[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ntfs

From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday mindspring com>

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Daniel Huettl wrote:
> > Please consider including the ntfs module. It is an absolute nuisance to
> > have to compile it oneself. The module works perfectly well, and people
> > have been clamouring to have it included for over a year now:
> >
> >    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65749
> one of the comments from a RH person at that bug from last year
> states that it must be "legally possible/sensible" to do so,
> neither of which seems to make much sense.

It needs to be legally possible, sensible, and effective. There are
continued comments by Microsoft about the Linux NTFS legality. Of
course, now they mean no more than SCO's rantings - except for the
fact that DMCA exists making reverse engineering a suspect endeavor
these days.

It may or may not be sensible. That's a user call based on the third

It is only semi-effective based on the last comment from the NTFS
maintainers I caught in the Linux kernel list. It reads most files
OK. "Most" is the operative term. It's write capabilities are non-
existent. It'd be more sensible to build a VMWARE XP machine, if
possible, and transfer the files over the network emulation. It's
rude and crude. However it is effective both ways.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]