Derek Broughton wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>>> In summary, it's mostly because it's not self-journaling and thus
>>>> (relatively) easy to corrupt and fragment. However, I'll repeat that I
>>>> haven't had any real *problems*
>>> True. Its drawbacks are also its advantages. It's simple. I wouldn't
>>> want to do real work on it, and since my only use for Windows is Quicken
>>> , the only data I want in Windows I definitely _don't_ want on FAT, but I
>>> have used FAT partitions for moving data around.
>> I still think that might be a bit over-cautious. If you're not running
>> a server, and keep regular backups, there's really nothing worth
>> worrying about.
> For my bookkeeping? I don't think so. I don't want those files on an
> unsecured filesystem. My whole windows partition is FAT32, so that I can
> easily play with it from the Linux system, but I don't keep any sensitive
> data there - either sensitive in the sense that I don't want anyone else
> seeing it, or just in the sense that I can't stand to lose it.
Relying on the filesystem for encryption is a bad idea, IMHO. I would
use a dedicated solution for that.
ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: