Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Mini D on July 11, 2005, 10:29:28 AM
-
Is this possible?
-
Install Samba on the Linux side. It allows Windows to access the files as if they are on a Windows file system.
You'll be able to set the Samba side as a share and Windows will see it over the network so you can map the drive, if you like.
-
I assume you have only the hd and want to connect it to the windows computer and read from it with windows?
If you have a linux computer by far easier to to either use samba or copy it on an fat formatted hd and then read the fat formatted hd in the windows pc.
Otherwise you can use recovery tools, i dont know if there is a free one but there are some which you have to pay for, they can read ext2 or raiser fs harddisks then you can copy the data from the hd.
If you know what type of linux filesystem is used on the hd try to find a program to read it... its probably either ext2,ext3 or raiser.
ciao
-
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I have a hard drive that was formatted for LINUX... not a LINUX box. Is there a way to read it with Windows 2k3?
-
Ahhh. I do not really now MD. Never had that situation. When I have Linux disks, I just plug them into a cheap Linux box and move the data over to Windows.
-
I have not found a reliable way to just install an EXT2 or EXT3 Linux-formatted hard drive into a windows box and have it just work. Here are some options that I've used that are known to work.
1. Install the drive into a Linux computer. Enable networking and read the drive from the Windows PC over the LAN. Or burn a CD on the Linux side with the files you want (or use floppies, or a keydrive, or a USB external drive, or whatever).
2. Get Knoppix or Mepis Linux, which will run directly from the Linux CD itself. There's NOTHING to install. Install the hard drive, boot off the Mepis or Knoppix CD, and then read the files you need off the hard drive. Either copy them to a the Windows FAT32 drive (NTFS not allowed), or use any previously mentioned removable media and copy the files over.
3. Buy and install Norton Ghost. Make a ghost image of the Linux drive. Then run Ghost Explorer in Windows and open the image file. Extract the files you want from the image file.
Hope this helps,
Llama
-
1. Tell us which file system it is formatted to. Linux has 4 or 5 possible file systems.
Ok here it is
try this one: http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/explore2fs/explore2fs-1.07.zip
or
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ext2fsd/ext2fsd-0.24.zip?download
if its reiserfs try this one:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/visualrfstool/visualrftools0.1.1.zip?download
-
goto...
http://WWW.knoppix.net
download .iso 3.9 is newest..
Burn Iso
insert disk into your cdrom..
goto bios of computer
have computer boot from cdrom..
reboot
knoppix will load up..
then you will see a desktop
your hardrives should be on the left as icons..
select the icons and set them as write able. Do this by right mousing to properties and selecting the drives read only box as unchecked.. then unmount the drive and remount it and you will have access..
copy and paste just like windows..
when your done reboot, goto bios and set up the boot sequence as you had before..
DoctorYo
Granted not the exact scenario you wanted but if i understand correctly this would solve your problem..
-
MiniD
How are you getting on with Linux? I got my system built, installed RedHat FC3 Linux, and then set about installing IBM's Linux version of DB2. As for Linux, what a POS/PITA! All those freaking line commands and "switches"???? :eek: It was like stepping back into 1992 and DOS 5.0. I'm not impressed with Linux, but support for W2000 is about to dry up. May consider W2003 Server, unless something better comes up.
-
First of you dont need the line commands, there are point and click tools for all stuff.
Apart from that i have servers running for 5 month and more without rebooting or touching them... wonder if windows 2003 can do that, i know windows xp cant.
-
Hehe, beet1e, you just do not get it. Linux is not a POS/PITA. You just do not understand how to use it. And that is ok.
I prefer a CLI (command linie interface) versus any GUI. Heck, I disable all that stuff for HTC servers, so we can get at the command line. Why? When you run a server you need to be able to get to things quickly and a GUI slows me down too much.
Once you know how to use the commands, you can get a lot more done using a CLI versus a GUI anyday of the week. I can type two characters and backup the entire database system from 5 servers scattered all over the place. Try that with Windows. :)
For an application OS, Linux is lousy, simply due to the lack of applications available and standard ways to install and remove them.
But for servers, it is a tough one to beat.
When I was running my own shop I had this saying, "If you require a GUI, then you have no business running a server."
-
My preference is for GUI. Why go to the trouble of having to remember lists of commands (and their switches) when you don't have to? I wrote a VFR flight planning app in 1993 using VB 3.0. And I was proud of the fact that it was entirely mouse driven, ie NO commands.
-
That is fine for an application beet1e. Which is exactly my point.
GUI's have thier place. Running a server, in my opinion, is not one of them.
Oh, that backup program I run, also runs automatically and emails me if there is an error. Or I can run it manually by typing in two letters and hitting the key.
You could accomplish the same manual thing with a GUI, but it would take about 2 hours to get done.
And the reason you learn those commands is so you can be proficient at debugging a server when it has a problem. If you never learn them, you cannot debug the server. A GUI is not going to help in that situation and, in fact, will get in the way.
-
Roger that, Skuzz. I'm not running a server, or at least not yet. We don't know how far we're going to develop the DB2 project...
-
Hey is anyone actually running AHII using Linux????????????????
ANYONE????????????
-
I loaded FC3 and then FC4. FC4 is definately a better build and it addressed some problems I was having with sendmail not working.
LINUX has the ability to be set up using only the things you actually need. Unfortunately, you have to have been working with it since 1997 to fully understand how to do this, or switch over from UNIX and go through a minor learning curve. For the most part, LINUX is cumbersome and poorly documented and a heavy dose of tribal knowledge is required to use it properly.
Fedora is a waste of time and effort. It is intended to be a complete windows substitute. I could accept that it doesn't run windows applications, but cannot accept that it has trouble running LINUX applications too. I had more lockups and odd behavior with Fedora than with any other OS I've used.
I ran a Win2k server that I would have to blow the dust off to use. It worked for 4 years without interuption. The only time it was shut off is when we lost power to the house. That would happen about 1 month (have one month with a few to several outages) out of the year. That means it usually ran for 11 months without any kind of problems.
I'm using Windows 2k3 advanced server right now. I don't have an idea of how well it will work past the infamous 49.5 day mark that XP suffers from.
LINUX is far from being a viable option for an OS in the home. It doesn't even come close to touching the ease and practicality of Windows. The bare-bones server user might tell you differently, but that oppinion is about as skewed and un-valuable as I've seen when the box is sitting at your computer desk ready to be used.
-
MiniD - thanks for that ^ - very useful.
For my own uses, I'd be interested to know more about W2003 Server. Is it an OS that could be used as a home based OS? I've seen XP, and seen some of the problems that people have with it, and would rather go the W2003 Server route, if it would work for me. I must admit to being put off XP when I did a fresh install of it, and one of the first things I saw was a dog or a cow running across the screen. I hate those MS gimmicks. W2000 is free of them, and I imagine W2003S is too.
As for the Linux system, my DB2 Administrator friend has taken the PC home with him, as I have ruled out Linux for my own purposes. He needs to get DB2 up and running but is having problems. You mentioned that FC4 is better than FC3. Is there any other flavour of Linux that you could recommend for this? If you know, please let me know where I can find it.
Beet
-
Not sure what all these FC things are, but MD is right, if not a little harsh.
Hard for me to actually comment on the learning curve aspect, as I have been using UNIX for so long, it comes naturally to me.
But, I concur Linux is not ready for prime time. No where near ready for the end user. However, it is still a great server OS. I still rank it better than any server OS MS ships in many ways.
-
My recent LINUX experience has left me more pissed off than ever skuzzy. Sorry about the tone, but that's how any LINUX discussion is going to sound from me for about a year. I should be over it by then.
Beat, I haven't really been running Win2k3 long enough to get a feel for reliability. The do tone down some of the help stuff, so things like the "windows assistant" will not show up. But, this is a feature you can disable with XP.
The only issue I've really had with 2003 so far has been that I can't load my camera software onto it. Fortunately, I can download the images via a card reader, but I'd like the plug and play option to work too. I realize this is not really that big of a thing, but it does highlight that some software/hardware won't work with 2003. It should all work with XP.