTFS documentation from a recent Linux
kernel:
The biggest limitation at present is that files/directories
cannot be created or deleted.
....
The driver currently supports read-only mode (with no
fault-tolerance, encryption or journalling) and very limited,
but safe, write support.
These days, most distributions ship with FUSE - because it allows for
much more than just access to Windows filesystems - /and/ also with the
ntfs-3g driver, to be used with FUSE.
Disclaimer: I don't do Windows, nor any of its filesystems if I can help
it. Therefore, I also do not know whether ntfs-3g supports journalling
or encryption, but I presume that it does. For this particular
occasion, Google is probably your friend. Or Wikipedia for that matter.
If I were really interested in the matter, then I probably would have
looked up on it myself. Given however that this is a troll thread
originating from the mother of all sewers - i.e. comp.os.linux.advocacy
- and by a notorious, mentally ill and self-admitted troll with an
irrational urge to pester GNU/Linux users with his drivel over and over
and over again - i.e. RayLopez99 - I don't care much for looking up on
any technical information or documentation with regard to stuff I don't
even use, as there is simply no point to it.
Whatever arguments are brought up to the RayLopez99 troll and his ilk
from C.O.L.A. is all just casting pearls before the swine - and by this
statement, I am actually insulting the swine. The C.O.L.A. trolls don't
listen to reason, dismiss all documented evidence and repeatingly tout
the same retarded and outdated statistics about GNU/Linux adoption;
statistics which have also already been proven wrong anyway - insofar
any statistics would actually be truthful to begin with, but that's
another matter.
"Statistics are commonly used like a drunken man uses a lamp
post, i.e. for support, rather than illumination."
-- unknown
These guys are not here to make a case against GNU/Linux, because
technically, there isn't one. They are Windows and (to a lesser degree)
MacIntosh zealots who fear that GNU/Linux might one day become so
popular that they could be forced to use it themselves, thereby
confronting them with their own incompetence. And that in itself is
already evidential of stupidity, because GNU/Linux and all other Free &
Open Source Software are about "freedom", not about "free beer". One is
free to use it or to not use it, unlike with Microsoft Windows, which
gets shoved down the throats of all unsuspecting new computer buyers
because the license is included in the price of the computer and the
machine comes preinstalled with that junk.
And when it comes to incompetence, RayLopez99 is the leader of the pack.
The self-proclaimed multi-millionaire [1] with an even so self-
proclaimed IQ of 150 [2] who buys pirated Windows CDs at 5 cents USD and
then probably has other people install them since he's clearly too thick
to pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.
Trust me, we've all tried to help him in his "honest endeavor" to
install GNU/Linux. I ended up killfiling him.
The guy is a walking disaster, not to mention a proven and self-admitted
liar. About a year ago or so, he allegedly wanted to try out Ubuntu, a
distribution so dumbed down that even a foetus could install (and use)
it without any problems, but of course, RayLopez99 wouldn't be who he is
if he didn't run into any problems. We had to babytalk him through it,
and then he still kept on failing miserably, not to mention that he also
kept on moving the goalposts. Eventually, the machine he was going to
install it on turned out to be a 12-year old Pentium II with 32 MB of
RAM or something - I don't remember the details anymore, but it was
something to that effect.
There is nothing to gain from engaging in any advocacy debate with any
of the Microsoft fanboys in comp.os.linux.advocacy. They're not even
interested in advocacy. They're just mentally ill bullies, that's all.
My advice to you is to killfile the idiot(s) and get on with your life.
[1] I wonder in what currency. There are countries out in the world
where owning 100 Euro (or about 145 US Dollar by today's exchange
rate) already makes one a multi-millionaire.
[2] I wonder by what official rating that may have been. He has also
already said that it was 130 (and 135), which is far more plausible,
if it is a US American IQ score - and RayLopez99 /is/ a US American
- because in order to derive the European WAIS IQ score from that,
you have to subtract about 15 points. So that makes his IQ by
the internationally acknowledged European WAIS standards about 115.
If he really /is/ that smart. His claim that "Serious Work" (tm)
can only be conducted in Microsoft Office certainly doesn't sound
like a statement coming from someone with an IQ comprised of three
digits. Not even in US American IQ score. And his use of language
fully agrees with that.
[Follow-up header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]
A
Aragorn
The day Microsoft comes up with something that doesn't suck is the day
they start making vacuum cleaners. ;-)