El sáb, 22-09-2007 a las 14:08 -0500, Sid Arth escribió: > On 9/22/07, Gabriel Parrondo <g.parrondo@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Have you tried any of the two choices? > > If you have a windows installed you could also try running a chkdsk on > > that disk and see if it solves the problem. > > > > Are you trying to mount with rw access? You must have ntfs-3g installed > > for this. Install also the package ntfsprogs and then try ntfsfix. > > > > Googling for the error gives the following results: > > http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=es&q=%24LogFile%20indicates%20unclean > > %20shutdown%20(0%2C%200)%20&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda+en+Google&meta= > > > > Try the second result and see if it works for you. If it doesn't keep > > looking on the results. > > > > > > By the way, please don't send HTML messages. > > > [...] > > Ahh sorry about the html, gmail does that automatically I believe. No problem, there's always issues with gmail and html. Also remember to send the messages to the list ;) > The second option did allow it to work, but I was wondering. What does it > mean when you force the mount? It would be the same as if you skipped the scandisk on windows: if there's any data corruption caused by the unclean umount, it won't be fixed. Theoretically, you should have done this only one time. If you needed to add the 'force' option to /etc/fstab you really should start windows and run a scandisk/chkdisk. > I have installed ntfs-3g and I will also install ntfsprogs . I want full > access to my drives which is why I am using 000. I know it may be unsecure, > but these drives are only going to be shared on my home network. -- Gabriel Parrondo GNU/Linux User #404138 GnuPG Public Key ID: BED7BF43 JID: gabrielp@xmpp.us "The only difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente