Converting an ext3 filesystem to ext4
in [General Linux]
|
From: John Hasler on 3 Jul 2010 12:22 mjt writes: > You'd be surprised how many people (home users/hobbyists) want to > change to something newer (like going from ext3->4) just because it's > cooler or the latest thing, not because it offers any technical > advantages... Actually it's often that they assume that because it is newer it must have advantages that matter to them even though they have no idea what they might be. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: despen on 3 Jul 2010 12:42 gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > In article <17qdnZ7dk6QP3LLR4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com>, > John Reiser <jreiserfl(a)comcast.net> wrote: > ... >>If you cannot afford to buy or borrow such an "extra" drive, >>then you certainly cannot afford to scribble all your data. >>Asking questions like you did strongly suggests a non-ignorable >>probability that you *WILL* scribble *ALL* your data. > > It is attitudes and posts like this that show why MS is beating Linux in > most markets. NTFS comes with a simple utility that works that converts > FAT to NTFS (in place). Linux would do well to emulate that. Well don't let FACTS get in the way of a good rant: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-convert-ext3-to-ext4-file-system.html A few seconds in Google turned up the above link which is as simple as issuing a couple of commands. I didn't bother to do more searches, for all I know one of the built in GUI tools may do the conversion too.
From: Kenny McCormack on 3 Jul 2010 13:08 In article <87k4pcr0vj.fsf(a)thumper.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >mjt writes: >> You'd be surprised how many people (home users/hobbyists) want to >> change to something newer (like going from ext3->4) just because it's >> cooler or the latest thing, not because it offers any technical >> advantages... > >Actually it's often that they assume that because it is newer it must >have advantages that matter to them even though they have no idea what >they might be. Granted, this is mainstream management-think. That you must always "upgrade" to the latest, regardless of whether or not there is any real advantage. It is a "You just gotta do it - in order to keep up with everything else that is going on." -- Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to comp.lang.c...
From: The Natural Philosopher on 3 Jul 2010 13:17 Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <UgJXn.6743$Lj2.6137(a)newsfe05.iad>, > notbob <notbob(a)nothome.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-03, Kenny McCormack <gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com> wrote: >> >>> It is attitudes and posts like this that show why MS is beating Linux in >>> most markets. NTFS comes with a simple utility that works that converts >>> FAT to NTFS (in place). Linux would do well to emulate that. >> Yes, M$ is a just a plethora of enviable choices and features. Let's >> see, M$ can use/read what? ....two file systems? ....FAT and NTFS? >> Wow! While linux can only use/read a FEW DOZEN files systems, >> including FAT and NTFS? Yeah, you M$ stooges really have us on the >> run. >> >> noob > > Now, now. Be nice. All I'm saying is that an in-place convert utility > is a good thing to have. No, its a nice thing to have. In Linux. It is of course mandatory in Windows, as all that crappy FAT stuff cant easily be changed without a tool to do it for you by the average brainless windows user.
From: J G Miller on 3 Jul 2010 13:23
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:22:40 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Actually it's often that they assume that because it is newer it must > have advantages that matter to them even though they have no idea what > they might be. Very true. And conversely many people think that Amarok 2 has lots of disadvantages and less functionality than Amarok 1. |