Copying Linux partition

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Graham, Sep 17, 2004.

  1. Graham

    Graham Guest

    Is there a tool to do this? I'd like to copy my Linux partition to a
    newer hard drive.
    I'm using Redhat 9.
     
    Graham, Sep 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Graham

    Graham Guest

    Graham wrote:
    >
    > Is there a tool to do this? I'd like to copy my Linux partition to a
    > newer hard drive.
    > I'm using Redhat 9.


    Minor correction: I meant, *extended partition*, which holds the two
    Linux partitions. Presumably copying the Linux partitions, within
    Linux, should mean copying the two Linux partitions to a new Ext.
    partition.
     
    Graham, Sep 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Graham

    Barry Guest

    Graham wrote:

    > Graham wrote:
    >>
    >> Is there a tool to do this? I'd like to copy my Linux partition to a
    >> newer hard drive.
    >> I'm using Redhat 9.

    >
    > Minor correction: I meant, *extended partition*, which holds the two
    > Linux partitions. Presumably copying the Linux partitions, within
    > Linux, should mean copying the two Linux partitions to a new Ext.
    > partition.


    If the two partitions are exactly the same size (or the destination
    partition is slightly larger) then:

    dd if=/dev/hdaX of=/dev/hdbY

    but be very very careful.

    Much better is to create your partitions on destination drive - they can
    be any sort of partition - and use tar or cp.

    For example:

    fdisk /dev/hdb
    ... create partitions ...
    mke2fs /dev/hdbY
    mount /dev/hdbY /mnt/dest
    cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/

    You still have to be careful.
    And you might have to mount your partition to copy, or perhaps
    remount a live one as read-only.

    If you are copying your root partition then it is best to boot up
    on a bootable cdrom and do it.
     
    Barry, Sep 17, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Barry <> wrote:

    > cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/


    This will work, but I prefer rsync:

    rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system
    /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/

    One reason is that, should the transfer be interrupted for any reason,
    rsync makes it much easier to resume from where you left off--just
    reexecute the same command, and it'll figure it out. That's why I put in
    the "--delete", so it'll keep track of any changes to the source
    filesystem in the meantime.

    Also put in "--verbose", and it'll list the name of every file as it
    transfers it.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Graham

    Steve Guest

    Barry wrote:
    > Graham wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Graham wrote:
    >>
    >>>Is there a tool to do this? I'd like to copy my Linux partition to a
    >>>newer hard drive.
    >>>I'm using Redhat 9.

    >>
    >>Minor correction: I meant, *extended partition*, which holds the two
    >>Linux partitions. Presumably copying the Linux partitions, within
    >>Linux, should mean copying the two Linux partitions to a new Ext.
    >>partition.

    I'd look at least to going to journalled ext3. Possible take this
    opportunity to change to reiserfs or xfs for improved data security.
    >
    >
    > If the two partitions are exactly the same size (or the destination
    > partition is slightly larger) then:
    >
    > dd if=/dev/hdaX of=/dev/hdbY
    >
    > but be very very careful.
    >
    > Much better is to create your partitions on destination drive - they can
    > be any sort of partition - and use tar or cp.
    >
    > For example:
    >
    > fdisk /dev/hdb
    > ... create partitions ...
    > mke2fs /dev/hdbY

    at least mke2fs -j, or maybe even use reiser or xfs instead.
    > mount /dev/hdbY /mnt/dest
    > cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/


    cd /mounted_filesystem
    find . -depth -xdev | grep -v '/proc/' | cpio -dump /mnt/dest

    There used to be problems with device files and cp. I'm never certain
    whether they've been properly fixed. You also don't want to copy things
    like /dev/kmem!
    >
    > You still have to be careful.
    > And you might have to mount your partition to copy, or perhaps
    > remount a live one as read-only.
    >
    > If you are copying your root partition then it is best to boot up
    > on a bootable cdrom and do it.
    >

    Imperative!

    Steve
     
    Steve, Sep 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Graham

    Barry Guest

    Steve wrote:

    > Barry wrote:
    >> Graham wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Graham wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Is there a tool to do this? I'd like to copy my Linux partition to a
    >>>>newer hard drive.
    >>>>I'm using Redhat 9.
    >>>
    >>>Minor correction: I meant, *extended partition*, which holds the two
    >>>Linux partitions. Presumably copying the Linux partitions, within
    >>>Linux, should mean copying the two Linux partitions to a new Ext.
    >>>partition.

    > I'd look at least to going to journalled ext3. Possible take this
    > opportunity to change to reiserfs or xfs for improved data security.
    >>
    >>
    >> If the two partitions are exactly the same size (or the destination
    >> partition is slightly larger) then:
    >>
    >> dd if=/dev/hdaX of=/dev/hdbY
    >>
    >> but be very very careful.
    >>
    >> Much better is to create your partitions on destination drive - they can
    >> be any sort of partition - and use tar or cp.
    >>
    >> For example:
    >>
    >> fdisk /dev/hdb
    >> ... create partitions ...
    >> mke2fs /dev/hdbY

    > at least mke2fs -j, or maybe even use reiser or xfs instead.
    >> mount /dev/hdbY /mnt/dest
    >> cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/

    >
    > cd /mounted_filesystem
    > find . -depth -xdev | grep -v '/proc/' | cpio -dump /mnt/dest
    >
    > There used to be problems with device files and cp. I'm never certain
    > whether they've been properly fixed. You also don't want to copy things
    > like /dev/kmem!


    No problems with cp -a.

    Another way is:

    cd /mnt/whatever && tar chlf - . | (cd /mnt/new && tar xf -)

    But really, "cp -a" is nice and simple and has *never* given me a problem.

    >>
    >> You still have to be careful.
    >> And you might have to mount your partition to copy, or perhaps
    >> remount a live one as read-only.
    >>
    >> If you are copying your root partition then it is best to boot up
    >> on a bootable cdrom and do it.
    >>

    > Imperative!


    I have done it both ways and both work much the same.
     
    Barry, Sep 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Graham

    Enkidu Guest

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:35:52 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Barry <> wrote:
    >
    >> cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/

    >
    >This will work, but I prefer rsync:
    >
    > rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system
    > /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >
    >One reason is that, should the transfer be interrupted for any reason,
    >rsync makes it much easier to resume from where you left off--just
    >reexecute the same command, and it'll figure it out. That's why I put in
    >the "--delete", so it'll keep track of any changes to the source
    >filesystem in the meantime.
    >

    cp -axu will resume on interruption.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Sep 17, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    Enkidu <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:35:52 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    ><_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> Barry <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/

    >>
    >>This will work, but I prefer rsync:
    >>
    >> rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system
    >> /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >>
    >>One reason is that, should the transfer be interrupted for any reason,
    >>rsync makes it much easier to resume from where you left off--just
    >>reexecute the same command, and it'll figure it out. That's why I put in
    >>the "--delete", so it'll keep track of any changes to the source
    >>filesystem in the meantime.
    >>

    >cp -axu will resume on interruption.


    That only looks at modification times, and I don't think it'll work
    properly with partially-copied files. rsync looks at contents, so it
    will correctly finish partial files.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Graham

    Barry Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Enkidu <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:35:52 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >><_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>,
    >>> Barry <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >>>
    >>>This will work, but I prefer rsync:
    >>>
    >>> rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system
    >>> /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >>>
    >>>One reason is that, should the transfer be interrupted for any reason,
    >>>rsync makes it much easier to resume from where you left off--just
    >>>reexecute the same command, and it'll figure it out. That's why I put in
    >>>the "--delete", so it'll keep track of any changes to the source
    >>>filesystem in the meantime.
    >>>

    >>cp -axu will resume on interruption.

    >
    > That only looks at modification times, and I don't think it'll work
    > properly with partially-copied files. rsync looks at contents, so it
    > will correctly finish partial files.


    Well then you can just add -v to your cp and if you get interrupted
    then you only need delete the last file copied started!

    But getting interrupted in the middle of a cp is very very rare that
    it hardly seems worth doing something like:

    rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system --what-a-lot-of-options

    as opposed to:

    cp -avx
     
    Barry, Sep 17, 2004
    #9
  10. Graham

    steve Guest

    Graham wrote:

    > Is there a tool to do this? I'd like to copy my Linux partition to a
    > newer hard drive.
    > I'm using Redhat 9.


    I booted from CD, then copied all the files to another hard drive...Makesure
    you get all the ".<name>" hidden directories

    Then I installed a very basic system on the target drive....

    Then booted from the CD and copied the earlier copy from the backup drive
    over top of the basic system.

    Then re-boot.

    Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to make things
    hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.

    It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my experience.
     
    steve, Sep 17, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    Barry <> wrote:

    >Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Enkidu <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:35:52 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>><_zealand> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <>,
    >>>> Barry <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >>>>
    >>>>This will work, but I prefer rsync:
    >>>>
    >>>> rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system
    >>>> /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >>>>
    >>>>One reason is that, should the transfer be interrupted for any reason,
    >>>>rsync makes it much easier to resume from where you left off--just
    >>>>reexecute the same command, and it'll figure it out. That's why I put in
    >>>>the "--delete", so it'll keep track of any changes to the source
    >>>>filesystem in the meantime.
    >>>>
    >>>cp -axu will resume on interruption.

    >>
    >> That only looks at modification times, and I don't think it'll work
    >> properly with partially-copied files. rsync looks at contents, so it
    >> will correctly finish partial files.

    >
    >Well then you can just add -v to your cp and if you get interrupted
    >then you only need delete the last file copied started!


    Yeah, you "only" need to figure out which file that was, out of possibly
    hundreds of thousands, or maybe millions.

    >But getting interrupted in the middle of a cp is very very rare that
    >it hardly seems worth doing something like:
    >
    > rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system --what-a-lot-of-options
    >
    >as opposed to:
    >
    > cp -avx


    I frequently do multi-gigabyte copying of files. I have one client with
    over a million files on his production server. It's so much simpler to
    use rsync for this sort of thing--less chance for things to go wrong.
    Also works between different machines, too.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    steve <> wrote:

    >Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to make things
    >hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.
    >
    >It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my experience.


    The only thing I can think of that could screw you up is hard links. But
    people rarely use those nowadays.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2004
    #12
  13. Graham

    Barry Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Barry <> wrote:
    >
    >>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Enkidu <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:35:52 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>>><_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <>,
    >>>>> Barry <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >>>>>
    >>>>>This will work, but I prefer rsync:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system
    >>>>> /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >>>>>
    >>>>>One reason is that, should the transfer be interrupted for any reason,
    >>>>>rsync makes it much easier to resume from where you left off--just
    >>>>>reexecute the same command, and it'll figure it out. That's why I put
    >>>>>in the "--delete", so it'll keep track of any changes to the source
    >>>>>filesystem in the meantime.
    >>>>>
    >>>>cp -axu will resume on interruption.
    >>>
    >>> That only looks at modification times, and I don't think it'll work
    >>> properly with partially-copied files. rsync looks at contents, so it
    >>> will correctly finish partial files.

    >>
    >>Well then you can just add -v to your cp and if you get interrupted
    >>then you only need delete the last file copied started!

    >
    > Yeah, you "only" need to figure out which file that was, out of possibly
    > hundreds of thousands, or maybe millions.


    err .. it will be the last one on your screen or in your log!

    >
    >>But getting interrupted in the middle of a cp is very very rare that
    >>it hardly seems worth doing something like:
    >>
    >> rsync --archive --delete --one-file-system --what-a-lot-of-options
    >>
    >>as opposed to:
    >>
    >> cp -avx

    >
    > I frequently do multi-gigabyte copying of files.


    Who doesn't these days?

    > I have one client with over a million files on his production server.


    I have over a million files on my tiny Linux box which only has a
    paltry 600GB.

    > It's so much simpler to
    > use rsync for this sort of thing--less chance for things to go wrong.


    It is even simpler to use cp because nothing goes wrong.

    > Also works between different machines, too.


    I was doing multi-gigabyte copies in early 1990's including >60GB databases.
    That was fairly large for the time.

    So mine is bigger than yours!

    I know rsync is a wonderful program but for a newbie I think a simple
    cp with simple options is an excellent place to start.
     
    Barry, Sep 17, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <> in nz.comp on Fri,
    17 Sep 2004 23:23:41 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > In article <>,
    > steve <> wrote:
    >
    > >Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to make things
    > >hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.
    > >
    > >It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my experience.

    >
    > The only thing I can think of that could screw you up is hard links. But
    > people rarely use those nowadays.


    What's the difference between a symlink and a hardlink?
     
    Patrick Dunford, Sep 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Graham

    Barry Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > In article <> in nz.comp on Fri,
    > 17 Sep 2004 23:23:41 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    >> In article <>,
    >> steve <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to make
    >> >things hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.
    >> >
    >> >It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my experience.

    >>
    >> The only thing I can think of that could screw you up is hard links. But
    >> people rarely use those nowadays.

    >
    > What's the difference between a symlink and a hardlink?


    One is symbolic and the other is hard :)

    A hard link is just another link to the same underlying inodes (content).
    You end up with two or more files which are exactly identical
    and totally indistinguishable. A hard link cannot span filesystems.
    Remove one file and the other remains. Microsoft never stole hard links.

    A symbolic link is just a reference to another file. Remove the target
    file and the symbolic link will point to something that doesn't exist.
    Microsoft stole symbolic links off BSD Unix and have never paid
    any royalties for them either.
     
    Barry, Sep 18, 2004
    #15
  16. Graham

    Allistar Guest

    Barry wrote:

    > Graham wrote:
    >
    >> Graham wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Is there a tool to do this? I'd like to copy my Linux partition to a
    >>> newer hard drive.
    >>> I'm using Redhat 9.

    >>
    >> Minor correction: I meant, *extended partition*, which holds the two
    >> Linux partitions. Presumably copying the Linux partitions, within
    >> Linux, should mean copying the two Linux partitions to a new Ext.
    >> partition.

    >
    > If the two partitions are exactly the same size (or the destination
    > partition is slightly larger) then:
    >
    > dd if=/dev/hdaX of=/dev/hdbY
    >
    > but be very very careful.
    >
    > Much better is to create your partitions on destination drive - they can
    > be any sort of partition - and use tar or cp.
    >
    > For example:
    >
    > fdisk /dev/hdb
    > ... create partitions ...
    > mke2fs /dev/hdbY
    > mount /dev/hdbY /mnt/dest
    > cp -ax /mounted_filesystem /mnt/dest/
    >
    > You still have to be careful.
    > And you might have to mount your partition to copy, or perhaps
    > remount a live one as read-only.
    >
    > If you are copying your root partition then it is best to boot up
    > on a bootable cdrom and do it.


    I have used "tar" to move the root partition to another drive (from a
    10,000rpm to 15,000 rpm disk for performance).

    I can't remember the exact command but it was all pretty straight forward.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Sep 18, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 18 Sep
    2004 11:27:35 +1200, Barry <> says...
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > > In article <> in nz.comp on Fri,
    > > 17 Sep 2004 23:23:41 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > >> In article <>,
    > >> steve <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to make
    > >> >things hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.
    > >> >
    > >> >It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my experience.
    > >>
    > >> The only thing I can think of that could screw you up is hard links. But
    > >> people rarely use those nowadays.

    > >
    > > What's the difference between a symlink and a hardlink?

    >
    > One is symbolic and the other is hard :)
    >
    > A hard link is just another link to the same underlying inodes (content).
    > You end up with two or more files which are exactly identical
    > and totally indistinguishable. A hard link cannot span filesystems.
    > Remove one file and the other remains. Microsoft never stole hard links.
    >
    > A symbolic link is just a reference to another file. Remove the target
    > file and the symbolic link will point to something that doesn't exist.
    > Microsoft stole symbolic links off BSD Unix and have never paid
    > any royalties for them either.


    Was the symlink patented, if it was then why didn't BSD sue? Sour grapes.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Sep 18, 2004
    #17
  18. Graham

    Barry Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 18 Sep
    > 2004 11:27:35 +1200, Barry <> says...
    >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <> in nz.comp on
    >> > Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:23:41 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    >> > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    >> >> In article <>,
    >> >> steve <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to make
    >> >> >things hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my experience.
    >> >>
    >> >> The only thing I can think of that could screw you up is hard links.
    >> >> But people rarely use those nowadays.
    >> >
    >> > What's the difference between a symlink and a hardlink?

    >>
    >> One is symbolic and the other is hard :)
    >>
    >> A hard link is just another link to the same underlying inodes (content).
    >> You end up with two or more files which are exactly identical
    >> and totally indistinguishable. A hard link cannot span filesystems.
    >> Remove one file and the other remains. Microsoft never stole hard links.
    >>
    >> A symbolic link is just a reference to another file. Remove the target
    >> file and the symbolic link will point to something that doesn't exist.
    >> Microsoft stole symbolic links off BSD Unix and have never paid
    >> any royalties for them either.

    >
    > Was the symlink patented, if it was then why didn't BSD sue? Sour grapes.


    MS doesn't respect anything. It is still theft, patent or no patent.
    Just because something isn't patented doesn't give anyone the right
    to steal it. The least they could have done is credited BSD for it
    in their online help.
     
    Barry, Sep 18, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 18 Sep
    2004 20:14:09 +1200, Barry <> says...
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 18 Sep
    > > 2004 11:27:35 +1200, Barry <> says...
    > >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > In article <> in nz.comp on
    > >> > Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:23:41 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    > >> > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    > >> >> In article <>,
    > >> >> steve <> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to make
    > >> >> >things hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my experience.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> The only thing I can think of that could screw you up is hard links.
    > >> >> But people rarely use those nowadays.
    > >> >
    > >> > What's the difference between a symlink and a hardlink?
    > >>
    > >> One is symbolic and the other is hard :)
    > >>
    > >> A hard link is just another link to the same underlying inodes (content).
    > >> You end up with two or more files which are exactly identical
    > >> and totally indistinguishable. A hard link cannot span filesystems.
    > >> Remove one file and the other remains. Microsoft never stole hard links.
    > >>
    > >> A symbolic link is just a reference to another file. Remove the target
    > >> file and the symbolic link will point to something that doesn't exist.
    > >> Microsoft stole symbolic links off BSD Unix and have never paid
    > >> any royalties for them either.

    > >
    > > Was the symlink patented, if it was then why didn't BSD sue? Sour grapes.

    >
    > MS doesn't respect anything. It is still theft, patent or no patent.
    > Just because something isn't patented doesn't give anyone the right
    > to steal it. The least they could have done is credited BSD for it
    > in their online help.


    Look at the Sun - MS settlement. Both companies claimed each other
    violated their respective patents.

    If an idea is not copyrighted, trademarked, patented or whatever i.e. it
    is in the public domain, then using it is not theft.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Sep 18, 2004
    #19
  20. Graham

    Barry Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 18 Sep
    > 2004 20:14:09 +1200, Barry <> says...
    >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 18 Sep
    >> > 2004 11:27:35 +1200, Barry <> says...
    >> >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > In article <> in nz.comp on
    >> >> > Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:23:41 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-
    >> >> > central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    >> >> >> In article <>,
    >> >> >> steve <> wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >Linux isn't like WinXP. There is no registry or other stuff to
    >> >> >> >make things hard. Most config stuff is in straight text files.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >It's much easier to move Linux around.....at least in my
    >> >> >> >experience.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> The only thing I can think of that could screw you up is hard
    >> >> >> links. But people rarely use those nowadays.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > What's the difference between a symlink and a hardlink?
    >> >>
    >> >> One is symbolic and the other is hard :)
    >> >>
    >> >> A hard link is just another link to the same underlying inodes
    >> >> (content). You end up with two or more files which are exactly
    >> >> identical and totally indistinguishable. A hard link cannot span
    >> >> filesystems. Remove one file and the other remains. Microsoft never
    >> >> stole hard links.
    >> >>
    >> >> A symbolic link is just a reference to another file. Remove the
    >> >> target file and the symbolic link will point to something that doesn't
    >> >> exist. Microsoft stole symbolic links off BSD Unix and have never paid
    >> >> any royalties for them either.
    >> >
    >> > Was the symlink patented, if it was then why didn't BSD sue? Sour
    >> > grapes.

    >>
    >> MS doesn't respect anything. It is still theft, patent or no patent.
    >> Just because something isn't patented doesn't give anyone the right
    >> to steal it. The least they could have done is credited BSD for it
    >> in their online help.

    >
    > Look at the Sun - MS settlement. Both companies claimed each other
    > violated their respective patents.
    >
    > If an idea is not copyrighted, trademarked, patented or whatever i.e. it
    > is in the public domain, then using it is not theft.


    Yes it is! If a bench seat is put in a public domain and I was to take it
    aways then that would be theft!!
     
    Barry, Sep 18, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pierre Jarry
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,448
    Pierre Jarry
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. Copying partition to a new drive

    , Jul 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    523
    Walter Mautner
    Jul 25, 2005
  3. Copying partition to a new drive

    , Jul 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    490
  4. Trouble copying boot partition

    , Aug 11, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
  5. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=28Ctrl=A4+/Alt+=A4/Del=A4+=29=2

    Save Linux Partition-Get Rid of Linux

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22=28Ctrl=A4+/Alt+=A4/Del=A4+=29=2, Mar 5, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,109
    Seatoller
    Mar 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page