Branches
Comments
[»]
sandbox??
by nowinter - Jul 3rd 2006 14:41:07
Hi Jan!
Thank you very much for this release. I decided to get rid of MSWin, and
this was a very useful tool to rearrange NTFS partitions.
There was numerous isuues, though. Namely, I was able to remove things, I
even haven't seen them listed, BUT THEN THEY APPEARED AGAIN )))
Finally, I was invoking sync - umount - mount after almost any
operation on the disks. Does it have to do something with sandbox? Is it
ok?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: sandbox??
by Jan Kratochvil - Jul 3rd 2006 14:53:01
> Namely, I was able to remove things, I
> even haven't seen them listed, BUT THEN
> THEY APPEARED AGAIN )))
> Finally, I was invoking sync - umount -
> mount after almost any operation on the
> disks. Does it have to do something with
> sandbox? Is it ok?
* Always umount the drive before shutting down GNU/Linux (probably not
your problem).
* Check your system logs for any Captive messages. Captive will rather
give up (=>files reappear) the modifications if there is a risk of
corrupting the drive.
* "Sandbox" is required to be turned on for any safe operations of
Captive. Running without "sandbox" is only for debugging purposes as it may
corrupt your drive.
* Always use the captive-cmdline(1) client only as the Linux kernel
interface (for mount(8)) always sucked either as LUFS or as FUSE just
because Linux kernel sucks.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Very well put together
by Derek J Witt - Nov 29th 2003 07:45:06
I commend you for this project. I am currently using this on my XP NTFS
partitions and I am impressed that I can actually move, edit, and remove
files and directories with no apparent ill effects. This is very nice
indeed.
I initially was skeptical because it uses wine and parts of ReactOS (I
have messed with this OS a few times), but you have proved me wrong. I have
noticed no lag on my system. I do notice the initial mounting process does
take slightly longer than the Linux-NTFS project. But, once I'm past that,
it's quite transparent.
One question I have for you, how would I allow normal users to access
those drives? It would seem that user=<uid> is of no effect. I may be
doing something wrong, but captive-cmdline does report user=<uid>.
--
"Houston, the Eagle has landed and laid an egg!"
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Very well put together
by Jan Kratochvil - Nov 29th 2003 08:29:08
> I do notice the
> initial mounting process does take
> slightly longer than the Linux-NTFS
> project. But, once I'm past that, it's
> quite transparent.
It takes some time to internally boot the Microsoft Windows subsystem.
:-)
> One question I have for you, how would I
> allow normal users to access those
> drives?
Version 1.1 needs "mount -o fmask=666,dmask=777". Default of v1.1 is
600/700, Next v1.1.1 will default to the common 644/755 (root/owner r/w,
users r/o).
[reply]
[top]
|
