Talk:NTFS-3G

Purpose of this page
This discussion page is for comments, questions and feedback on the Wikipedia article and is not for discussion about using the driver/software layer itself. Please keep it to that. Most questions posted herein can be answered by searching existing discussion with Google, Bing, Yahoo! or other search engines JoeHenzi (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Real Wikipedia Question - What is the "3G" for?
I'm inclined to guess it means "third generation" though I can not come up with a reference. I'd like to see the article read NTFS-3G, or NTFS Third Generation, is... JoeHenzi (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

MISC - OLD, BAD ENTRIES
This is so hard to install this software. Is it software? I mean, why doesn't someone make some fool proof tutorials that are up to date. Why can't there be .dmg files for everything and make it smooth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.94.156.99 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC-7)

sudo apt-get install ntfs-3g

This isn't the place for you to complain about your lack of understanding of linux. -napalm22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napalm22 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The guy above (71.94.156.99) was referring to installation on a MAC, not linux. MAC doesn't use apt (or at least not by default, even though apt can be found on some iPhones in parallel with the Apple-supplied commercial installer(AppStore)). I haven't tried installing it on a mac, so I cannot answer him. 24.203.68.10 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some discussion of how the software integrates into the kernel or (inclusive) Linux distributions or packaging thereof would be relevant to the article, however. Epylar 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a FUSE module, NTFS-3G is not part of the kernel. It is, however, included in all current Linux distributions. Using it requires little more than installing the package ("apt-get install ntfs-3g" on Debian and Ubuntu) and replacing "ntfs" by "ntfs-3g" in the file type column of /etc/fstab. I yesterday tested the latest release of OpenSUSE and found that it uses ntfs-3g by default, without user intervention. I suspect that an increasing number of distros will do the same. --Johannes Rohr 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ntfs-3g obselete?
The ntfs-3g driver is said to be obselete at the linux-ntfs site, search their wiki for ntfs-3g. I can't post a link as the stupid captcha is refusing my answers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.212.195 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ntfs-3g is a separate project, a reliable derivate of the linux-ntfs driver, started by some of the old linux-ntfs developers. The linux-ntfs developers have no authority to declare the ntfs-3g project obsolete. ntfs-3g is being actively developed, it had 31 releases in the last 12 months. The linux-ntfs project had only 1 release in the last 16 months and it has serious quality problems, e.g. unpacking tar files can fail with file corruptions (try e.g. the linux kernel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.135.143 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, if ntfs-3g is DERIVED from linux-ntfs, how can it SELL commercially? GPL anyone ? 24.203.68.10 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Same developers who own the copyrights or they got dual-licensing permission from other developers, so they can license commercially. This is a very common way to get open source projects funding to keep them alive long-term. See for instance MySQL. Kudos to all those heros! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.143.195 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with selling free/open source software? Under the GPL you can charge as much as you want, given that you distribute the source code; and I think that's the same case with all the other free-as-in-freedom licenses. I do understand that selling software which can be compiled by anyone is a bit nonsensical; though there are many ways to make money with FLOSS. Just as examples, see blender, or gimp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.211.152.246 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

IPA on Szabolcs Szakacsits
IPA on Szabolcs Szakacsits would be very much appreciated, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baka toroi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In English it should be something like Sabolch Sakachich (ch like in 'cheap', i like in 'it' ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.8.40 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The current transcription appears to use "ù" characters where something else was intended... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Limitations - really?
The stuff listed under "limitations" doesn't read like a set of limitations, at all. It reads like a lot of advantages over other software. NPOV in consideration, the fact that lots of distros are using NTFS-3g by default suggests that it really IS about advantages, rather than limitations. Does anyone object to changing that heading to reflect this? 131.111.8.102 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * i actually came here looking for any specific limitations, because i suspect a major file transfer problem i am having right now is due to 3G and indexing

and im quite frustrated right now, so i'm also going to give my personal opinion of this software. its junk - total junk 76.169.73.240 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

experimental
Personally I've used Clonezilla and partimage, and when using them, it will prompt in both that ntfs-3g is experimental and may damage hard drives, perhaps this warrants a mention in the article? Also, here's a link, it doesn't mention ntfs-3g specifically, but Iwhen using the program it does. http://www.partimage.org/Partimage-FAQ#I_need_a_write_support_for_NTFS._It_exists_in_kernel-2.4.2C_but_it.27s_not_enabled_in_partimage_bootdisk._How_can_I_use_it_.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.103.127 (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Partimage and NTFS-3G are two completely different software. They share not a single line of code. The Partimage NTFS code is indeed experimental for at least 6 years but NTFS-3G is stable and actively maintained developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.130.62 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

linux-ntfs - ntfs-3g
Is there a reason ntfs-3g was not merged into the default linux ntfs driver? The later one still has no write support. --78.52.131.206 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ntfs-3g uses the FUSE filesystem interface and works in user space, whereas the original ntfs driver is a kernel space driver and interfaces with the VFS layer. Userspace filesystem drivers will not be merged into the kernel, as FUSE is designed to let filesystems work externally from the kernel; also the two interfaces are completely different. The codebases of ntfs and ntfs-3g are unrelated.
 * ntfs-3g is a fork of ntfsprogs (which also uses FUSE). Why these two projects don't cooperate is a mystery for me. -- intgr [talk] 14:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

NTFS-3G offered under proprietary license?
I added citation needed tags for unsourced claims about NTFS-3G being offered under a proprietary license.

Having been an NTFS-3G contributor since 2013, I was very surprised to read on Wikipedia that my code is (apparently) available under a proprietary license. I have never agreed to license my contributions under anything other than the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later. I have futhermore not been able to find any recent, reliable sources (other than Wikipedia!) that claim a different licensing status.

So as far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, I think the statements of NTFS-3G being offered under a properietary license should simply be removed as unverifiable. I will leave it to an independent editor to check this and update the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synchronicity66 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

After some more research, I believe what may have happened is that NTFS-3G was originally (circa 2009) offered under a proprietary license so that Tuxera could reuse the code in their proprietary driver, but later versions have been purely GPL while the proprietary Tuxera driver has been developed "independently". This, if true, would explain the apparent contradiction and would mean that the article is simply out of date. Synchronicity66 (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Answer: GPL contributors' either gave their permission (almost everybody) for proprietary use under BSD license, so Tuxera can pay top engineers to maintain and develop the open source version in the future, or their code has been replaced by Tuxera in the proprietary products - NTFS-3G founder, szaka@tuxera.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.7.120 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)