Using the Real ntfs.sys Driver Under Linux

OK... good by herrvinny · 2003-12-02 04:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

OK, but I imagine having to load all that would take a toll on performance. How fast does it run, and more importantly, how can a free (read: non-encumbered) version of this be made?

Re:OK... good by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, it looks good to me for troubleshooting and forensic purposes. I wouldn't use this to mount an NTFS share housing mp3s however.
Re:OK... good by gl4ss · 2003-12-02 04:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

well, i can certainly see uses for this when somebody is messing around with knoppix and wants to access his ntfs partitions that he normally uses windows from.. though i'm pretty sure ms is going to try some nasty eula trick on this(actually i'm pretty sure xp's eulas could forbid, maybe not enforceably but anyways, using it in this fashion).

-

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:OK... good by caseih · 2003-12-02 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

Performance would not be anywhere near the performance of a native linux file system (either ntfs or ext3) since it uses the lufs kernel module to communicate via a unix socket with the user-land ntfs hack. So you wouldn't want to use it as your root file system or anything. But for accessing mp3s, changing the Windows administrator password, or other similar operations, this seems to work ok. Heck, even just reading and writing MS Word doc files would be fast enough to not really be noticable to a user.
Re:OK... good by Silroquen · 2003-12-02 05:08 · Score: 2

On the contrary, if you want to share a partition over Samba, to have read/write access to the Samba share, the kernel obviously needs read/write access to the actual partition.
Re:OK... good by Progman3K · 2003-12-02 05:14 · Score: 2, Informative

IANAE (I'm not an expert) BUT,

Wine is actually fast because it ISN'T an emulator, it's an implementation of Win32 on Linux, and ReactOS isn't an emulator either, so in both cases, you'd get pretty close (if not actual) native-speed performance.

You WOULD get a hit on memory consumption though, those modules need RAM, certainly.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:OK... good by Malcolm+Scott · 2003-12-02 05:37 · Score: 2, Informative

The 2.6.0 kernels have safe read/write support for NTFS. (Not complete support, but enough for most purposes AFAIK.)
Re:OK... good by Minna+Kirai · 2003-12-02 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative
Wine is actually fast because it ISN'T an emulator

The oft-repeated tagline "Wine is not an emulator" is false. It would only be true if the word "emulator" meant "hardware emulator".

It does not. Although most people think of CPU virtualization when they hear the word "emulator", that is not necessarily the case. According to dictionary definitions, WINE is emphatically an emulator.

Here's the defintion:
1. 3.
2. Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
Re:OK... good by cxreg · 2003-12-02 06:12 · Score: 4, Informative

While its 'write-safe', the writes it can do is completely useless to most people.

"The only supported operation is overwriting existing files, without changing the file length. No file or directory creation, deletion or renaming is possible. Note only non-resident files can be written to so you may find that some very small files (500 bytes or so) cannot be written to."

Maybe using the windows NTFS driver this way will help provide enough debug info to complete this driver

--

God Fucking Damnit
Re:OK... good by lysander · 2003-12-02 06:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

OK, so therefore, Windows 95, 98, ME, 2K and XP are ... all Win32 emulators.
They are all win32 implementations with a common API. It would be a stretch to call them emulators, IMHO.

--
GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
Re:OK... good by tiger99 · 2003-12-02 06:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is that safe enough, or complete enough? Having had an NTFS partition badly damaged by Linux soem time ago, I don't really want to try it yet.
I do appreciate the difficulties the kernel team have had with this, it is not their fault that they have to work with an undocumented closed-source file system.
The strange thing about all this is that very many different OSs which have existed over the years have had some capability to read and write "foreign" file systems, either built in or as a third-party driver. Certainly it is standard with Linux, *BSD, even the hated SCO, also MAC in most of its variants, Amiga, Atari, Solaris....... Even many 8-bit computers could read a variety of foreign file systems. The one name missing is M$, absolutely none of their stuff recognises any othe OS at all. (Please correct me if I am wrong!) It is as if Bill arrogantly imagines that there are only Windoze PCs in this universe. The fact is that there are many things that can't be done under Windoze, but are relatively easy under some other OS. Maybe the reverse is true also, but I can't think of an example. It is absolutely normal in this day and age, even without open source, to need to read and write foreign file systems. The one obstacle is the Chief Hacker of Redmond, he will neither interface to other people's file systems (despite having the documentation, and most drivers under BSD licence) nor will he let anyone else do it by denying proper access to his documentation.
One day, when the masses wake up to what they have been denied since Messy-DOS 1, he may realise that his monopolistic actions have in fact shot himself in both feet.
Re:OK... good by tiger99 · 2003-12-02 06:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

I hope you are right. I wonder if there are any other ways of attacking the problem, other than beating up Bill of course, which is best left to Melinda.
It is clearly always possible using simple methods (unless M$ do really stupid things with the disk format, and then it would break on some disks and/or controllers) to read what is on the disk, using Linux, or for that matter an old version of Norton Utilities (when there really were useful utilities). There is no shortage of people who could run simple file writes from Windoze, and read back the changes to see what had really happened. I could do that, given some basic instructions. So. gathering info is not too hard, making sense of huge volumes of it, all the special cases, error recovery and all that sort of thing, possibly working around deliberate obfuscation, may be another matter.
I wonder if it might be better to do a clean-room implementation of the .dll, one team, who absolutely never, ever writes kernel code, disassembles it (they may even do an instruction trace with an emulator if it helps) and writes a spec, while the other re-implements it, without having ever seen the disassembly. That is legal. The key is writing an accurate spec from the results of the disassembly.
I don't know which method the kernel team are using, but IMHO they need more help (people, not competence, which they already have plenty of), only it would have to be meaningful and properly coordinated otherwise it would be a nuisance. Due to the past history of damaged files etc, they really ought to have many thousands of beta, or even alpha, testers on this one, and not pass the code as fit for general use until many gigabytes on thousands of different PCs have been read and written successfully. If someone would publish a to-do list, they might well find that useful assistance would be forthcoming.
Re:OK... good by shaitand · 2003-12-02 06:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Before even bothering to ask if you COULD do it, better decide if you SHOULD do it. Would you really want a windows dll destablizing the kernel? The minute you let windows code into the kernel we are little better off than windows users in terms of stability.
Re:OK... good by PetiePooo · 2003-12-02 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are existing OSS NTFS drivers that work in read-only mode right? Well, here's a way around the MS EULA for most: make loading ntfs.sys a three-step process:

Mount the NFTS partition you want write access to using the OSS read-only version,
read the winnt/system32/ntfs.sys driver into memory or RAM-disk,
remount it using the method described in the article.

This way, Knoppix (or whichever distro implements this) wouldn't have to include the EULA-protected M$ driver. Its as legal as any other WINE-like use of existing, O/S-speicific DLLs and drivers.

Obviously, this wouldn't work for NTFS partitions that don't have an actual NT-based O/S installed on it, but if that's the case, why do you have that partition on your HD in the first place?!
Re:OK... good by shaitand · 2003-12-02 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

wine is a win32 implementation with an incomplete but common api. It would be a stretch to call it an emulator IMHO.
Re:OK... good by Sneftel · 2003-12-02 07:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Wine does not consist of an emulation layer, a necessary feature of what most people would consider an emulator.

Of course Wine has an emulation layer. What do you think it does when an application calls a win32api function... calls up Redmond and asks what to do?

--
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Re:OK... good by caluml · 2003-12-02 07:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

The best thing for Linux would be ntfs2ext2,3,reiserfs, whatever, and a Windows ext2/3/reiserfs driver.
Get people converted to an open filesystem, I say.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:OK... good by teklob · 2003-12-02 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe the reverse is true also, but I can't think of an example.
games
Re:OK... good by Phillup · 2003-12-02 09:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Chances are that if you need to read/write NTFS drives... you have an OS that put the data on the drives.

More times than not...

Now, why might I need this?

Suppose I'm doing a project in Delphi and Kylix... I may want to scoot over to my NTFS drive to pick up some code I wrote last night to put into the Kylix version... and I don't want to reboot to do it.

I'm still SOL going the other way tho... (of course I have a server that I back both systems up to, and that is how I've "solved" the problem... this reduces the hardware need a bit)

--

--Phillip

Can you say BIRTH TAX
Re:OK... good by 42forty-two42 · 2003-12-02 09:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, that's okay, as long as we still have a recursive acronym: WINE Is Now an Emulator.
Re:OK... good by drsmithy · 2003-12-02 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is absolutely normal in this day and age, even without open source, to need to read and write foreign file systems.
Ah, while there are certainly quite a few people out there who want to read and write multiple filesystems, I'd hardly call it "normal". "Normal" is something my grandma or a secretary does with their computer.
Re:OK... good by demon · 2003-12-02 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not an emulator by any accepted definition by anyone who knows about computer science. It's a binary loader with a Win32 ABI. It doesn't have to emulate anything on an x86 system. Now if I run Wine on my PowerBook to run a Win32 binary, _then_ I'm emulating. (Emulating an x86, that is!)

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by Steve+'Rim'+Jobs · 2003-12-02 04:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Surely it is illegal to copy the ntfs.sys driver and distribute it in another operating system, seeing as how it is a part of Windows.

Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by TiggsPanther · 2003-12-02 04:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wouldn't need to copy it. At least, not to distribute, anyway.

Use the copy off the hard drive. Mount it in read-only using the normal way, copy it to the Knoppix ramdrive, and then run the driver from there.

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by kasperd · 2003-12-02 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Surely it is illegal to copy the ntfs.sys driver and distribute it in another operating system

I was thinking exactly the same, but there might be a way around that. Knoppix just have to contain the wrapper code, the actual .sys file can be loaded from the harddisk (if present). Systems with an NTFS formatted harddisk and no ntfs.sys file are probably rare. Problems that need to be solved are, how to verify intergrity of the ntfs.sys file you are going to load (if you care about that), and how to actually load the ntfs.sys file from an NTFS filesystem. It is not entirely a chicken and egg situation, as Linux already have NTFS read support, which is far simpler than full read-write support. Besides loading ntfs.sys would even be a user mode task, and reading NTFS from user mode is probably easier to implement than doing it from kernel mode.

--

Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by gillbates · 2003-12-02 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only people who would need it already have it as a part of their Win2k/XP/2003 OS. Why else would anyone be using NTFS if they weren't running Windows?

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by k98sven · 2003-12-02 05:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

and how to actually load the ntfs.sys file from an NTFS filesystem. It is not entirely a chicken and egg situation, as Linux already have NTFS read support

Um... I'm wondering here: How does Windows load ntfs.sys from an NTFS partition???
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by stevey · 2003-12-02 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
But the NTFS driver would be on the Windows partition, which would be an NTFS filesystem - right?

So presumably the setup looks like this:
- Mount the NTFS filesystem RO with the normal kernel driver
- Copy the ntfs.sys driver to /tmp
- Unmount the NTFS filesystem
- Mount it RW using the copied driver
Seems to me that either just "stealing" the ntfs.sys driver (wonder if it gets changed by different service packs?) or using the normal kernel one would be far easier.

But then again I don't use Windows so I have no NTFS partitions..
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by mph · 2003-12-02 05:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Everyone would use Linux if you could install it from inside Windows.
For sufficiently small values of "everyone."
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by setzman · 2003-12-02 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Um... I'm wondering here: How does Windows load ntfs.sys from an NTFS partition???
Probably the same way OS/2 loaded HPFS.IFS on HPFS partitions. The boot kernel had some kind of micro-HPFS driver that allowed the system access to certain folders on the HPFS partition, allowing it to load necessary drivers.

--
C:\>
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by mystik · 2003-12-02 05:10 · Score: 5, Informative

The same way grub or lilo loads linux from a reiserfs or ext2/3 partition --- rudimentary read-only access is coded into the bootloader.

--
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by motte_fra · 2003-12-02 05:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

well I do, and I'm pissed off. This kind of thing can happen when you migrate from xp, w2k, etc... to linux, with important data on an ntfs drive, and no sufficiently big spare disk to copy the data on a linux partition.
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by Nevo · 2003-12-02 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative

NTLDR does the dirty work.

NTLDR contains a mini-NTFS filesystem driver and mini registry parser. NTLDR reads the registry and determines all of the boot-start device drivers. NTLDR loads those drivers into RAM, then loads the kernel and the HAL.

NTLDR then passes control of the machine to the kernel, along with a pointer to the in-RAM loaded drivers so that the kernel can start those drivers.
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by short · 2003-12-02 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative

It is already done fully automatically exactly this way during .RPM installation.
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by caseih · 2003-12-02 05:48 · Score: 5, Informative

If you read the web page and try out the driver you'll find it does exactly this. It uses code from the ntfs project (libntfs) to grab the ntfs.sys file and copy it over to use it. Therefore no distribution of microsoft binaries is needed. If it can't find the driver on your hard drive, it can download it from microsoft.com from xp sp1 (which has some interesting legal implications).
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by facelessnumber · 2003-12-02 06:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Use FAT32. Then you're not limited even by which version of Windows you plug it into. Windows 2000 and XP can't (won't, actually) format a FAT32 parition over 32gb. But they can both read and use a larger one just fine. Theoretically, I've read that you can fdisk and format a bigger parition with a Win98/ME boot disk, but I tried that and for some reason I couldn't do it. However, I did this a couple of days ago on a 80gb partition...

Boot Knoppix, a Gentoo LiveCD, or somesuch other Linux that's running with that drive unmounted...

Run fdisk, make a partition of Win95 type b or c. (I'm not sure if both work; I used LBA and it did fine; I think that's c) Then...

mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/(your parition)

After that, I mounted it as /storage, then booted into Windows and used a little-known option in Disk Manager to mount the new partition in a directory. (c:\storage) Now I have a place where I can read/write under Windows, Linux, VMWare or even a 9x boot disk. It's not a particularly fast filesystem under Linux, but great for playing MP3s and movies, and nothing's going to really fly on USB.
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by RoLi · 2003-12-02 08:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Surely it is illegal to copy the ntfs.sys driver and distribute it in another operating system, seeing as how it is a part of Windows.
If you need NTFS-support you already have it on your harddrive, so no problems taking it right off the disk.
Re:I'm not sure if we'll see it in knoppix by waynemcdougall · 2003-12-02 10:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Wow.
It's like the computer pulls itself up by it's own boot straps.

--
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz

First? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Project includes the first open source MS-Windows kernel API for Free operating systems

Surely that would be ReactOS, where he got a lot of the code from.

But still, so it begind. First NDIS drivers now FS drivers. Next up it will be a GDI wrapper for X so you can use Windows binary drivers with your graphics card.

All of this is a complete waste of time though. When did Open Source simply become a way to avoid paying for Windows?

In other news... by jamonterrell · 2003-12-02 04:49 · Score: 5, Funny

A vulnerability has been found in the latest version of knoppix. The vulnerability exploits one of several bugs found in NTFS.SYS and allows any user with access to the drive to render the system useless(moreso than simply using NTFS.SYS already does).

--
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.

Hackeroo! by MarkWPiper · 2003-12-02 04:50 · Score: 2, Redundant

Maybe it could use the existing ntfs vfs to get the ntfs.sys of the partition, and then load it.

You hit it... by lukewarmfusion · 2003-12-02 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

right on the head. I'm still trying to make a real step into a Linux partition. I've been using Knoppix live and so far my bosses are mostly just confused. This might help me show them (and thus provide me a box to install on) how easy (and cheap!) this stuff really is.

Knoppix by arikb · 2003-12-02 04:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think that we'll probably see this in Knoppix pretty soon.

I wonder how it's going to be done in Knoppix, without distributing a commercial DLL with the CD. Perhaps the following scheme could work:

Look for NTFS partitions and mount them with the R/O driver
Scan those folders for the dll and copy it into the ramdisk
Unmount the partitions, then remount them with the Windows dll for r/w

Tricky. Depends on having the DLL somewhere on the disk.

-- Arik

Re:Knoppix by homer_ca · 2003-12-02 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure it could work. The kernel NTFS driver is reliable enough in read-only mode. If you have NTFS partitions on your computer, you most likely have an installation of Windows where you can copy that file. It just has to search all NTFS and FAT partitions for \WINNT or \WINDOWS. This won't work if you don't dual boot and have removable media formatted with NTFS.
Re:Knoppix by tsetem · 2003-12-02 05:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

> 1. Look for NTFS partitions and mount them with the R/O driver
> 2. Scan those folders for the dll and copy it into the ramdisk

mount -t ntfs /dev/hda1 /ntfs
if (-e /ntfs/winnt/system32/drivers/ntfs.sys)
{
cp /ntfs/winnt/system32/drivers/ntfs.sys /ramdisk
}
umount /ntfs
if (-e /ramdisk/ntfs.sys)
{
# Do Wrapper voodoo here.
}

Doesn't seem to conceptually hard (or tricky) to me.

Fsckin' Great... by DeionXxX · 2003-12-02 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's just great, I don't think there is a more annoying thing when dual-booting than not to be able to share files between the goddamn installations. Hopefully with this, each OS won't feel like it's on a different part of the goddamn universe.

BTW How did people get around this issue before Read/Write access to NTFS? Did they have a FAT32 partition or something that both of the OS installations shared? I never took too much time to look into it because it wasn't too much of a problem for me.

--D3X
NeoX3.com: Free of Clothes and Free of Charge

Re:Fsckin' Great... by blixel · 2003-12-02 05:18 · Score: 4, Informative

How did people get around this issue before Read/Write access to NTFS? Did they have a FAT32 partition or something that both of the OS installations shared?

Linux is my primary O/S. I only use Windows to uhh... well... I'm not sure what I use it for since I haven't booted to it in a couple of months. But I still have it on another partition.

Anyway - I have my external Firewire drives formatted as EXT3 and I use Mount Everything to read/write to them under Windows. Not a free program though.

This is another solution you can try for reading/writing to Linux partitions under Windows. This one IS free.

And one final idea, also not free - and probably rendered obsolete by today's announcement of this Captive project - but it's another source never the less. This is for reading/writing to NTFS partitions under Linux.

I'd like to give credit to the people who pointed out these links to me but it was a long time ago and I don't remember who they were.

How about the other way around by October_30th · 2003-12-02 04:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is there any free-as-beer software for Windows that would let me access (rw) my ext2 and ext3 partitions from Windows?

--
The owls are not what they seem

Re:How about the other way around by homer_ca · 2003-12-02 04:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Merry Christmas. Here you go:

Explore2fs
Re:How about the other way around by richie2000 · 2003-12-02 05:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Sure.
For Windows NT 4.0
For Windows 95
For Windows NT/2000/XP
For DOS, Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP, OS/2, BeOS, MacOS...

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:How about the other way around by ivan256 · 2003-12-02 05:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would *strongly* recommend doing a backup before trying any of the code from the ext2fsd project on sourceforge.

What about users/permissions? by SharpFang · 2003-12-02 04:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

ntfs.sys surely can handle that, but what about the database? Ownership, permissions, sharing, all that stuff Microsoft boasts to have much better than Linux (better gradation of permissions in operations). That's pretty essential and would require pretty big amount of Microsoft backend software.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Re:What about users/permissions? by Lehk228 · 2003-12-02 05:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

"emergency or migration purposes" Exactly That, the point is not that it will serve as a convenient way to store everyday files, it is good for fixing a messed up XP install or getting files you need under linux.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:What about users/permissions? by Clover_Kicker · 2003-12-02 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

>Ownership, permissions, sharing, all that stuff

That horse has been out of the barn for years. Once I have physical access to a computer, I can boot from an NTFSDOS floppy or CDROM and ignore all NTFS security.

This doesn't make things less secure. It may remind people that without physical security, there is no data security.
Re:What about users/permissions? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can also install a second copy of Windows and bypass all the ACL security. It's not intended to stop physical access -- use encryption instead.
Re:What about users/permissions? by jhoffoss · 2003-12-02 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

What about the flipside: could you implement this driver somehow so that it followed permissions at some level? Can you modify nfts permissions from Linux? (Never messed with this...) Does windows have any problem if I were to create a file on an NTFS partition from Linux and then move to Windows? In this situation, what are the default permissions for any files created? (Wide open, inherited, etc.)

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.

"Secret" software is a real problem for OSS by Steve+'Rim'+Jobs · 2003-12-02 04:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is similar to the current situation with Quicktime, Real and WMV playback on Linux - there is a technical solution, but it is illegal. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that the companies developing these secret formats will ever port to Linux, and even less likely that they will make them open source.

I wonder... by hookedup · 2003-12-02 04:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

With the advent of 'WinFS', and now NTFS on linux..how long until we see a 'NixFS'

From what i've read about WinFS, a *nix 'version' would be quite nice.

Useful by mc_wilson · 2003-12-02 04:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

This would be very useful if you have an unbootable windows partition. I had problems with my logon file in XP once. I had replaced it to try something and ended up hosing my system. I had the file backed up but I couldn't use the Windows XP command line recovery because it couldn't logon and I couldn't copy it back over in Linux because of poor NTFS support. This would help people being able to fix the same or similar problems.

--
Aston Games

How stable? by teslatug · 2003-12-02 04:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't care if it's not free as in speech. I've been waiting for a long time for some stable read/write support for my dual-booting system. If it's as stable at reading/writing as Windows, then this will be a great hack.

Re:How stable? by ShavenYak · 2003-12-02 05:07 · Score: 5, Funny

If it's as stable at reading/writing as Windows, then this will be a great hack.

Man, talk about setting your expectations low....

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Re:How stable? by zerblat · 2003-12-02 06:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you don't care about free as in whatever, there's been stable r/w support for a long time.

--
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.

To all the "can't go in Knoppix" posters by BACbKA · 2003-12-02 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

It would be perfectly legal for Knoppix to *know* that you might have an NTFS.SYS around on your computer, look around to see whether this is the case, and if it is, use your own copy NTFS.SYS.

Of course, Knoppix will never itself be packaged with the NTFS.SYS. But if you have an NTFS partition, you have a damn good chance of having an NT around as well, with the driver right in there.

I can only hope that MS doesn't insert some nastiness into the NTFS.SYS that would prevent it from running inside the framework described in TFA.

HTH

--

VKh

Not 'free as in speech', but rather by RLiegh · 2003-12-02 04:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

'free as in warez'? Hell, that's nothing new.

as a knoppix user, I hope to hell this stays WAY AWAY. Microsoft has published a good deal of api's for writing device drivers; it would be a better idea to develop OSS device drivers that allow read/write access to ext2/ext3/reiserfs filesystems instead.

Would be better legally, as well.

Re:Not 'free as in speech', but rather by reidbold · 2003-12-02 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

No.. free as in fair use. If someone has the particular driver on their system, then that person should be able to use it on the same computer under a different operating system no?

Writing ext/reiser drivers for windows would fulfil a different niche, (linux user switching to windows perhaps?). This is intended for windows users, who already have ntfs filesystems, switching to linux.

--
-Reid

Re:What is this good for? by jared_hanson · 2003-12-02 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

That sort of thing is exactly what this is good for. Let's say you give a Linux distro to a friend so he can try it out. This could be a Live CD or a distro that will make your system dual boot.

In any case, your friend probably has a bunch of files on his Windows partition (likely NTFS formatted) that he wants to see if he can edit/view in Linux. If he can do what he wants, then switching to Linux becomes an option. So, with this, his NTFS partition is available and everything just works(TM). After all, your friend doesn't even know what NTFS is, but he does know when he can't get at his files.

In short, this makes transitions to Linux much smoother. People shouldn't have to keep a copy of a file on both partitions just so its available in both environmets. It becomes a pain to figure out which document is the most recent, etc. etc. And, BTW, I'm talking about the average user who doesn't have a network drive.

--
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.

Re:Linux File System? by BenjyD · 2003-12-02 04:58 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes, of course Linux uses FAT32. And that text mode screen you get when you press Ctrl-Alt-F1 is COMMAND.COM from MS-DOS 6.22.

look at the windows boot loader by gimpboy · 2003-12-02 04:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

And if it isn't in a certain folder in the Windows base directory, Windows can't find it anyway. So it's just a matter of finding the base directory, and grabbing it from there.

so knoppix can probably find out where windows is installed by examining the bootloader for windows. i believe it points to the windows installation directory (which device, directory, etc.).

--
-- john

Another legal way to deal with the driver by unfortunateson · 2003-12-02 05:00 · Score: 5, Informative

It would not seem unreasonable for the ntfs driver to be copied to a USB key or other media to be used at boot time.

Optimally, like the other suggestions, this driver should be moved during config time, but I would be willing to load it my USB doohickey prior to booting Knoppix/Mandrake Live/whatevernix.

I have valid Windows NT/2000/XP licenses on my machine, or I wouldn't have the NTFS partition to begin with. Maybe that's not a guaranteed assumption, and IANAL, but I don't think it would put too many MS lawyers on alert if it were done that way.

Perhaps a copyright/license file stating "These files are to be used on computer systems with valid Windows NT/2000/XP licenses only." when they are copied to the USB Key.

--
Design for Use, not Construction!

Call me crazy but... by buck09 · 2003-12-02 05:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it would be a good idea to get Linux to natively support NTFS partitions. That way, users of Windows would be able to boot either OS, and easily share data between the two. The way I see it, you could have a \Linux folder, containing everything execpt the /swap filesystem.

This would be very handy to me, since I use XP for Video / Photo Editing, Gaming, and Linux for everything else.

Am I crazy? Is this crazy talk? Why not give users the option to use Ext3, RiserFS, NTFS, etc all on the same page?

--

Press any key to continue, any other key to quit.

Re:Linux File System? by Wumpus · 2003-12-02 05:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Linux still runs on FAT32 itself

No, it doesn't. Linux supports a wide range of journalling file systems: ext3, JFS, ReiserFS, XFS, in addition to almost any filesystem known to man, INCLUDING native NTFS

Shouldn't Linux be on something "better" than FAT32

It is.

...Or am I overlooking something (I'm not a Linux user...yet)?

You got your facts wrong, that's all.

Re:What is this good for? by ShavenYak · 2003-12-02 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, I have another use for it. Back when I had a Win98 dual-boot box, I could run Quake III under Linux with a symlink for the PAK0.PK3 file pointing to my FAT32 partition. On my current XP/Linux box with an NTFS partition, it didn't work - I had to copy the file to my ext3 partition, wasting a scad of diskspace. I'm guessing that QIII opens the .PK3 files r/w and errors out if that fails.

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!

Already in the works, chum. by sethadam1 · 2003-12-02 05:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Good ol Seth Nickell and Storage. WinFS-ish to be sure.

Re:Linux File System? by chill · 2003-12-02 05:03 · Score: 2, Informative

...Or am I overlooking something

Linux does NOT run on FAT32 as a native file system. It has options of EXT2, EXT3 (EXT2 + journaling), ReiserFS, XFS (from SGI), JFS (from IBM) and probably quite a few more. Yes, you could probably make it run from FAT32, if you tried.

EXT2 is similar to FAT32, whereas the others are similar in concept to NTFS -- journaling, ACLs, etc. Each has its own benefit.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Re:Linux File System? by Ewan · 2003-12-02 05:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Linux doesn't rely on FAT32, never has. What it has is the ability to read and write from a fat32 partition if the users wants to.

Linux has support for dozens of other operating systems' filesystems such as FAT32 and NTFS from Windows, JFS from IBMs OS/2 and AIX, XFS from SGIs Irix, as well as several developed specifically for Linux - such as ext2, ext3, and reiserfs.

Of all the filesystems available for Linux, XFS is probably the most advanced of any mainstream operating system in the world, with far more in the way of features and reliability as NTFS.

Ewan

Re:Linux File System? by ShavenYak · 2003-12-02 05:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Linux still runs on FAT32 itself, though the Open Source community continuously claims to be more innovative, etc..

Umm, no. Linux can read/write FAT32 filesystems, but typically it is installed on ext2 or ext3 filesystems. Or XFS, or Reiser, or JFS, or.... Basically, anything which supports Unix-like permissions. Does anyone still use the old Minix filesystem?

In theory I guess you could install it on FAT32, but it would be horribly insecure and very kludgey since FAT32 won't support permissions, symlinks, device nodes, sparse files, and probably some other necessities that I'm forgetting right now.

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!

Re:MOD PARENT UP by JKR · 2003-12-02 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Partly that's because writing filesystems ain't like dusting crops, boy; even if you have the specs. For MS that means buying the IFS (installable filesystem) driver kit, for $1000, and I believe it's only available under NDA.

I would like to see ext3 for XP, and UFS too. Windows JFFS2 drivers for removable smartmedia would be nice too, but these things are a bitch to port. Ideally, you'll have a full debug (checked) build of XP and a second XP machine to run a kernel debugger on. One mistake in IFS code and it's off to bluescreen/reboot city.

Jon.

the tricky part by twitter · 2003-12-02 05:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

The tricky part is the usual M$ interoperability problem, Microsoft will break it. As soon as you figure out how to use it, M$ can pull a "system update" that changes everything right under you. They can even make it so that you harm your system or destroy information if you try to use it. They have done this for other sytems as far back as DRDOS. It would not be hard for them to put in a flag that they know about, but you don't. It's Microsoft, they suck, use it at your own risk.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

It ain't free if it requires ms-windows by Anonymous+Bullard · 2003-12-02 05:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't do windows, but wouldn't it be preferable to put the resources towards native solutions? Also, wasn't the HPFS (OS/2) file system support part of the native NTFS project? What's become of that effort?

If the "Captive" (?) NTFS project needs the original MS driver it might also be illegal, and plain useless when there's no ms-windows around but only data to be rescued.

Anyways, if this project scratches someone's itches then who cares - go for it. At least one can always try pulling stuff like this under the open source skies. Try retrofitting ms-windows with non-ms-sanctioned FS support... now there's a challenge!

--

Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

Re:usual M$ boasts are empty. by danheskett · 2003-12-02 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Such boasts are obviously proved empty by full read write access from a boot disk
Any non encrypted filesystem would have all access controls subverted when mounted under a foreign operating system. Claiming anything else is absurdity. Do you think that ext2 holds the chmod based security when I mount it up under a box that it wasnt created under? You do realize that any user with root on any Linux box could simply reset all the attributes meant to keep users off/let them in under a different box?

Why would you hold MS to fault for something that is unversial and by its nature fundamental?

Re:See this in Knoppix real soon... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 05:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Nobody is suggesting putting the binary on a CD. It is already on the users computer - so there is no need.

Re:The simple fact of the matter is... by pyros · 2003-12-02 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

dual-booters are pussies

That should be sending me a flag that this is just a troll or flamebait, but I'm biting anyway. I don't have the money to buy an extra machine so I can run Linux and my wife can run Windows. And I'm not such a zealot as to make her use Linux for tasks that she finds easier in Windows. There is no Photoshop for Linux, and the only legal ways to run Photoshop in Linux end up meaning I have to have a copy of Windows. (VMWare + Windows, Bochs + Windows, Wine + Windows DLLs). So if I'm already paying for Windows, then I may as well dualboot it and avoid the performance hit of VMWare/Bochs/Wine.

Re:Hack? by polyp2000 · 2003-12-02 05:35 · Score: 3, Informative

I am amazed that anyone reading articles on slashdot doesnt know the correct meaning of the word hack.

I suggest that you read here

http://www.jargon.8hz.com/jargon_23.html#SEC30

shame on you ... call yourself a geek ?

nick ...

--
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp

bah. i hate these. non-x86 users suffer. by Splork · 2003-12-02 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

those of us on non-x86 platforms that want read/write NTFS access to external (firewire / usb2.0) drives will only suffer due to driver emulation layers like this.

it satisfys much of the normal x86 crowd which means development of the real driver suffers.

Personally by floydman · 2003-12-02 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

I added NTFS readonly (which is safe) support in my kernel, and always add a small fat partition in my dual boot system, as a spool are between both, have been doing it for years, and am happy with it. But i still like that hack though, pretty neat work.

--
The lunatic is in my head

Re:You better download this today. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 06:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I completely agree with you!

Microsoft may not, though. So, a person provides a tool to grant safe access to a resource--which you own--remember, that's your data on that drive. And Microsoft has spent quite a bit of money deliberately breaking existing compatabilities. Clearly this state--incompatability--has value to them.

It's not inconceivable that Microsoft might expend some effort to see that such a tool is not available for the public to use.

It's kinda like the whole "fair use" issue. Fair use says functionally what you posted--what you do in your house is your business. And interested parties cannot use legal means to directly curtail your rights to fair use.

What they can do, however, is make it technically difficult for you to exercise these rights.

So, sure, you can read your NTFS partition in your own house. And you can do it from another OS.

Too bad we bought off/intimidated/harassed/took out and shot the only author of the tool that allows you to do this. 'Course someone else might create such a tool, and they're free to do so. Care to try?

What about NT4 for non-x86 users? by carndearg · 2003-12-02 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

NT4 came in 4 flavours, i386, mips, ppc and alpha. And presumably all of these had a driver for NTFS.
Would these drivers, assuming you have an NT4 disk gathering dust, be a solution for non x86 users?

Not much help if you run Linux on ARM or 68k or something but there you go.

--
Oxford Dictionaries Online

Re:What about NT4 for non-x86 users? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-12-02 06:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Which version of NTFS? I think there were some extensions thrown on it in going to NT5/NT2000. Can anyone who knows more on this verify?

I don't think MIPS or PPC made it to NT4. Alpha died early in NT4 cycle, maybe a service pack or two. You're looking at very old technology. This still looks like x86 only.
Re:What about NT4 for non-x86 users? by gamorck · 2003-12-02 06:40 · Score: 2, Informative

MIPS, PPC, and Alpha all had NT4 versions (fully. None of them made it to Windows 2000. The alpha version of win2k made it to Release Candidate 1 and was subsequently dumped by MS and Compaq.

Supporting Links:
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/down loads/re commended/SP6/allSP6.asp
(Notice the inclusion of an DEC Alpha download for SP6 for NT4)

http://home1.gte.net/res008nh/nt/ppc/ntfaq.htm

J

--
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.

NTFSDOS by Ratbert42 · 2003-12-02 06:40 · Score: 3, Informative

I think this is how NTFSDOS does it. Before you use it, you install their product on a working Windows machine (with NTFS) and generate boot floppies or CDs that then include the Microsoft-owned NTFS code.

Re:The simple fact of the matter is... by darien · 2003-12-02 06:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Surely in that case it ought to be called Ginp?

Re:You need to get ntfs.sys legally somehow by spectecjr · 2003-12-02 06:50 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not like ntfs.sys is readily distributable free of charge like the Win32 codec DLL's are, right? Or is it?

Just FYI; the codec DLLs aren't distributable free of charge either.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

i'd like to try it but it doesnt work by kayen_telva · 2003-12-02 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

sometimes it mounts, sometimes it doesnt.
when it does, I try to ls and get 'stale NFS file handle'
or operation not permitted.
so I'll play a little with it and report back here

The translator *is* the emulation by adiposity · 2003-12-02 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

The extra layer, wherein an executable's calls are "translated" into *nix calls, is most certainly emulation. It allows an executable to run as if it were in one environment, even though it is not.

All an emulator is, is a translator. It's simply a question of how much is translated. If you want to say, "WINE is a really efficient emulator, because it doesn't have to translate every single assembly instruction," you'd be right. But it is STILL an emulator, because it still emulates having the win32 api.

Do win32 executables run on *nix systems? No, *nix systems don't know how to interpret them. By virtue of the WINE emulator, however, the part that *nix doesn't know how to run is translated into something that it does know how to run, while the part that is consistent between win32 and *nix can simply be passed through.

If WINE were not an emulator, you wouldn't have to run the win32 exes in WINE, you could just run them in the shell.

All that said, does the fact that WINE is really an emulator make it bad? No, of course not, especially since it is an extremely efficient one. Of course it's not a pure hardware emulator, so many ideas of inefficiency associated with emulators don't apply. But when you get right down to it, it's allowing binaries designed for one system to run on another, and even if it's more efficient than running on the original platform, that still makes it an emulator.

-Dan

What about Mac Users? by moosesocks · 2003-12-02 08:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

When will us Mac users get NTFS support?

I'm not sure if you realize it, but there is no easy solution for using an external hard drive over 32gb with multiple platforms.

As of this driver, it appears that NTFS is probably the best way to do this, as it now has Linux support.

Windows or MacOS don't support Ext3 natively, and the 3rd party drivers are slow. Fat32 has a 32gb limit. Mac HFS+ can't be read by Windows.

How easy could it be to write an NTFS driver for OS X?

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

Re:Not really by Politburo · 2003-12-02 08:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Linux supporters will never acknowledge the skill of Windows programmers except on one issue: The ability to magically alter code so that it not only breaks everything Linux related, but corrupts your data. Somehow, this code keeps running perfectly on every existing Windows installation.

Then again, that kind of trick is always described as 'easy' as well, so I guess credit isn't being given. Though if it were so easy, you'd think Microsoft might be doing a bit more of it, no?

What about Other Windows Drivers by SAJChurchey · 2003-12-02 09:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does this mean that other drivers used for hardware (i.e. WinModems) might also be able to be emulated via this method?

Why? by Safiire+Arrowny · 2003-12-02 09:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why *is* it harder to read from an ntfs filesystem than to write to it?

The current ntfs kernel module is able to understand the formating of ntfs in order to read it, but shouldn't that same understanding allow them to code proper "write" access as well?

It's obviously true that it's more difficult, but why?

Slashdot Mirror

Using the Real ntfs.sys Driver Under Linux

98 of 548 comments (clear)