In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0410261124460.17893-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>you write : >On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Dave Jones 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 problem= >s 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' Even better, bug id 135741 submitted against Fedora Core is closed as a duplicate of 65794 (they really meant 65749) and bug 64549 is closed as 'that version of redhat is not longer supported'. So there is no current open bug against this issue. None of the bugs have been rejected for technical reasons. Well ok, given this loop they all have been rejected because of technicalities. steve > >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 > > >