Undeletable files on UDF formatted HD
in [Debian]
|
Prev: IM server gateway
Next: Intel Atom Processor
From: Jason Heeris on 16 Feb 2010 06:50 On 16 February 2010 18:08, Jason Heeris <jason.heeris(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 February 2010 16:51, Camaleón <noelamac(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Package "udftools" comes with "wrudf" which is decribes as: >> >> *** >> wrudf - Maintains a UDF filesystem (undocumented) >> *** > > Ah yes...  wow, it is quite undocumented, isn't it... Alas, I couldn't get it to work: user(a)comp:~$ sudo wrudf /dev/sdc wrudf 0.0.5 No disc or not ready I'd go so far as to say that it's so undocumented as to be almost completely unusable, but wading through the source gives me a hint as to why it won't work â I *suspect* that it requires a partitioned block device. Anyway, thanks for the hint :) â Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/d69956981002160327m18a1c558k1c57c75af4011926(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Jason Heeris on 16 Feb 2010 07:50 > ¿NTFS? It should fit some of your requirements (works on windows, linux > and MacOS -I think-) and allows ACL. It's not so much user ACL but the whole executable/read/write issue (I get a bit sick of 100s of, eg. photos being marked executable, and having to manually sort it out) â does NTFS support those kinds of attributes? > A networked hard disk (stand-alone enclosure or attached to a computer > via samba/nfs/sshfs) is desiderable when several OS need access on it. > This way, filesystem does not matter at all :-) Unless there's no network ;) The context is me (a) spending 90% of my time on Debian, but (b) being able to unplug the drive, take it somewhere else, possibly with or without internet access or a LAN, and having a better-than-miniscule chance of reading and writing to it. But I think I should spend some more time doing some research (or give up and hope the target computer supports EXT2). It seems like an impossible problem â there's no intersection between {filesystems that do what I want} and {filesystems supported by certain complacent and closed operating systems} and {filesystems with up-to-date tools}. Besides, I already paid for the USB HDD :P â Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/d69956981002160426n1b3379b4h3ca6646a36fbbc5d(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Camaleón on 16 Feb 2010 08:10
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:26:05 +0800, Jason Heeris wrote: >> ¿NTFS? It should fit some of your requirements (works on windows, linux >> and MacOS -I think-) and allows ACL. > > It's not so much user ACL but the whole executable/read/write issue (I > get a bit sick of 100s of, eg. photos being marked executable, and > having to manually sort it out) — does NTFS support those kinds of > attributes? Yep :-) In fact, NTFS has much more attributes than POSIX :-P File Ownership and Permissions http://pagesperso-orange.fr/b.andre/permissions.html Anyway, I would only recommend going to NTFS in the event you've got a windows system from where to perfom any maintenance tasks (scandisk and defrag) natively. >> A networked hard disk (stand-alone enclosure or attached to a computer >> via samba/nfs/sshfs) is desiderable when several OS need access on it. >> This way, filesystem does not matter at all :-) > > Unless there's no network ;) The context is me (a) spending 90% of my > time on Debian, but (b) being able to unplug the drive, take it > somewhere else, possibly with or without internet access or a LAN, and > having a better-than-miniscule chance of reading and writing to it. But > I think I should spend some more time doing some research (or give up > and hope the target computer supports EXT2). It seems like an impossible > problem — there's no intersection between {filesystems that do what I > want} and {filesystems supported by certain complacent and closed > operating systems} and {filesystems with up-to-date tools}. > > Besides, I already paid for the USB HDD :P Yes, it is (still nowadays) a big issue. - FAT32 is nice/flexible but has the 4 GiB filesize limits that can be a real handycap if working with big files - NTFS is a bit better in this regards, but is propietary software and quite obfuscated though works well. - Ext3 (or modern *NIX filesystems, such ReiserFS, XFS...) requiere some thrird-party programs to be installed in Windows, and not sure how are these filesystems handled by MacOS :-? So yes, under this panorama UDF seemed the best alternative, but I think is a bit unmature to be a trustworthy alternative. We (users) are stuck :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.02.16.13.06.16(a)gmail.com |