On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:12:54 +0200 jdd wrote:

It's _never_ harmless to access a file system out of it own operating system. Fat 32 is not a Linux filesystem, so mounting it read only is a good idea.

1 - it is not mounted read (or write); 2 - if I applied your logic then I would not be able to use my usb key because it is formated fat32 :) Personally I don't see a file system whether it is fat32, ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs, etc as being a "Linux file system" or windows file system. For me, each file system has its own advantages or disadvantages - like speed, security (as in journals), accessibility (as in fat32). I want to be able choose the best one for my particular needs. If someone wants to try out Linux under a dual boot setup - they will from time to time want to share some files between the two OS s (especially if it is an office machine). If they can't do they just might not use Linux because it is too hard to set up. I agree that security is important and that one can't please everyone. Last point, if create a new partition and format it as fat32 (as in this case) then I would like it to be able to share the files (rw) between the two (automatically, without having to raise a support ticket in order to find out how). Even if I know enough to un mount a file system and modify fstab to change the r,w rights and remount it today - I am stupid enough to forget how to do that in a couple of weeks. I guess the bottom line is that choices have to be made and you can't please everyone. Just the same I logged it as a "bug" because that is what it is for me. @+ James

jdd wrote:

and I know the problem. I have to share video files from Linux and Windows and such files can be up to 12Gb, so FAT32 is not a solution :-)

jdd

http://www.fs-driver.org http://www.fs-driver.orggives a near perfect and stable solution I am using on two video production systems with excellent results for quite some time now. E.g. on one 120 GB partition. My daily transfer needs are never less than 10 GB with an average of about 16 GB. The only really little drawback: you need an ext3 (or ext2) partition for sharing. And ext3 is well supported on the linux side, good fsck (just a bit on the slow side). So as a rule I am using ext3 for all /home partitions on dual boot systems. FMF

On 23 Apr 2006 at 17:12, jdd wrote:

James PEARSON wrote:

...

My problem is that I can't access (r,w) the "/windows/D" partition under RC2 because when you create a partition as fat32 during the installation, RC2 doesn't "by default" grant r,w rights to the fat32 filesystem. This, in my opinion, is a mistake.

It's _never_ harmless to access a file system out of it own operating system. Fat 32 is not a Linux filesystem, so mounting it read only is a good idea.

What did you smoke today? Are you telling us, it's unsafe to write to USB memory sticks using FAT32? We are writing FAT32 for years with Linux. Really! I'm only afraid that's the SuSE solution for the lousy USB write performance introduced in 10.0: No writes, no performance issues ;-)

that said, I think even that no default mounted system should be writable without the written permission of the owner :-)

Tell the beginner that he's not the owner of his windows partition... or memory stick

by default, security first...

Well... Ulrich