And again I contend that the big difference is between ntfs and ext4. I remember years ago that there used to be an option to install Linux to ntfs more that likely still can.
Actually, I believe it worst then that. I believe a lot of newbie never have even install Windows. They buy a new PC, bring it home, plug it in, maybe D/L a browser and they are finished. Even the browsers have a “sync” option to bring over all their saved options and bookmarks.
2 Likes
That is a huge problem
The same problem exists with BSD… itbonly supports UFS and ZFS.
You cant share a data partition between Linux and Win, or between Linux and BSD, or between Win and BSD.
Linux can read and write on just about any filesystem, but there can be issues, especislly with ntfs and fat. It is not recommended.
What the root filesystem can be is more restricted.
I think Win can only be ntfs, maybe fat.
Linux can be ext or btrfs or a few others, but not ntfs or ufs
BSD can only be ufs or zfs
Its a case of different worlds. Best keep,them in separate computers
1 Like
And that is the confusion within the computer world!!! I have always approached the problem with the philosophy of "let Linux be Linux and “Windows be Windows”!!! In other words, do not try to make one OS do what the other OS is more capable of doing.
2 Likes
It is nothing like as bad as it used to be.
Every computer manufacturer had their own set of filesystems. I remember Control Data had about 20 different filesystem types… stuff like formatted or binary, sequential or indexed sequential or random access, W records or Z records, and so on.
Then you move to IBM and they are all different.
At least, today, we have some standards.
Yes, and the common person is left with Microsoft, Apple and Linux competing for the $$$$$ their products might bring in. I see this as a no-win situation, especially when you are butting heads with big-tech.
1 Like
Thought about what Howard said:
I make my PCs and I always buy them in parts, but in general, when people buy a laptop or a desktop, it usually always comes with Windows, and they would never think about installing an OS: they just want to turn the computer on and work on it.
I’m going to give an example that I might be criticized for, but it’s basically like buying a smartphone: it always comes with the OS installed and most people don’t even think about what the OS is, it’s a “Smartphone from brand X or Y”.
Daniel, exactly, but it goes along with what I mentioned: as Windows comes pre-installed, a normal user won’t delete Windows to install a Linux distro.
There’s also a problem I had with my son when he was at school: the school only accepted work done in MS Office and they had to have Windows in their laptops. I complained, but without success: he had to do all his work with Windows and Office.
Even if there was a newbie-friendly open source distro, I couldn’t risk ruining my son’s Windows laptop to install a Linux distro.
Installations of opensource distros should be more “user-friendly”, I agree, but in my opinion, not only should there be a newbie opensource distros, there needs to be a big change in mentality. People won’t install opensource distros because at school, at work or because even their friends only use Windows.
This is the reality where I live
Jorge
Sorry if my post is off-topic
3 Likes
Mine also!!! A friendly user Linux distro is not only unpractical but is out of reality with most of the world, most Windows user do not even want Linux, let alone install Linux!!!
3 Likes