![]() |
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 73
|
that was close, this makes it all worth the scare...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...d_?taxonomyId=
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Site Manager
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left
Posts: 8,810
|
Interesting links. I guess the best news for both camps is that no matter which fan base you belong to, users of U9.10 or W7 both now enjoy a significant improvement on what they had before.
__________________
Knows nothing and cares even less |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
@MC, I wondered if my download problem was more widespread than just the upgrade to Ubuntu. It was. I figure the hole at the end of my road, BT cables exposed, that was full of water, might have had something to do with it. Drained and filled in (on a Sunday!), normal service has been restored. I therefore owe an apology to the providers of Ubuntu. ![]() Rik |
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Site Manager
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left
Posts: 8,810
|
Ah well, you live and learn, just like me. Now, instead of being one of the "first" I have to wait until this Saturday to get my 9.10 fully operational. I'm thinking there's more to my upgrade issues now than just the network settings because whenever I try to use VLC it runs CPU on one core constantly at 50%. I'm believing the sensor figures because I can hear the fan speed increasing accordingly. I'm also getting kernel crash notices so I'm leaving it alone now and just using Vista until the weekend.
__________________
Knows nothing and cares even less |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Maestro di Search
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,059
|
I read somewhere and understand that a fresh installation of Ubuntu 9.10 is using Ext4 file system by default for better performance, but by means of upgrading from 9.04, it will use back the Ext3 file system which I think is not the best choice.
On my PC, the Ext file system cannot be read by Windows, but since 2007 Linux can read and write NTFS developed by M$. I can read yours, you cannot read mine, who is better?
__________________
Keep It Short and Sweet |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
If you have 64 bit Ubuntu/Windows 7 installed on RAID1, Windows can read Linux but not the other way round. And I still haven't written up how to do this. None of the stuff on-line works, been busy, get it done soon.Rik |
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
Maestro di Search
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,059
|
Quote:
Ext2IFS supports ext2/ext3 volume with inode size upto 128 bytes. Upon installing Ubuntu 9.10 on ext3 file system, it seems to have used inode size of 256 bytes. Ext2Fsd supports larger inode size including 256, but it hangs when I try to install this driver on XP. What is the best free driver would you recommend?
__________________
Keep It Short and Sweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
One program I stumbled upon recently is DiskInternals LinuxReader. It gives read access from Windows 7 to the RAID1 based Ubuntu ext3 partition so should work for other Windows OSes. Ext2Fsd isn't one I'm familiar with. I'll take a look as it might be useful in other situations. Rik |
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Maestro di Search
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,059
|
Installed DiskInternals LinuxReader on both WinXP and Win7, it shows linux volume and label, but when click on the volume, it cannot expand and doesn't show the subfolders and contents in the volume. Tried in XP and 7 to read the volume built upon installing Ubuntu 9.10 using ext3 file system.
__________________
Keep It Short and Sweet |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|