Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Litigation vs. Linux NTFS Kernel Support
OrenWolf writes: "Microsoft has threatened to sue the current developers of r/w NTFS support in the Linux Kernel. Details can be found in the current Kernel Traffic post." No, your honor, we aren't a monopoly.
That's exactly what I thought. All those damn 'mydoc.doc.tmp~$' sort of files....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The great Double-Y Jerkey Merkey was under NDA with MS.
If he leaked trade secrets.. Then he's gonna get sued. Would serve him right.
He and his company have contributed NOTHING to Linux development except a lot of useless flame wars on l-k. He's not a NTFS developer, he had just joked about providing NDAed info to the Linux developers on l-k and MS reminded him to sit where he belongs (in their pocket).
I wouldn't listen to a damn thing that moron says.
[anonymous to prevent JM from throwing his lawyers my way]
Sic Stallman and Maddog on them? Talk about cruel and unusual punishment...
There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, or even going to certain lengths to protect it.
Taking legal action to prevent people from engaging in legal behavior, in order to keep them from endangering your monopoly through completely legal means, is both abuse of process and anti-competitive behavior, both of which are illegal.
Suing people for reverse-engineering your code for purposes of compatibility is abuse of process, period.
-
Actually there are free DOS utilities available that give you read access to an NTFS drive. You can purchase the read/write version for $149. It's available over at www.sysinternals.com
I thought we were already doing that?
You have confused NTFS (a file system) with SMB (a network protocol used for file+print). The Sun product does the same thing as Samba, and does not let you have access to local WinNT disks.
It's still an intersting story: The Sun product is based on a very old licence AT&T had from Microsoft for "LAN Manager for UNIX", which dates back to the OS/2 days when MS/IBM had no more than 10% of the File+Print marketshare. Now that WinNT is more popular, Microsoft wanted to breach the agreement, and AT&T had to sue them in order to get access to Windows 2000 source code so that they could make their product.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
"The fact is, most people probably DON'T buy MS software, they swipe it one way or another"
I have to disagree with you on this. In my LARGE company, every Windows developer has a $1000+ MSDN subscription, plus tons of other Microsoft stuff. I also believe that everyday users run, not walk, to the store to buy the latest MS apps from the local retail chain. "Oh, Windows ME - I NEED to upgrade!"
My $.02
Holy s-, it's Jesus!
Hmmm, the problem may lie in MS having millions to waste on this... do Linux developers have millions to defend with?
Yet they are now withdrawing that OK for reasons which are not shared with us. In fact; we got to see a (very?) small part of the letter these guys received from MS and in that letter I picked up some parts which I found 'odd'. IMHO you simply can't judge MS by these small parts of information.
and the fuss is over being told to delete everything concering NTFS.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Then they should also sue http://www.sysinternals.com/ for making NTFS drivers for win9x...
People are trying to be compatible with us again!
(e-mail passed about M$)
Eh...
"I also predict the death of the OS division within 5 years of the breakup."
"The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the OS division of the Microsoft Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of computing correspondent. Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopaedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a thousand years in the future defined the OS division of the Sirius Microsoft Corporation Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
Microsoft has threatened us with litigation due to our support of Linux NTFS development, and we have dissolved our NTFS licensing agreements with Microsoft in response to their demands that cease to support Linux development. Microsoft demanded that we delete any and all NTFS
..."
:-)
tools we had been providing to customers based on their intellectual property. As a result of this, we can
no longer provide this tool in the United States." Andre Hedrick [*] asked, "Wait they attacked you after the
request for cross over support?" Jeff replied:
Yes Andre, they did, they accussed me of knowingly conspiring with Linus to provide full
NTFS on Linux based on the email you and I sent to them. The agreements they signed with
us were very liberal, and allowed us to create any tools and NTFS stuff we wanted, there
were no non-competes, or anything to stop us from providing stuff on Linux. What they
alleged was a belief that since we were going open source and supporting Linux NTFS users,
they believed it was impossible for me to keep a "chinese wall" in place in my head between
their IP and Linux IP. A very valid example of the legal theory of the "doctrine of inevitable
disclosure".
But I must admit, in fact what's going on here is that by pulling the open source NDS for
W2K off the table, I renigged on a "faustian" agreement to open source NDS on W2K. This
was compounded by the fact that we released the MANOS sources with a complete NT/W2K
PE and DLL loader (which we wrote "clean room", one of their old tricks). They found this
very irritating. They were quite unconcerned about our NTFS work on Linux until we posted
MANOS and announced an Open Source NetWare.
We've started our "clean room" NTFS core and I've spent some late nights working on it, and
we doubt they will take any action since we dissolved the agreement. The last thing they
need is for me to take the stand and testify just what kind of deals they offered to get us to
leave Novell in 1997 and divide the NetWare markets by using the "Linux IP Laundry-Mat" to
launder Novell's NDS for their consumption (Oh! Look what we found on the internet and
downloaded today!).
NDS would be a useless wart on the rump of Linux. It's for managing large numbers of file
and print servers, not internet/intranet servers like Linux. Linux already has vastly superior
internet directory capabilities.
Andre replied to Jeff's first paragraph:
Wait, this was a proposal of mine to MicroSoft to grant permission development in a clean
room model that only used white papers or other stuff that could be extracted passively.
I alos pointed out that this simple act of allowing open development of a public NTFS would
help them blow holes in the DOJ monopoly issue.
Jeff replied:
The way they took this was that we had changed sides in the war, since I was perceived to
be approaching them with you. Here's what they said about you,
"... We are concernd about the veracity of your associates. Despite the representations they
have made to you, we have not been taking GPL code from Linux and using internally at
Microsoft. This approach by these Linux people is little more than an attempt to [blackmail
Microsoft] with unsubstanciated rumors. We see no benefit whatsoever to provided NTFS
R/W capabilities on Linux
Not very nice to be sure. I know that black and white markings (like a penguin) are in style
right now, but white and black stripes are not !
But he concluded, "I have the ability to litigate against them. They know this and I doubt will go any further
than to bluster and threaten." End Of Thread (tm).
An fs which was completely stolen^H^Hdeveloped by MS :) But thats not the issue; iirc MS has licensed NTFS and they own the specs.
Sure, MS usually takes actions which are highly controversial, their development of NTFS is right among those IMHO (remember hpfs?).
Actually, Microsoft did develop NTFS. Microsoft also wrote HPFS, which NTFS was somewhat based on. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons that HPFS is still 16 bit in OS/2, since IBM doesn't own the code, Microsoft does.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Yes, all internal links are broken :)
The Virtual Bookcase: book reviews
then you understand
.oO0Oo.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
At this point I'm wishing the moderation categories included "Did you even read the bloody article?"
Go and read it. They're not suing, they're threatening to. What for exactly? Well, why not GO AND READ THE ARTICLE and find out, before posting a reply that asks dumb questions!!!
http://www.gimbo.org.uk/
Does anyone note the Scary Parallel this has with the DeCSS case? MS could argue that NTFS has its own Copy protection, and that unauthorized drivers for it would remove the copy protection from their OS, and it would be a theft of IP.
Poor argument but the Phrasing of DMCA could allow for this possiblity.
just my rambiling thoughts....
Oblisk
It's not a question of using the filesystem under linux as an everyday occurence as much as simply having access if needed. Perfect case in point is a 'rescue' disk. I routinely use tom's rtbt disk around here as a win9x box recovery tool, mirroring/backup tool, etc.. and it has the ntfs module on it as well. Being able to edit the contents of an ntfs volume instead of simply reading it would make it a lot more versatile for me.
Good God, if anyone plans to use NTFS under Linux as a primary fs they should be shot. But having the option to read/write would be really really cool.
Also imagine a linux box as a failover machine for that POS NT machine yer phb bought... simply slap them hard disks in it and keep going. Wouldn't that be a nifty way to prove Linux's mettle?
-'fester
I'm not really sure of the details (I don't follow the kernel list), but I'm sure someone can expand on this.
Jeff V. Merkey used to work at Novell on Netware. He then left and went and developed something (a cleanroom NDS?) for a startup that had a fairly close relationship with MS. (I think the idea was MS was going to use this to combat Netware - like I said, I'm hazy on the details.)
Anyway, as part of that, (I think) he got access to the NT code, which means potentially MS might have a case, if he signed NDAs
Summary: Jeff V. Merkey had some prior realtionship with MS, which might give them a case. The rest is just hazy memories - I'll dig and try and remember exactly what was going on.
To be fair, they'd probably have to sue the NTFS for DOS developers. Although it provides RO access to NTFS volumes, it still gives DOS some NTFS functionality. But I guess since DOS is an MS product, no lawsuit will occur.
Let us say Microsoft does sue Linux for NTFS support.
"Sue Linux"? Heh...I doubt if the kernel has any hooks to deal with litigation...POSIX certainly doesn't require them.
I can see it in "make config" now...Do you want to enable countersuits (Y/N)?
Goo
Comment removed based on user account deletion
why can't companies understand that a protocal or algorithm is free, you cna protect your implimentation of the protocal but someone is always going to figure it out and make their own indpendent implimentation
Ext2 sucks. I run Linux at home and if I used Ext2 not only would it be unreadable from W2K, it would also be unreadable from my windows95 partition. The thing is, we all have those MS-DOS tools that we would want to run on our Linux drives, but can't if you use ext2!
See how stupid that sounds? Obviously, you don't have to use non-FAT filesystems if you don't want to, but condemning something because it doesn't fit your particular lowest common denominator Win95 game box situation.
but at most places I worked, the C: was FAT while the raid drives were NTFS
Now imagine a Unix admin who installed the operating system on a partition with no file permissions and a file system known to be unstable. Wow, his Unix install would be almost as unstable as his Windows NT install!
I did NT admin for a long time (94-97), and I never understood why people used FAT OS partitions. You were bound to have a corrupted registry sooner or later. In a recovery situation, 9 times out of 10 DOS isn't going to help you, and you end up creating a parallel NT install so that you can mount the registry and fix whatever really went wrong, which is what you really should have done in the first place instead of messing with DOS.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
The odd thing about Merkey is that he drags all of LKML along with him on his personal matters. He often writes messages to LKML which really have nothing to do with the LK. He writes about how wonderful MANOS is, and how much Linux sucks (gee, thanks for the input!). And, in this case, writing about some internal matter between his company and M$. Oh, yeah, and I remember some REALLY bizarre postings a few weeks ago about someone he knew who committed suicide at Novell. All this on LKML!
1) Any name brand name computer came with a Windows License.
2) If you actually read the license agreement for MS Office (95 and 97) an employee is allowed to install a copy of office on their personal PC for the purpsoses of work.
While people might think they are actually pirating Office, most are in fact not.
MS loses most of their money from fake product. I've seen the stuff put out in Singapore and Hong Kong. The CD's and pressed and silk screened. The inserts are on a four color proccess. You can go into any shopping district and pick up what looks like REAL MS product for pennies on the dollar. You'll find tons of shops in asia that don't even pretent to have the real thing. Just tons of CD packs with all sorts of prirate software. 1 CD for $10SG ($5US) 3 for $25SG ($12.50US). This stuff makes its way back to the US and is sold at computer shows, ham fests, and the like.
What NTFS provides for Linux is a way to access Windows NT files from Linux on the same computer.
This means Linux and NT co-exist on one box.
This configuration is of no good for servers as the user must reboot to switch from Linux to NT.
Thus it is only for Linux and a workstation and NT as a workstation.. Microsoft dose not seem sereously conserned about Linux compeating with NT in the workstation market.
This then would be a develupers or "hackers" (hacker as in hobbyest not as in criminal) box.
To elimiate this Microsoft could be betting that Windows NT would be selected over Linux.
On a develupers box this is a non-consern. It would make it hard on the develuper but nothing more.
On a hacker (as in hobbyest) box NT would go.. Linux is simply the os of choice for hobbyest and Microsoft has been none-to-friendly with hobbyests. (Posably still bitter about all that theft of Microsoft Basic back in the 1970s).
At base of this seems to me to be a general addatude in busness of suing just to sue.
Basicly busnesses (to spite populare opinion [Ahem: CmdrTaco] you do not need to sue everyone who violates your IP rights it is perfictly ok to overlook some violation.. only trademarks require this and you can issue liccenses instead of suing everyone named "Barbie") sue anyone who violates there IP even if it's violated in a way that benifiets them. With IP law you don't need to prove damages unless someone invokes "fair use" the idea being nobody is going to sue if they aren't damaged. That hasn't been the case in recent years.
Microsoft isn't the worst in this area. Matel seems to stop short of suing little girls...
Now it bothers me a great deal that Microsoft even holds IP rights on the NT file system.
Microsoft did pritty well from letting everyone using the Dos file system. Wordprocessor appliences would use the Dos FS... Atari ST and the Commodore 128 (with the 1571) could read Dos disks...
For a while it was the universal disk format that EVERYONE used.
Now Microsoft wants to protect it's Windows NT file system...
Fine... we can support everyone else under the sun (sparc hehe).. and let Microsoft build a wall around itself.
Now it seems to me Microsoft is basicly acting in paranoia over the people doing the work.
Microsoft can play it's little games and have it's little childish tantrum. But in the real world you just don't get along with everyone. It's gona happen. You can not expect everyone to agree with you.
I mean gezz.. "Oh my god a Linux advocate is accually working on this thing" Well duuu... I mean.. Oh my god.. Microsoft employees work on Windows.. Both Microsoft employees and Linux advocates are nice people some times you can a Linux advocate and a Microsoft employee in one room and not have a fight..
This whole mess is silly... It's just Microsoft trying to get back at someone becouse they think he "switched sides".
Hay Microsoft.. It's not a religion.. it's just software... grow up...
(Linux advocates can be annoying.. some are down right rude... but at times like thies I feel the zellotry in Linux has nothing over Microsoft)
I don't actually exist.
Untrue. This was not the article title as I submitted it. it was submitted as: :)
'Microsoft threatenes litigation over NTFS in Linux'
..which was the title in the kt post. I didn't even include the word 'kernel', and made the distinction in my submission that it was the *developers* being sued. In this case, it is the editors fault.
If they can physicially get to your servers, you're fucked in so many ways that it doesn't matter.
Crypto filesystems.
Umm, you can sue inanimate objects. Some civil forfeitures cases, "in rem" actions, etc.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The par that bothers me the most, I think, is why They decided to complain. If Mr. Merkey is to be believed, they took this course of action, in part, because they realized exactly what was being done. Regardless of the reasons M$ Gives in this case, the fact of the matter is that they caused a fuss simply because they realized that Linux might actually get working NTFS Support. The fact that they had a way to bully Mr. Merkey is secondary. :)
Oh, and I don't moderate and then post trolls anonymously either.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is software and not a religion so what I am about to say is in compleat defiyence of this singler fact...
... thank you :)
AMEN!!
I'm not even christan but I find no useful equivlent in my own religion or in non-religous terminology... thus forvive the use of this term in this way
I don't actually exist.
NTFS is a very good (robust) file system, made better if you don't use compression. I don't know if you could switch back and forth between Linux and NT with impunity, however. There's the little matter of permissions. You'd have to make the two OS's capable of reading each other's security systems, and I guarantee you'll give MS fits over that one!
Myself, I had a pretty darn secure system at home through MS: dual-booted 95 (at that time) and NT WS 4.0: 95 had internet access and games, NT had NTFS with compression, all my documents, databases, finances, etc. While I was online, the NTFS volume didn't exist.
I still think that's a good way of doing things. There's just too many programs you can't do under Linux, specifically, games and Quicken.
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Let's hope we don't get Judge Kaplan again. :)
1/2
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
MS can't do anything real to linux... it's open source. So the major distrobutions (in your plan) get sued and die out... So what. There's a new distro every week as it is... And even then, people will start making there own distros and kernels that won't fall prey to this hypothetical plan. There will always be archives of uncontaminated code available to the world.
-- [insert sig here]
There are many ways of bypassing NTFS security if you have physical access to the disk - Linux NTFS is one, but there are commercial tools as well that let you use NTFS on DOS or Win9x.
Encrypting files or filesystems is the only way to guard against physical access to the disk.
That's the sound of Microsoft shooting itself in the foot again.
--
--
Wait a minute, this sounds like rock and/or roll. - Rev. Lovejoy
Well, there's your problem.
Parallel port-ANYTHING is an abobination and deserves to be buried out back with a bushel of garlic.
Parallel prots are ddesigned for printers. Not for scanners. not for zip drives. tey peg the CPU and barely provide 2Mbps if you're lucky.
Not to mention that every parallel port device uses a different signal spec; there are no standards.
SANE supports most SCSI scanners under the sun, it couldn't care less about parallel port scanners.
Or you caould get a USB scanner; those are somewhat standardized and work well (IIRC) with the USB stuff in the Linux Kernel.
-- I ain't broke, but I'm badly bent.
I used their NTFSDOS utility some time ago and it definitely didn't appear to use any DLLs at all.
I used it on a boot disk to exploit the ntfs partitions on my universities NT4 workstations and certainly i never copied any files from them to make it work.
I never understood why these conflicts couldnt be settled through a court appointed independent review of both code bases. For example, if such review finds the Linux NTFS code to be tainted by the original MS code - well then, someone has a problem. If the review decides its a clean room implementation, we can post I told you so messages on slashdot and be done with it.
I did read it, keep your hair on... OK, so they're only threataning, but my point(s) still stand, it's just as indicative of Microsoft's attitude as if they were actually sueing.
:)
I think someone needs to have a little lie down
NTFS support in Linux kernel replies: "Sue? Me? Wait a minute! I'm not a person or corporation. Wait at least 'til I develop my own Artificial Intelligence. Then you can probably sue me. If I don't take over the world by that time, that is."
--
Yes, and isn't it always the same? The big bullies like Linus threaten the little defenseless guys like Microsoft. I't so unfair! We should all be so ashamed.
Stefan, who has maliciously withheld most of his money from making it to Redmond.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
I really think those of us who are literate around /. ought to start making our own acronyms. The first I propose is RTFA which stands for Read The Fucking Article. We might want to think about chipping in for site licenses of Hooked on Phonics for the more unfortunate /. visiters.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
okay, if MS is going to not allow people to read NTFS, then I'd like to let the world know about my copyright on the following data types and structures: int, long, float, double, char, linked lists, doubly linked lists. please stop using the above in your software or i'll sue your butt for infringing my intellectual property. P.S. r.e. CueCat - I also own the decoding of keys pressed on the keyboard to input to your computer, so please stop infringing my intellectual property and cease typing now.
.signature
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not really - they are suited to different purposes. NTFS is significantly slower than ext2. On the other hand, as you kinda imply, NTFS is much more robust.
I personally value stability over speed, but it's a close call, especially since I have never lost data as a result of having to reboot without unmounting.
If I can get to your box, I can open it. If I can open it, I can fuck off with your drives.
...
... or install a trojan in the system to intercept whatever the decrypt key is
For that matter, there's the old "rubber hose" method of decryption. You beat the user with a rubber hose until they cough up the decrypt key.
Anyone who thinks encryption is the solution to all problems is being silly.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Considering how many times I've seen programs that do just that being struck down by the DMCA because they "steal intellectual property," (DeCSS, StreamBox, etc) it's obvious that it is a meaningless piece of law. It's so much lipservice, just like the claims of Hollywood that they support fair use, while at the same time doing everything in their power to destroy it.
This is really starting to piss me off. How many times have I seen company whine that someone or something is "stealing" their intellectual property (which is quite impossible to do anyway), just because we are trying to find out how it fucking works and nothing more. If learning is a crime, then we are headed straight for another Dark Ages. </rant>
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Wrong. The bug infested NTFS driver corrupts W2K drives any time someone enables write mode. Who the hell do you think has been helping Anton correct it? I had to write a f_cking tool to repair the damage it does -- the current NTFS in Linux is not a file system driver -- it's a computer virus. Unlike you people, not only have I seen to "real" NTFS code, I know how it works, and the guy who wrote the real NTFS worked for me for over 18 months. The current NTFS driver won't provide a performant implementation on Linux, which is why I am writing a new one that uses the NWFS LRU to provide the Cache Manager sematics of the "true" NTFS. Like it or not, I'm here to stay, so get used to it.
:-)
Jeff
BASIC was originally created at Dartmouth College. QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) was purchased for $50,000. Windows was basically kludged from stolen Macintosh code. Microsoft Word was predated by Wordperfect and probably a few others. The NT kernel is a VMS varient. Active Directory is an obvious ripoff of NDS, which is far better and proven to work with large databases. Internet Explorer was purchased (by Spyglass, I think). Windows Media Player is the same thing as RealPlayer, only not as good. And, finally, .NET is nothing more than the same network computing idea that has been pushed since around '94 or 95, with the addition of SAP, which was an idea kicked around by Netscape years earlier. And yet, they still have the audacity to call themselves "innovators." They should at least have the honesty to call themselves "marketers," for that is all they really are. But they are a very dishonest company, and the way they have stranged their competition with their market dominence is horrible. That is why I do not like MS. And yes, I happen to think their software is so bad that I was eventually driven to Linux, but YMMV.
(Moderators: don't bother moderating this up just because I'm voicing an anti-Microsoft sentiment. I'm merely stating the blatently obvious.)
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Oops, I selected 'HTML tags to text' instead of 'HTML formatted' in my post.
I'm replying to two posts, here, who both said 'crypto filesystems'. If I can get to your box, I can open it. If I can open it, I can fuck off with your drives. If I can fuck off with your drives, I can take them home and decrypt them at my leisure. Brute force the hell out of them. And like I said, it's real easy to get users to divulge their passwords, assuming that they're strong passwords in the first place. Also, NTFS can be encrypted, for example. Fine, but how good is the system? Does it, for example, encrypt the page file? Does it encrypt the temp directory? Besides, when you get right down to it, I can pull them out and jump up and down on them vigorously. Hope you have good backups, and I hope they're not sitting on the shelf beside the computer, or I'll jump up and down on them too. Computer Security includes concepts like Availability and Data Consistancy, and your company is equally fucked if I steal a copy of the data, or just deny it to you.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Let them sue, we need the publicity and any courtcase by MSFT is a sure-fire system of getting a lot of publicity from the general public.
As soon as they sue, Linus drops the the NTFS module from the main kernel and someone overseas "volunteers" to maintain a patch (not unlike the encryption patch).
The development continues, Linux gets a lot of free publicity, MSFT bites its own ass in anger for falling for it yet again...
-----
http://www.yipton.demon.co.uk/ (couldn't be bothered doing the hyperlinking)
---
---
OK.. by your logic then MS also has a monopoly on Winmodems, cause if you want to use them you have to use windows. Just because a company creats a propriatary section of code doesn't make them a monopoly. If NTFS was fully reverse engineered then there is no problem with it. BUT, as the artical states, they had an agreement with MS to use thier Dev kit, then BROKE the agreement and coninued developement. That's not truly reverse engineering, thats more like theft.
No you can't. Eh eh. That's the thing. You can't. Hell I should know a friend of mine designed such a system for a big company .. that happened to lose their password to the box. They got fucked big time, no way to recover it. Here's how it works. You have to TYPE the key to boot. Once booted the OS takes over the system and there's no way you're going to stick that trojan in here.
Yeah, Merkey is definately an interesting guy. It's also been fun to read his Red Hat Consipircy Theories, straight out insults to Alan Cox and other bigwigs, and various other drunken ramblings.
He's also the only guy on the list (that I know of) that architected another operating system. Of course, NetWare was a special purpose system designed pretty much only for serving files really fast on cpu and memory starved boxes, but it's fun watching him reconcile those concepts with something like Unix. It would be nice to see him get over the Death of NetWare, drop his grudge against Novell for their slow creep out-of-business, get rid of this crazy MANOS idea, and come completely over as a Linux developer. He's probably got a lot to add.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
iirc, norton wrote speedisk and unerase first. m$ licensed or bought or reverse engineered or whatever.
speedisk/defrag, unerase/undelete, stacker/doublespace, etc...
'embrace and extend and extinguish'...?
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
They did not reverse engineer the NTFS support. They signed an NDA with MS to get a Dev kit, broke the agreement, and coninud developemnt, this is NOT about reverse engineering.
maybe this is the beginning of plan B: Innovate with lawsuits.
Microsoft has always employed a shrewd combination of legal intimidation, outright purchasing, and thievery to steamroller the competition. In fact, they have been known to sign NDA's with competing companies, or companies who dominate a market M$FT wants, only to release a nearly identical product about 6-12 months later.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
don't forget, if you have access to the computer, all you need is an axe or chainsaw, which will render the underlying OS on the computer inoperable.
The most secure OS in the world isn't secure if you can get access to the computer physically (unless, of course, the partitions are encrypted and there's intrusion detection, etc)
make world, not war
Linux Kernel mailing list archive, with 133 messages from Jeff V. Merkey in the last 26 days, including his posts about Microsoft.
--
NTFS and Linux aren't really compatible, due to VFS limitations. As the kernel currently stands, there is no way to access streams, extended attributes, or ACLs. Linus wants to provide a coherent way to access streams in Linux, but Cox, Viro, et al think the HFS kludge is a perfect way of doing it (this involves creating fake ".AppleDouble" directories on the fly). It seem to be their position that if it's not Posix, it's crap. It's Linus' position that lots of filesystems that support streams and/or EAs exist (NTFS, XFS, BeFS, HFS) and are in common use, and Linux therefore needs a standard way to access their features.
So, yeah, good NTFS support would be nice. But don't hold your breath. I doubt the "Core Developers" will allow Linux to fully support NTFS.
___________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I'd love to see Microsoft manage this. OK, so I wouldn't, but I'd love to see them fall on their faces trying. Sadly for them, it's already been very well-established in the courts that interoperability, even if it means reverse-engineering, is fair use.
:)
Now, the NDA thing is much more interesting, and could be more of a problem. However, Microsoft cannot possibly prove that any NDA's are being violated. To do so, they would have to disclose their source code -at least those parts of it which deal with NTFS- and we all know they'll never do that due to their irrational fear that if someone saw their source they might make something better (never mind that they already do this without having seen the Windows source, so I doubt it would change things much). I suppose it's possible; I've never seen the NT code (sometimes I wonder if Microsoft even lets its programmers see the Windows source), but there could be things in common between them. But how can I be certqain of this unless I can see both sources and compare them? I can't. Neither can a judge. Therefore, there's no way to prove this guy guilty, so Microsoft can't win this case.
But let them try. Let them waste millions on a case they cannot win. This'll be fun
----------
Wouldn't NTFS compatability in Linux allow anyone with a Linux micro-distribution(on a floppy) access the information on a computer running NT on NTFS? AFAIK the current situation is that even with local access, unless you have a l/p for NT you can't get to the info stored on the NTFS partition, even with a boot floppy.If so I could definately see this as a valid reason for Microsoft's anger, although not for grounds on which to sue.
- Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
If Linux, *BSD, and others acquire r/w/x support for NTFS the Collective has a lot to lose. NTFS support for on-the-fly data compression/decompression would be extremely useful for Linux et al. Additionally, this would make the migration from NT to Linux much easier. I could put all of my data on a secondary NTFS partition and mount Linux right over the top of NT with no loss of anything.
One of MSs very real concerns has to be a sudden increase in the migration to competing OSs. I think I hear them opening the flood gates now. :)
Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
... not to mention that dd, which performs a sector-by-sector copy, does not interact with the filesystem drivers at all, and so it makes no difference what filesystem(s) are being copied...
I mean, just because they don't want others to use their NTFS filesystem does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly.
They want to be the only one with an OS that can do NTFS.
The only company that can do something, enforced at gunpoint (which is the end result of a lawsuit, the courts enforce a ruling under threat of jail), and you don't see how that's a monopoly?
-
The whole NTFS Microsoft battle should be viewed from the simple viewpoint of whether or not reverse engineering a product is a copyright violation.
If they argue this point they are saying in essence the whole basis of their monolopy (cheap intel hardware for their products to run on) is illegal. They are as one reader put it shooting themselves in the foot. If they don't want to steal ideas from the companies, they don't need to go down this route.
The funny thing is they will not scare linux developers the same way they would frighten a small corporation. Sic Stallman and Mr. Maddog Hall on them at the same time.
ACK
You need to re-read the dd man page and learn how it works.
-
But that's not microsofts problem, they don't make the modems, or the drivers for them. They can't help that some hardware company isn't mkaing any other drivers. Even if Microsoft publicly asked them to make drivers for other OSs I doubt they would, but that's not MS' problem...
OK, when I was 26, 11 years ago, Windows 2.11 couldn't play sound for beans. There was an interrupt latency time problem. I wrote code that generated software interrupts when my "ping pong" buffers were down to 60% (YEP, it's dog slow). The software interrupts would jump to code that topped off the buffers. This prevented the popping noise that was heard. THIS IS MY CODE! Anyway I got AN NDA from Microsoft (I was writing code for Hyperglot software at the time as a consultant). and they were going to pay me %.02 cents per copy of windows 3.0 and up sold. Well they screwed me I never got the money. So, I started to support alternate operating systems. I started out with Os/2, then I found Linux in 1994. Anyway. Let's go forward with the NTFS r/w code, lets design NT Killers. We will win, NT can handle large enterprise solutions, with the strides that have been made with XFS we will have a killer solution. You want a site to host this code on? I wonder if my cable connection can handle it. I'm willing to help, if they take me to court I will counter sue and represent myself, the media will gob it up. I am tired of what microsft has be doing, they are at it again trying to buyout Indrema, they bought out other companies writing 3D games for Linux.. gee, they know all it takes is the KILLER app for Linux to be #1! PLEASE Keep the NTFS r/w code development going, it's WAR!
OOPS>.....TYPO. I meant to type NT CAN'T handle large enterprise solutions. NT SUCKS. I can hack any NT box I want. GEE.. what a difference an 'T makes!!!!! Later!
---
---
guess what? we already did. it's called e2compr.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Let's review the title of this article. These are the words that the /. people chose to summarize this issue:
Microsoft Litigation vs. Linux NTFS Kernel Support
Can you IMAGINE the /. response to similar hyperbole coming from Redmond directed against Linux?
i just wish they'd write something into windows to enable reading of ext2fs partitions...
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
Alternatively, they could set up a Linux Distro of their own, which would be untraceable to MS.Initially, make the distro extremely popular so the whole world is hooked on it, and then slowly make it buggy, bloated and unreliable, thereby turning the world against Linux. And wiping out the competition.
this is ntfs we are talking about. you'd need an entire toga to read all that code.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Ok I see that this is not against linux at all but against some person that broke a NDA. But, why do we care about NTFS support? If you run a Linux box, Use ex2fs. only a complete moron would want to run NTFS. i can see the need to read it, ("here a dead NT drive, Cool let's read it!") but write to it? WHY??? I support a gob-full on NT systems here, and a gob of linux systems... there is no need to write to a NT partition.. install linux and get rid of nt, or dont install linux..
I am sick of productivity wasted on downward compatability with NT. How about making ex2fs better, or how about making a really good fs??
Yes, i used NTFS support in the kernel to read data from a "dead" drive. I'd never EVER write to one.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In your own reply he says most. What is your point?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
--
Ext2 sucks. I run Linux at home and if I used Ext2 not only would it be unreadable from W2K, it would also be unreadable from my windows95 partition.
You can read ext2fs partitions from Win9x. Just grab a copy of ltools.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
god what a moronic comment. MS owns the code. If the kernal monkey broke a ms nda then ms is enforcing the contract and protecting their property.
:
let me rephrase your post in hopes of making you understand your astounding lack of sense
You have a monopoly on what goes in/out of your butt. You use your right to say that you dont want ben wa balls crammed in your butt by a hairy guy named Waldo. Omigosh! You are using your rights to protect your monopoly therefore you may lose your right to decide what does in/out of your butt.
Monopolies are defined by a market class not an item !
SysInternals offers NTFS for DOS and Windows 9x. So you can access NTFS drives without NT currently. This also bypasses security -- but as has been noted before, if you have physical access to the machine, you can do anything you want, pretty much, so no biggie.
___________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
That might work to get people to not use OS/2, or Lotus 123, but it doesn't work for things like DeCSS, and Napster. And, oh yeah, NTFS support in the Linux kernel. If Microsoft makes a big deal about it you know that everyone is giong to have their copy of it, whether they use it or not.
-Brent``I thought the DMCA supported reverse-engineering for interoperabillity? Compatability with a file system DEFINATELY is an interoperability issue''
I don't know about the US, but in the EU, one is expressly allowed to reverse engineer things like file and disk formats. One has to make reasonable attempts to obtain the information another way (asking Microsoft would count) and if that isn't forthcoming - you can legally reverse engineer the format. The idea is to prevent people being locked into formats that then end up not being supported or them being unable to move to rival products.
The relevent bits of law have been incorporated into most, if not all, of the EU member states legislation.
Basically, the work can just be moved to a different location and MS can't do a thing about it.
God didn't do that you fool, you did it. You're a narcotics agent, I knew it. It saddens me there are so few people here that can read. Microsoft's case has little if anything to do with NTFS support in the Linux kernel, they do however have a problem with someone who signed an NDA and then broke said NDA. Its fucking disgusting how things get so blown out of preportion anymore. If an office manager in Redmond buys toilet paper in bulk it turns into Microsoft trying to monpolize paper production in the Western Hemisphere. Slashdot. Anti-Microsoft whining for nerds. Stuff that's pointless.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
This has actually happened. When MSWord 97 came out some antivirus code had to be withdrawn initially under a threat of litigation. The reason for this was that none of the naso-anal interfacing agreements between antiVirus vendors and MS covered the new formats. So MS threatened to sue them for being able to read and write (desinfect) files. It's been a while since than, but sure one can find references for it.
Same has also happened with programs using the Mircosoft "proprietary" domain policy formats. *.POL files. There is no rocket science there, they are just simple windows registry dumps. But MS actually successfully stalled samba's wide usage for MS domains for about a year by targeting anyone documenting the files. In other words theretening to sue you for writing text files and giving them a *.POL extension. You can find some info on this if you take an older samba source, untar it and look in the documentation section.
And to conclude this is Jeff^WStef W. Merkey speaking.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
So, when are the t-shirts printed with NTFS code coming out?
- "Linux is good enough for them to worry about"
- "They publicise the fact the Linux has NTFS support"
- "They publicise Linux in general"
- "They unleash thousands of press articles on how Microsoft is scared and is having to rely on lawsuits to compete."
I'm certainly not defending their actions; I think it's a pretty stupid thing for them to do. But I do see, sort of, why they're trying it.For things like "intellectual property" or whatever Microsoft is calling it this week, it doesn't really matter who's bigger, especially if both parties are competitors.
True, but they do it in an "but it shouldn't and our lawyers will make it go away so don't count on it" way. If they think they can get away with it, not something they'll worry overmuch about.
Heh, with all the media attention Linux has been getting (it's getting so the average reporter even knows how to say it), the term "a drop in the bucket" comes to mind. ^_^
Exactly! As has been stated before (though in slightly different context), "See, we're not a monopoly!"
--
http://www.balorn.net/
http://www.balorn.net/
?
The story I was told was: AT&T obtained a source license from MS for NTFS. However, the MS land sharks were asleep that day and forgot to include a license clause preventing AT&T from further sub-licensing the source. AT&T promptly turned round and sub-licensed their code to Sun.
So there are copies of NTFS source floating around at least two major compeditors of MS which must make them a tad touchy on the subject :-)
Okay, Jeff V. Merkey's company, the Timpanogas Research Group is a Microsoft ISV. Now this doesn't mean anything in itself, but some MS ISVs do have access to the NT code.
Here is a (google cached) post about some problems Merkey had with his open source NDS implementation - Novell wanted him to sign a NDA.
Read this:
and this:
Now if this David Gobel person really did write "NTFS for MS", and now he has some kind of relationship with Merkey, Merkey's company or Linux, there could be a problem.
Also, read http://www.zd net .com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2426902,00.html for some more background (okay, it's ZdNet, so don't take it too seriously!)
Of course, I still don't know the details - just enough to annoy some people if I've got it all wrong!
1) Users with multiple OS's on one machine.
2) Users who wish to have one of those linux versions that run off of a floppy disk (I don't remember any for linux, just picobsd for bsd)
3) Someone moving hard drives and wishes to be able to read their NTFS disk in linux.
There doesn't seem to be any real loss here, except for Micro$oft. It can give them bad PR for doing what seems to be actively threatening people that develop linux products. It's nothing new, and doesn't matter that much...even if some drivers were written, M$ would then change the way NTFS works and come out with a newer version that doesn't work with the linux drivers. It's nothing new.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
The company Winternals provide (and have done for some time) tools which allow you to read and now write ntfs volumes under Dos and Win9x.
:)
I recall reading a M$ knowledgebase article about some methods for deploying NT 4 (I think) that actually recommended using these third party tools. (Oh and they provide fat32 support under NT4)
Now why is it acceptable to make tools that enable microsoft operating systems to read microsoft disk formats, but not make those same tools for other operating systems.
Surely winternals have set a precedent for acceptance of tools capable of utilising NTFS and the DoJ would have a fit if they weren't attacked when the linux version was
Anyway the last I recall FAT, FAT32 & Jolliet systems have been supported in linux for sometime. Is hacking thier flagship (as if) filesystem more punishable?
If you are worried about this, don't allow floppy boots by passwording your BIOS. Better yet, take the floppy out.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm really not amazed by having to tell our customers that "er.. sorry we had to take your website down for a 3 hours defragmenting" or,
"sorry we had to rip out the harddrive from your box because the account that made that file does not exist anymore. And therefore not even the administrator could reach it".
Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm, but I kinda like the permission system on NTFS, even tho it's allready over the hill. The system V permission-model works fine for me and if I need more I'll just jump to LDAP.
"Let us assume that you are a member of Congress. Now, let us assume that you are an idiot. But I repeat myself." -- M. Twain.
MCH/VO S* W- N+++++ PEC+++ D(s++/r) A a+>+++ C* G++(++++) Q+ 666 Y
BeOS already can read and write to NTFS. I used to use it on BE to read my NT files. There has been a read only version for a long time and the read/write version has been around for 6 months or better and even though it has been beta for a long time I had no problem using it. I guess if you are not a threat you don't get sued. haha
My favorite line from a not-too-recent seminar with a Samba core team coder:
We had to make it bug-by-bug compatible with M$.
I like the basic tenor: If it was built on NT code, then chop it. (It ain't GNU then anyways.) If it was clean room (aka raw GNU code from the ground up) then it is protected.
Besides, it predates the DMCA. Ha ha ha!
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Well ext2 doesn't add any physical security either. I can get ext2 drivers for Windows here and get access to my Linux partition. So much for security.
As far FAT32 support, it has been available from third parties for a long time.
NDS would be a useless wart on the rump of Linux. It's for managing large numbers of file and print servers, not internet/intranet servers like Linux. Linux already has vastly superior internet directory capabilities.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what he is referring to here?
To sum up in Counter-Strike fashion, Microsoft points their AWP at the heads of these coders, while the DOJ, the big kahuna of the server of the software market, is ready to kick them into oblivion.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
The other day my NT crashed and burned. There was no way to reboot into NT, so I feared data loss. Luckily I had a copy of Linux on CD (designed to run without installation), so I booted up with it. Once booted, I mounted the NT partitions and then 'ftp'ed the data to somewhere safe. Since that day I have got the system support guys hooked on the idea of using a copy of the Linux CD as an NT data rescure solution.
;)
Oh the irony of it all. The next thing we will hear is that Linux can't be used for rescuing NT
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
if somebody hadn't invented the wheel no-one would have
.oO0Oo.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I'll believe that when I see it. Would this also apply to a cartel?
Jeff Merkey is the head of a for-profit company, Timpaganos (or some such thing). There was some agreement between his company and M$, the exact nature of which I don't know.
<p>
When Jeff said, "Microsoft has threatened us with litigation due to our support of Linux NTFS development" the <b>us</b> he was referring to was his company, not <i>linux</i> proper.
<p>
Jeff was giving people a binary NTFS tool to help people recover their file systems after they got damaged by some bugs in the linux NTFS drivers. This is probably what Jeff is referring to when he says, "Microsoft demanded that we delete any and all NTFS tools we had been providing to customers..."
<p>
Micro$oft is NOT threatening linux. M$ is NOT trying to have the NTFS driver removed from linux proper. This is not clear in the linuxcare article, but is clear if you followed all of Jeff's (sometimes logic-challenged) posts. One final note, you have to mentally tone down posts from Jeff, he tends to be <understatement> overly dramatic </understatement> and has a strange combative/cooperative cycle of posts.
The article itself states that they asked MS for a license which allowed them to use the NTFS specs. An fs which was completely stolen^H^Hdeveloped by MS :) But thats not the issue; iirc MS has licensed NTFS and they own the specs. If you want to use it in another way then accessing the available NT routines you'll need a licence. Like it or not; thats MS decision and you can only respect it.
The way I see it these folks decided to break the agreement (see quote) and therefor also threw away their right to make use of the MS specifications and routines which allowed them to access the NTFS internals. So? Is MS evil just because they are defending their product here? Sure, MS usually takes actions which are highly controversial, their development of NTFS is right among those IMHO (remember hpfs?). But that does not mean that every action taken by MS is evil/monopolistic/unfair/dictating/ by default. Besides, please do not forget that we only see 1 side of the story here. We didn't even get to see the entire letter send by MS.
Anyway; these people should stop whining IMHO. If they want to develop NTFS based programs and don't want to be restricted by the will of MS they should do what other did before them; buy the appropiate MS development tools which gives them the right to use the NTFS specs in their own software. Whether that software is Linux or Windows based is irrelevant.
I for one was under the impression that Microsoft had turned over a new leaf, so to speak, and was embracing Linux or at least the idea, and possibly considering porting apps, etc...
This act definately reasures us other wise. Sad isn't it?
Some people think that Microsoft is a software company that is sometimes abusive.
But, in my experience, Microsoft is an abuse company that sometimes sells software. Mark Microsoft, "Does not play well with others."
A benefit of having an abusive monopoly is that the abusiveness helps makes it clear to everyone that open source software is the answer. Microsoft's abusiveness hastens the day when most important, widely-used software is OSS.
MS is far more evil than Apple has ever been. I recall that GNU boycotted anything Apple for the longest time for not allowing clones and keeping their hardware closed. No gcc for the Mac. In fact, no GNU anything for the Mac was the official stand for a long time. Why do we not do the same with Microsoft? Boycott all things MS. Update the GNU license to prohibit any MS software from interacting with GNU based software, etc.? Fight MS with their own IP law and at their own level.
... doing something like that would really prove to be difficult to do, and would be more than a little counterproductive; as it would put GNU on a similar level with MS (hindering the usefullness of their tools via licensing restrictions) ... on top of that, i'd imagine that you'd piss off a good portion of the 'borderline' group (the people that have win9x/nt/2000/dos/whatever and linux and whatever other OSs installed) ... making it illegal for them to use their favorite GNU tools in those OSs.
While I do agree that MS is evil, Apple has had their fair share of evil-moments (pulling the licensing for clones or some such thing comes to mind off-hand)
just a thought...
bemis
-dude! my caffeine stream is getting polluted with blood!
Yes Andre, they did, they accussed me of knowingly conspiring with Linus...
That bastard Linus, he has entered a conspiracy to destroy Microsoft!
I think, in general, that OSS gives Microsoft fits because it is something that they can't make go away by buying it. If your are used to innovating with your pocketbook that would really screw things up, maybe this is the beginning of plan B: Innovate with lawsuits.
Icebox
Wasn't Bill G. quoted once as saying something like, "At least their pirating MY software." ?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
a. I'm not talking about corporate piracy, that would be pretty damn stupid. Large corporations are easy and juicy targets to sue if they're stupid enough to pirate. I'm strictly talking about individuals in a home environment.
b. You might have found the one exception to the rule there: low-end MS OS upgrades. For some reasons, these upgrades fly off the shelves. I think a large part of the reason is the price point: they're at or below the $100 magic mark. You'll most likely find the same isn't happening with Win2K or MS Office. Go ask your Electronic Boutique, Best Buys, CompuUSA etc, they'll most likely tell you that those sales completely pale in comparison to Win9x/Me upgrades.
Speaking of MSDN subscriptions, that's one of the HUGE copy-for-home-use candidates in the developer community. Considering the price point, that's not really surprising.
That's the sound oh forget it.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
What next? Sueing companies if their programs can read MSWord or Excel files?
It may have been there, but isn't, now. Koos has copied it in time, though, here.
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
The name Timpanogos comes from a very prominant mountain sitting at the north end of Utah Valley, where Novell is headquartered. It's actually spelled with a "os" at the end. Curious that Merkey's company spelled it differently.
I also recall that there was a company called "Wolf Mountain" in Utah Valley -- or at least, it was called Wolf Mountain until it was discovered that this group of ex-novell employees was working on a clustering project remarkably similar to one at Novell, which had been intenally code named "Wolf Mountain". I think these are the same people.
The faustian Microsoft deal references seem to help explain why they were so blatant about everything at the time.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
> Wasn't Bill G. quoted once as saying something like, "At least their pirating MY software." ?
That's exactly right. I think MS is prepared to (and does) tacitly accept a lot of piracy in the home arena for the sake of brainshare. While some people might blindly disagree that home software piracy is rampant, that is one of the principal reasons for MS's desktop dominance. Unfortunately it is also something extremely hard to get concrete figures for, since few people will openly admit to piracy when questioned (even when promised anonymity). You pretty much have to rely on empirical data and on personal observations.
Let us say Microsoft does sue Linux for NTFS support. That means:
That Linux is good enough for them to worry about.
They publicise the fact the Linux has NTFS support
They publicise Linux in general
They unleash thousands of press articles on how Microsoft is scared and is having to rely on lawsuits to compete.
By keeping quiet:
Far less people would know Linux had NTFS support
They can keep up the pretence that they don't need to worry about those pseudo-Marxist hippie long haired hackers are up to.
-- Piracy is a vicitmless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
This is a horrible, horrible example but it is an example.
I run LinuxPPC on a small harddrive with linux and Mac installed. Since my wife usually runs Mac, but occasionally runs linux, I have a symlink to a dir on the HFS partition(mac standard file system) that
links straight into her document directory on the mac side. That way she doesn't need to sync up
the files from one side or the other, she's always working on the same files.
It works very well, and I'm sure there
are more reasons than this to use r/w access
to non-ext2 file systems.
---
RobK
Myddrin
I also predict the death of the OS division within 5 years of the breakup.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I thought the DMCA supported reverse-engineering for interoperabillity? Compatability with a file system DEFINATELY is an interoperability issue. I think this "threat" is an attempt to scare these developers, and make companies like Red Hat (who would also be liable for distributing the kernel with this "infringing" work) scared that they will have to spend IPO money on lawyers rather than R&D
IMO, a classic case of M$ using threats to illegally maintain a monopoly.
BTW, a THREAT of a lawsuit, when groundless is actionable. If I were these developers, RMS, Linus, or Red Hat, I'd be sending copies of this threat to the Supreme Court and Judge Jackson.
I suppose this threat means that M$ has given up on making `Doze 2000 a better product than Linux and now have to take to the courts for protection?
In 2000 America, is a non-lawyer truly free?
And it's been out on the www.sysinternals.com website for about 3-4 years...
The Linux driver is nothing new, and Microsoft didn't sue the sysinternals guys over this.
Methinks the Linux authors did something else besides reverse engineer a solution.
If you are a monopoly and using copyright to
protect your monopoly, you may lose the copyright,
IIRC. (IANAL)
So NTFS does not (without encryption) add any physical security.
They just want to make Linux less useful. Too bad.
And this from a company that did not manage to add fat32 fs support to their flagship OS for over two years after Linux had it...
Moritz
Can't get to the linux site. Must be evidence of the almightly Linux servers superior web server abilities. Linux is so powerful that servers powered by it cannot even take the curious traffic from slashdot. Took the server right down...
I think this proves exactly how important the DeCSS case is. The first round basically set a precedent, any project in linux, or any other OS for that matter, can be sued if the company wishes to. Correct me if im wrong but if we win the DeCSS case (eventually) then this case has no grounds.
Except for those of us who can't afford to not use Microsoft and are trapped by lack of scanner support in linux. (Yes I know about SANE, but it supports such a limited variety) Also by the ever increasing percentage of the populus that require MS Word documents to do business, whilst for some of us it's okay to tell them to take their Word document and shove it up their ***, some people actualy need a job, and whilst products like StarOffice go some way to being able to read/write MSWord docs, they don't cut it (and then companies like Corel pedle that crap they called an office suite - just damaging for the Linux world, I hope they rot in hell) (and yes secreteries have no idea how to import a document from other formats, beleive me I've tried that too). And then their are those of us who would like to play a game before it becomes ancient history. So far the only port that has really worked that well and wasnt three years behind it's Win release has been the Loki stuff with Quake 3. Whilst I am in no way attempting to defend the Microsoft legacy as I have a nearly MS free house - but I like to scan on my parallel port scanner damn it!. This all reminds me of the Acorn/Win battle in the UK, which Acorn lost, but hey, they were losers compared with the FSF ;)
Everyone is living in a personal delusion, just some are more delusional than others.
I mean, just because they don't want others to use their NTFS filesystem does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly.
I have to disagree with this. If MSWinNT is the only OS that can read/write NTFS filesystems, then if you want to read/write an NTFS filesystem (whether it be yours or someone elses) you HAVE to use MSWinNT - you can't use anything else. MS prohibits it
I think this constitutes a monopoly on the NTFS filesystem.
This is a BAD thing.
Begin hypothetical situation
Suddenly, whether you want to or not, you HAVE to own...er...license MSWinNT if you want to legally run a data-recovery business - because you know that customers will come to you with NTFS partitioned disks. (This ain't a perfect world where everyone who runs a business runs *nix, after all ;P )
Thus the need to get at and/or change any data on an NTFS partition requires that you purchase a license for MSWinNT.
Indirectly, MS would effectively own any information on an NTFS partition, as in order to use that data, you (or someone) would have to go pay the "MS Tax" to get at it.
End hypothetical situation
Next thing you know, they'll go after the VFAT support... ;P
This funny I guess they thinking like AT&T since they are mentally infected they can not use what they know.
M$ came out with NWLINK. Perhaps there is a need for MSLINK or NTFSLINK. It would sure be nice to see them get burned by someone using their own tactics.
if 'fruits de mer' = seafood
does 'fruits de merde' = mushrooms?
The actual situation here is so ridiculously misintrepreted in the article writeup above I can scarely believe it.
ohh boy, Microsoft has out done them selfes this time... they can't compete so they want to take it away. If the NTFS code has NO Microsoft code in it then let it stay... just take the developers names off of it... just make the Kernel anonymous. Thats all there is to it, then Microsoft will try to outlaw Linux, that will be fun... I HATE MS now... I used to think they were all right, but now I am soo pissed off with them it's not even funny!
That's plain stupid. I mean, one should be allowed to at least *read* his/her data between two BSODs!
/max
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
It doesn't matter. No matter how many times MS shoot themselves in the foot, people will continue to buy MS products, and MS will continue to turn a profit. Even if MS were to piss on it's customers, I bet people would still buy their products. It's just odd that a company can do so many bad things and get away with it. The only other entity I can think of that can get away with this kind of shit is the government.
MS is doing this to convince the DOJ that they have competition, and that competition is conspiring to crush them.
Odd that they have to legitimize what they really don't regard as a threat in order to save themselves.
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
You couldn't be more right.
-- [insert sig here]
I mean, just because they don't want others to use their NTFS filesystem does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly.
;)
Many companies do things like this, Micro$oft is not the first (although probably the worst
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
The site seems slashdotted. Anyone have a copy of the article in their cache?
Microsoft should be happy that their file system could become "compatible". :-)
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
MS win2k has NFS support.
yes. They claim that you can share "Unix Style" paths or UNC's on a server. It does also support SMB (although Samba is not Recomended, surprise). I quote:
Server for NFS is an NFS server implemented on a Windows-based server. It allows UNIX-based NFS clients to access files on Windows-based computers the same way files on other UNIX NFS servers may be accessed. For UNIX-based NFS users, this process is completely transparent. File level access is determined by the user's UID or GID as well as by Windows access control lists (ACLs). Server for NFS supports NFS on all Windows-based file systems including FAT, CDFS, and NTFS.
Take a look at Microsoft's Use Of NFS
This may be the easier way to have M$ clients interconnectivity with unicies no?
This still does not make NTFS clients illegal though...and the MS client still is propritary, but hey its a start.
This is such a twisted troll that it's hard to know where to start. Since when do you need to buy a liscence to reverse engineer? This seems to be the core of this bait. It has little to do with the relavent problems.
By reading this article you agree to use your computer only as I see fit. If you do not agree, you may stop reading this aticle, remove it from your computer and send it back to us at your expense. The liscence hereby granted to use your computer includes the ability to use myFileSystem which you must install now. You may not read myFileSystem with any tool not sold by me. This includes physical and microscopic examination and reconstuction by abacus or weejee board.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The fact is, most people probably DON'T buy MS software, they swipe it one way or another. If my last few jobs at LARGE companies are any indication of the general state of piracy, most people get their software either from work or friends. Or installed on new machines, but most people refresh their software versions way more frequently than their machines. Considering that the software on many people's machines would amount to over a thousand dollars if purchased legally, there's no way people would actually shell out that kind of money. If people actually had to plonk down the $300 or so for MS Office, there's no doubt in my mind that MS Works or Star Office would be the market leaders.
So in a perverted sense, while MS fights piracy with all their might, their brainshare and desktop share is due in large part to soft piracy. In that light, it doesn't matter how nasty Microsoft's image gets, since a lot of people don't pay for the software anyway, they don't mind swiping it regardless of MS's bad PR.
time to remove the floppy! Of course the user of such a thing has to have an open session to make the utility work. If they've got an open session on NT/DOS they've got access to data anyway.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Correct.
My point was really based more from a recovery perspective. - More specifically, recovery from a bad driver, or a completely horked system... Where read/write access is required.
You need to have your computers physically secure. Disabling floppies, BIOS passwords, and such security are worthless if someone has full access to your server.
Why don't we just run ReiserFS or ext2fs on them instead, it works so much better, and it's possible to repair a damaged one.
Doesn't abiWord read MS Word files?
obviously bill knows that the surest way for nt to die is for it to lose it's usefulness. once you can completely access/use all m$ file formats why would you run their os? You wouldn't., or at least i wouldn't
There is misinformation here - the current Linux support for NTFS is nothing to do with Jeff Merkey or his company. AFAIK Microsoft has not sent any such threats to the developers of the Linux driver.
Reference: Linux NTFS page
The "YY" males you are thinking of are "supermales," who have a XYY configuration, one extra sex chromosome, bringing their total to 47, not unlike Kleinfelter's Syndrome (XXY males, tall, sterile, high voices) or Trisomy 21 (extra 21st chromosome, aka "Down's Syndrome," we all know how that goes).
Basically, you need a X chromosome to live. The Y is quite short, but you have to have some of the basic info on a X chromosome, which is why males are so suspectible to various sex-linked disorders, like hemophilia and color-blindness ... males only have one copy of the gene, no backups, like females have. (Although the male-Y, female-X varies from species to species). You can have XO genotypes, that is, just an X chromosome, nothing else. That is called Weber's syndrome, if I remember correctly, and they tend to be slightly retarded, have internal malformations, a shorter lifespan, and peculiar, shield-like chests.
Anyway, the XYY thing was roundly critiqued. It was a British study, if I recall, and showed that some prison populations had a higher percentage of XYY inmates. If I remember, the study was seriously flawed. This guy is just mouthing off. However, it would be easy to tell. Just take a nice epithelial scraping from the inside of this guy's mouth and do a karotyping on it, after staining the chromosomes. I'm sure you'll find one in metaphase where they've all lined up nicely ...
It sounds like someone just wants an excuse for his bad temper.
So Microsoft is sueing them for what, exactly? Accessing NTFS volumes? Um, wait, you can do that in Windows, can't you. Technically there's no difference - they haven't broken any NDAs, or released trade secrets into the public domain.
Also, I don't see what MS has to lose by having NTFS support in Linux. The only people who'd need it are possibly those who are dual booting NT and Linux, in which case they are using MS's product anyway so they aren't losing out that way. And it's unlikely that NTFS is going to become "the" standard journalling filesystem and take away more (ha!) of NT's share of the Server market. Isn't it? What with ext3, or ReiserFS or whatever its called this week just around the corner...
Frankly, I think we should let them continue to .NET scenario.
isolate themselves, as an OS, GUI, and in the
upcoming
If left alone they will regress to an online
computer service ala compuserve and the early aol
efforts. The difference being that they will start
with a huge userbase rather than build one.
Perhaps if all protocol and standards groups and
committes stopped allowing them to have input to
the groups, which they usually just turn around
and ignore anyway, they might just 'proprietary
code' themselves into complete isolation making
their OS unacceptable in the workplace as it will
not be able to communicate with the rest of the world.
-moogy