On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Dave Jones wrote: > 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'. It changed from 'oh it corrupts data' to 'oh its legal issues' to 'oh that version of redhat is no longer supported' If its a patent problem please provide the patent #. Or provide contact information for the redhat lawyer who made this determination. Surely if there were a patent problem then ntfs wouldnt be included in the stock kernel? Or is linus mistaken? -Dan