Mount Rainier for Linux

Cpyder writes: "Seems like Philips is getting the "patents are bad"-picture, as they have decided to let Linux support the Mount Rainier next-generation file device system. Seems like the end of floppies+zips+cdrw+whatever is finally in sight. Check it out at The Reg."

Comments

Patents aren't bad!

[scriber]

Remember that it's not patents themselves that are bad. They allow you to ensure that you'll get a return on the huge amount of money you spend doing research on algorithms, processes, etc. Then, unlike copyright, they ensure that your invention is released into the public domain before several generations of people have come and gone.

Patents are only bad when abused. By abuse I mean obtaining overly broad patents purposely, forming companies whose sole purpose is to sue everyone that does anything remotely related to patents they purchased from others, or similar. It's perfectly fine to use a patent to charge people to use your legitimate invention, however.

Also remember that Free Software, no matter how obscure, can cut into your profits if people use it instead of your own software. Why should someone pay lots of money for your product that implements an amazing new encoding algorithm that you payed a million dollars to develop when they could use Free Software that does the same thing just because you were too nice to demand a licensing fee from "free" projects?

Don't worry, if the technology is that good, someone will find a way around it. Look at Ogg Vorbis, for example, which implements an intelligent audio codec without anyone else's IP.

Re:Patents aren't bad!

[Black Parrot]

> Why should someone pay lots of money for your product that implements an amazing new encoding algorithm that you payed a million dollars to develop when they could use Free Software that does the same thing

How many algorithms do you know of that someone spent a million dollars developing?

Most of the really important algorithms, just like mathematics, are coming out of public research institutions (aka "universities") and are published without patent encumbrance.

Unfortunately the PTO has succumbed to pressure from money interests and made lots of formerly unpatentable stuff patentable, opening up a gold rush.

No, not an innovation rush -- a gold rush.

Also, notice that (in the USA at least) patents are justified as a way to promote commerce. Commerce, like innovation, was absolutely booming in IT even without algorithm patents.

As Alan Cox said, patents are just a way for the big guys to keep the little guys out. The big guys all hold lots of patents, so they can pay each other off with funny money (or by swapping licenses for lawsuits), but the little guy has to pay real money if he wants to play.

The rich get richer by natural processes; patents are a government institution that serves primarily to speed the process up.

Just like with the DoJ's pact with Microsoft, the US government is more interested in floating the stock market than in supporting economic fair play, or even long-term economic well being.

Details on CD-MRW / Mt. Rainier

[martyb]

For more info on what Mt. Rainier (CD-MRW) is all about, check out their mt-rainier web site

Re:Confused

[WalterSobchak]

OK, Mount Rainier is a hardware command specification, not a file format. Mt. Rainier is geared towards the UDF file format, but other file formats could be used. The key point was, that Mt. Rainier would allow the OS to see a MR CD-RW as a block-addressable (rather than a packet-addressable) device. An OS can just write a file system onto a MR CD-RW on the dics without having to worry about packet sizes or bad-block mapping.

The big point here really is: This would have created a lucrative business for Mount Rainier licensees in selling preformatted MR media

So in any case, any OS could have operated on MT CD-RW (as far as I understood that), but it was the formatting that was blocked.

Hope that helps,

Alex

Reinventing the wheel?

[JoeShmoe]

This type of CD-R/RW usage has been available (in Windows) for years via third-party software like Adaptec/Roxio's DirectCD or the NTI's FileCD and so on. CD players already support packet writing! Why is Microsoft, IBM et. al. taking about reengineering the CD from at such a low level? Doesn't it just require someone to write a Linux version of DirectCD/FileCD? Why can't we just format CD-R/RW discs with the UDF file system that DVD's already use instead of inventing a brand new one?

Also, I'm not sure I even like the idea of this becoming the "default" behavior for CD writers. I strongly dislike the overhead involved in formatting. I find that a packet writing CD-R/RW hold about 100MB less. I'd rather have the full capacity. I mean, if you are using this thing for business backup (which seems to be the primary argument for needing Linux support) then you are only going to be burning once a day, so why not just burn a full 650/700MB worth of data as a single data track?

- JoeShmoe