On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 23:02 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> /me will keep away from this thread now -- this won't lead to anything
> anyway; I'll tag it in the growing categories "Fedora knows better
> me want I want" and "why Fedora never will become a true community
DaveJ doesn't want the bugreports. Are you volunteering to take them?
These aren't bug reports.
There are two ntfs implementations. One is old, crufted, and poorly
Sorry but that is bullshit. Old and crufted aren't very good technical arguments and poorly maintained is simply untrue. If this boils down to "It doesn't have write support, bwaaaaaaaah" then "poorly maintained" isn't much of one either. The reason there have been so few git commits is because it works fine in the state that its in and as I explained, the core developer is focused mainly on the new driver which, license debates aside, will be released in about a year.
The other one is actively maintained, with lots of new
releases, bugfixes, and performance improvements.
No argument here.
Which one should Fedora put forward for users, who don't know better?
No, they run ShuttleworthLinux.
Yes, remember choice? mount.ntfs for kernel driver, mount.ntfs-3g for userspace
Dave asked me for my opinion, and I said that we shouldn't ship
something that's not recommended by one of its authors, and has no real
You're taking that from Szaka's mouth who spat the dummy and went off and created ntfs-3g when he could have merged it with ntfsprogs. It actually has nothing to do with the kernel driver.
IMHO, this the same reason we don't enable every possible module in the
No, we don't enable every module because some conflict with each other,
some are experimental, and some simply don't work (cough bcm43xx cough)
Feel free to plead your case to Dave Jones if you'd like.
Since you're the one who made the decision, it really should be you who is answering the critics. I don't think "I made the decision, now go talk to Dave" is aligned with "DaveJ doesn't want the bugreports."