You didn't seem to cast a vote for ntfs-3g vs captive-ntfs.
was just hoping no one would notice
ok not really i was just up past my bed time, considering how early i woke
up, i am again!
simply if you
*dont have FUSE installed
*need to frequently access the same data in both linux and m$
*are so anti m$ that you cant use the winhozed drivers well dont use ntfs,
then use captive
or
* if you want to be able to have better performance eventually,
* want to use software that isnt going to break into tiny pieces when m$
changes something
* have FUSE installed
* dont have windows installed and cant download the 30mb file,
* or simply just wanna play
then use ntfs-3g
ive tried them all because i have to, plus i look for new features(not
available in m$) there are none currently included in either. and
performance is a tossup
If one uses
reverse-engineered code and the other uses actual Windows code, should
one trust the Windows one more?
depends m$ could come along and change 1 thing and captive would be broken,
no warnings would be required and getting it fixed could take an endless
amount of time.
ntfs-3g blames problems it doesnt "see" as a problem on something else,
regardless of the reason. captive has a chance of supporting encryption,
acls and compression, yet doesnt.
in the end captive wins my vote by a hair
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
