Messy installation
-
@stinch said:
@iwpg said:
@KenW said:
And yet again, you're wrong. As ShadowWolf pointed out very eloquently to you, .NET runs ON TOP OF the existing Win32 API. .NET IS NOT A NEW PLATFORM!!!
This is also the reason why Wine only supports Windows applications that use Unix-style pathnames... oh, wait.
Then of course there is mono that manages to do a similar job with many .net apps with no win32 api in sight.
But the discussion wasn't about mono. It was about .NET, which definitely has the Win32 API in sight.
Your comment makes as much sense as saying "Then of course there's BEOS and DOS, with no Win32 API in sight." Not applicable.
-
@KenW said:
But the discussion wasn't about mono. It was about .NET, which definitely has the Win32 API in sight.
...and Mono is what... a .NET implementation that runs on systems with no Win32 API in sight...
-
So .Net still runs on top of something, be it Win32 or whatever.
-
@Carnildo said:
@Cap'n Steve said:
@aythun said:
Writing to NTFS in Linux is as stable as it is in Windows.
Does anyone know how the NTFS for Linux development went? It kind of worries me that NTFS was out for like 10 years and Linux had experimental read support and no write support, and then in the last couple of years they suddenly got to "just as good as Windows".Last I checked, what they did was take the binary NTFS driver from Windows, and write a Linux wrapper around it.I recently repartitioned my work computer (dell winXP OEM on 1 NTFS partition) with the latest version of the gparted livecd, worked like a charm (although they explicitly warn you to after resizing it, boot atleast a few times to windows because it will need to check the ntfs partition)
I don't know if i've written to it yet, but reading from it at least worked without any problem.
-
@asuffield said:
@Cap'n Steve said:
@aythun said:
Writing to NTFS in Linux is as stable as it is in Windows.
Does anyone know how the NTFS for Linux development went? It kind of worries me that NTFS was out for like 10 years and Linux had experimental read support and no write support, and then in the last couple of years they suddenly got to "just as good as Windows".Short periods of intense activity interspersed with long periods of being completely ignored. It's not hugely difficult to implement NTFS when somebody actually bothers to do it.
Prior to XP, the usual version of Windows for home PCs, as opposed to servers or business desktops, used FAT. XP brought NTFS to the home desktop. And it's home desktops that get used for Windows/Linux dual booting with the need to access Windows' files from Linux (and vice-versa).
-
anybody else tried to mess around with installing windows xp, windows vista, and linux on the same drive?
i tried to go in this order:
1) xp
2) vista
3) linux
and i wanted linux to be at the beginning of the drive, vista to be the next partition, and xp to be the third. i succeeded in getting vista and xp where they were supposed to go, only to find that the vista installer decided to partition the first 40gb of the drive, which i had left unformatted for linux, as ntfs and to put the bootloader there.
no problem, i just had to shrink the partition using vista's (long-awaited) capability to do so. i tried to shrink the partition, and found i could only shrink it by half. about an hour and a lot of frustrated profanities later, i had partitionmagic and realized the source of the problem: the bootloader was written at the beginning of the drive, and there was a buttload of metadata smack dab in the middle. so, i shrank the partition by half, and defragmented. the metadata moved to the middle of the resized partition. i was able to shrink the partition containing the windows bootloader down to *only* 300mb using what was essentially a divide & conquer approach... fortunately the drive shrank in logn time :p.
