Mount Other filesystems

[shrek-m at gmx.de]

HoytDuff wrote:

>On Wednesday 30 July 2003 07:50 am, shrek-m at gmx.de wrote:
>  
>
>>should redhat follow this  but_others_do_it - example  too ?
>>    
>>
>>>so it must be relative harmless
>>>      
>>>
>>sorry, i feel really good with the redhat-way,
>>    
>>
>
>I think the point Maynard was making was that the danger might just be 
>over-exaggerated. Red Hat can do it whatever way they see fit, but users like 
>to hear a valid reason and the "Alpha/danger" reason does not appear valid in 
>the face of other practices without some additional substantiation. 
>

i am no lawyer and my panic is over-exaggerated too.

what happens if i install redhat linux as dual_boot eg. in a little 
productive environment.
rhl recognice all fat* (ntfs4, ntfs5, ntfs5.1, ...) partitions and mount 
it automacillay and i forget to disable this.


normaly there are no problems!
can you take a look in the future and can you tell me what ms will do 
with the next servicepack ?

Maynard: "so it must be relative harmless"


but what happens if the whole fat-partitions including  c:\windows  are 
suddenly damaged while you have read-access with linux on this WS.
from one day to the other, propably after an windows-update or 
redhat-update ?

than i can only hope that the backup for this WS (if there is one) is ok 
and nobody will money back for the none productive time.


my points are:
a user who is not able to mount his fat* or ntfs* - partition should 
wait until he know how to do this.

the default should be:
windows has only *local* access on own fs
linux has only *local* access on own fs


-- 
shrek-m