From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from slsms1a.stgl.netd.alcatel.de by slsmr1.stgl.netd.alcatel.de with SMTP (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:42:35 +0200 Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by slsms1a.stgl.netd.alcatel.de (8.8.6 (PHNE_15509)/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA19735; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:38:19 +0200 (METDST) TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello Rob, > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Tom Oehser wrote: > > > I would LOVE it if someone would make an ntfs or fix this one that could > > be trusted enough to actually backup/recreate/restore an ntfs partition. > I would not expect this to be possible because the NT security model wont > map sanely onto the Unix one. You may be able to do something like ext2 > acls but as they don't work anyway (AFAIK) nothing will back them up! I would agree, that the security system does not match the linux one. But tomsrtbt (in my opinion) is not intended to care about the security at the NTFS side. At my usage tomsrtbt will be used as a repair tool also for NT systems. To do that you must be able to change files (rename, kill, ...) on a ntfs partition. > This has been done to death with the VFAT hidden and system bits; there's > no good solution, Linux just ignores them now; problem is there's one spot > (Just one!!!) where a system bit is required, the "C:\Windows\fonts" > directory. If the bit isn't there then explorer/exploder treat the > directory as an ordinary one :-( Bad things to happen ... I know that the write option of the NTFS file system is in an experimntal stadium. What i don't know is, which operations i can do safely and which ones i should avoid. regards Petric
