David G. Miller wrote:
John Summerfield <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David G. Miller wrote:
> It wouldn't surprise me if NTFS was encumbered by some sort of
Micro$oft > intellectual property claim. This would be sufficient
to cause Red Hat > to not build their kernel with it even if all it
takes to make it work > is to enable the feature in the kernel build.
Debian's as paranoid as anyone, but it ships NTFS.
Additionally, I've never heard any claims regarding HPFS, and as I
came to Linux from OS/2, I think I'd remember such. And, RH has
never, to my recollection, shipped HPFS either.
> See one of the many flame wars over MP3 or some other IP
encumbered > technology as to why RH won't include it (and risk
getting sued).
> > Cheers,
> Dave
>
I vaguely recall that IBM wanted to open source HPFS at one time and
was told by Microsquish that they wouldn't allow it. Funny that IBM
went one better and open sourced JFS instead.
I'm in kind of the same boat as you since I was an OS/2 user before I
switched to Linux. I think the HPFS information was from a discussion
as to why IBM couldn't open source OS/2 as a means of continuing
support. Remember, we're talking about the same Microsquish that has
attempted to patent the FAT file system. I'd be very surprised if
NTFS wasn't IP encumbered. Debian tends to be very paranoid as to
technical features and stability but they don't have the financial
exposure that Red Hat has when it comes to infringing IP.
Cheers,
Dave
Could it be that Red Hat doesn't enable NTFS in their kernels because
they simply don't want to support NTFS?
-Greg
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
