Most of my “linux sucks” complaints have stemmed from issues I ran into over a period of a year. However, I discovered this issue today when trying to recover data from an older hard drive that was dying (during bootup, the BIOS warned me that SMART indicated “imminent” failure and said that I should immediately back up my data; before this, Windows had stopped responding). The drive still largely worked, but would produce numerous read failures; any accesses were extremely slow.
I put the drive into a USB enclosure (they make this stuff so much easier!) and connected it to my Ubuntu box:
I clicked details to see what was going on:
This is pretty awful. The text looks like something a command-line tool spewed, shoved into a GUI that didn’t respect the line breaks. Getting to the actual content, neither choice is very good. Choice 1 would require a Windows box. Choice 2 involves forcing something “for your own responsibility”. What does that mean? Ignoring the Engrish, I’m assuming it means “at your own risk” and that I may lose data, but I have no idea how likely data loss is. Is it the usual risk associated with an unclean shutdown (which most people I know are willing to accept), or is it significantly higher? From a more technical perspective, is there more risk than there would be if I used Windows? (Is the Linux NTFS driver less robust?) Of course, neither option actually works:
Attempting to mount my drive using
I happen to know I need to be root (and how to become root), but a hypothetical family member / significant other using my PC would not.
Things that need to change:
- The “Cannot mount volume” dialog needs to be intelligent enough to do more than to just show the raw output from /bin/mount. If it’s going to suggest editing fstab (a horrible solution, with long-term consequences), it needs to be clear about how to edit it as root.
- Forcing a mount needs to be something that can be done from within the GUI.
- If there is a fsck.ntfs, it should automatically run; I should be notified that this is happening and be notified again when it has completed. If there is no fsck.ntfs, someone needs to write one. I can’t find one.
I know NTFS under Linux has been flaky in the past, so for now I’m going to use a Windows box to fix the situation (fortunately, I have one available). If people are trying to make Linux more accessible to “normal users”, then it’s important to handle this kind of situation better. As it is right now, Linux is not a good way to back up files from a dying NTFS drive (if the drive is working, it’s likely to be clean anyway).
You’re blaming Linux for having difficulty fixing a failing drive that uses a foreign file system. What is it supposed to do next, walk on water? My drive failed about a month ago (it’s 5 years old). It wouldn’t boot. I booted an AntiX LiveCD and used the fsck command. Thirty minutes later I rebooted and was up and running. I suspect I was lucky but that’s how it went. BTW the file system being repaired was ext3.
Richard: Great, so, while under Windows, he could jsut copy the data, on Linux he has to download a special live CD, burn it, reboot to it, run that, then boot back to Linux and copy data. That sounds totally sane!
Oh, also, the fact that the other live distro can do it means Ubuntu should be able to as well, so your argument fails on both sides.
Richard: I’m not expecting it to fix the drive or work miracles. After getting the FS clean with a Windows box, the data is copying just fine. dmesg shows some errors and it’s extraordinarily slow, but that’s exactly what I was hoping for.
I’m complaining primarily about the ridiculously bad usability here (incomprehensible dialogs with bad scary options, no GUI workaround, etc), and also about funcationality (i.e. the apparent lack of a fsck.ntfs). I would run into these problems with a functional-but-dirty drive too.
So why do you come to expect that Linux should be able to fix Windows problems while Windows knows nothing about Linux file systems? Is this something like Ginger Rogers who had to do everything Fred Astaire did only while dancing backwards, in high heels and wearing a floor length evening gown? The biggest problem with Linux is that it didn’t come first. Please think long and hard before you respond to that statement.
Because Linux can read Windows originating file systems, and strives to be better. Yes, it IS like Ginger, and if you don’t want to be compared, don’t try it. Don’t do something half assed and then whine that you’re being called on doing it half assed. Do it right or don’t do it at all.
I agree absolutely. I’ve been told repeatedly that Linux knows what to do with NTFS, along with everything else Linux supposedly does better. *YAWN*.
Linux may be faster and more secure than Windows, WHEN IT WORKS, but right now its usability and stability are roughly comparable to the initial run of Windows 95. If it works for you, great. If not, whoops.
It also doesn’t help that members of the Linux community tout superior user-friendliness as a key selling point, then complain that “people just don’t know enough about computers” when something goes wrong. If it were more user-friendly than Windows, then the typical Windows user should be able to do things in it at least AS easily, if not MORE easily, than he does in Windows. People who say that Linux is more user-friendly have a truly warped worldview.
When I failed to access my files on llinus OS I tried Stella Phoenix Linux Data Recovery Software and it really solved all my problem.
ha
WHEN IT WORKS, but right now its usability and stability are roughly comparable to the initial run of Windows 95
well you’re onto something but comparing say debian or ubuntu to that heap of crap. Are you serious? First, Do you remember how much windows 95 cost? What hardware it supported? Was it a multi-user system? Did it even come with a simple firewall installed? Was it plagues with the BSOD (refer back to the money question)? Talk to me about windows 95 security in regards to the internet.
I see what you are trying to say but you still are well off the mark. I have had a clean install of debian (with no tweaking to get things working) running for weeks (with updates and new kernel drivers installed) without so much as a system reboot, let alone a lock up. Meanwhile I have been chugging along on the web, burning cd’s, downloading giant files, backing up data and running various apps on windows via vmware on Destkop # 3 of my cube. I don’t think 95 could touch any of that. But you are right. Linux in terms of utter refinement, 100% hardware compatibility and excellent 3rd party software support, is far behind M$’s latest and greatest rip off, the bug-free version of Vista aka 7 (plus a few nice features eg. Windows ‘holy ripoff’ PowerShell) for the ultimate low price of $150 ( don’t worry they will upgrade in two years and make xp obsolete so prepare to shell out money if you haven’t bought 7 yet).
but i conclude with my thesis again, money and a monopoly will get you a near perfect system (speaking in generalities) and will undoubtedly make you look better than something put together on probably 1/1000th of the budget. But for what it’s worth the latter system does what I need it to do, and I use windows for anything obscure.