On 2007-10-10, 21:51 GMT, Christopher Brown wrote: > > There are two ntfs implementations. One is old, crufted, and > > poorly maintained. > > Sorry but that is bullshit. Old and crufted aren't very good > technical arguments and poorly maintained is simply untrue. Just wanted to write something similar. One could easily write „one is well-tested known, accepted upstream, running in kernel space, and apparently built by somebody who cares a lot about safety of users data, the other is <opposite>.“ Moreover, although I understand absolutely nothing, just by chance I got close to the discussion on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243594 and my feeling from reading that conclusion is that there is a lot of self-report about quality of ntfs-3g by Szaba, but a lot of doubts on side of person whom I trust to be very careful and knowledgeable. Just my 0.02 CZK Matěj -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
