[ILUG] NT & NTFS[was Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true]

From: Kenn Humborg (kenn at domain avalon.wombat.ie)
Date: Mon 26 Apr 1999 - 22:45:07 IST

Next message: Bernard Tyers: "[ILUG] another virus"
Previous message: Dave Wilson: "Re: [ILUG] Red Hat 6.0"
In reply to: Robert Sweetnam: "Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true"
Next in thread: Robert Sweetnam: "Re: [ILUG] NT & NTFS[was Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true]"
Reply: Robert Sweetnam: "Re: [ILUG] NT & NTFS[was Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true]"
Maybe reply: Derek_Noonan at domain dell.com: "RE: [ILUG] NT & NTFS[was Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 08:36:30PM +0100, Robert Sweetnam wrote:
> I have never tried it with NTFS, but no one should really have the OS
> residing on an NTFS partition.

???

Are you sure? Can somebody tell me why this would be a _good_
idea?

Kenn

Next message: Bernard Tyers: "[ILUG] another virus"
Previous message: Dave Wilson: "Re: [ILUG] Red Hat 6.0"
In reply to: Robert Sweetnam: "Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true"
Next in thread: Robert Sweetnam: "Re: [ILUG] NT & NTFS[was Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true]"
Reply: Robert Sweetnam: "Re: [ILUG] NT & NTFS[was Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true]"
Maybe reply: Derek_Noonan at domain dell.com: "RE: [ILUG] NT & NTFS[was Re: [ILUG] Re: strange but true]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:09 GMT