On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:12:58AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Paul Iadonisi wrote: > > I also vaguely recall some reference to the fact that NTFS didn't pass > > Red Hat's stress test for stability (i.e.: corruption type problems at > > high loads). Can anyone from Red Hat confirm? > > The excuses for not including ntfs have varied over the years, always > changing. The decision not to include ntfs-readonly is an ideological > issue and not a technical or legal one. > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65749 always changing ? The bug you reference contains _one_ 'excuse'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional Comment #3 From Arjan van de Ven (arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx) on 2002-08-16 14:38 Private Comment oh believe me I would LOVE to enable ntfs... but it must be legally possible / sensible to do so ;( ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The same reason then applies today, so our position hasn't changed since at least 2002-08-16. Maybe earlier bugs that were filed did have other excuses (I really don't care, so don't bother looking), but the fact remains there is legal uncertainty surrounding us shipping this module. Dave