People dont realise that this code leak is a blessing, we can analyse and figure out previously hidden/unknown API's from the source code.Actually, no, it isn't. Be prepared that MS will sue the crap out of any kernel developer who they
think may have
a) incorporated windows source code into the Linux kernel
b) has violated MS's copyright by obtaining the windows source code
They could also try to (at least) create bad press for Linux by alleging "theft of technologies", which
would probably be of no legal value (if they have a patent, it was already public anyway), but
tell that to the average IT yellow press editor.
IMHO linux needs ntfs write support, with many people dual booting betweem windows and linux.IMHO, that is clearly the worse of two options. We don't need a full NTFS driver for Linux, we need
full Windows drivers for filesystems typically used under Linux, e.g. ext2/3 and reiserfs, later also
xfs and jfs. There are already utilities that allow file exchange with such partitions under Windows,
however not transparently (with the same API as ordinary file access). Why this way round, and not
the other?
- Most importantly: No hassle with Microsoft's "IP" department, as much as they would like to harm Linux.
- Implementational difficulty: Though the NT filesystem API is reported to be horrible to code drivers for, I guess
it is still easier than to reverse engineer NTFS further. (Mind you that downloading the NT/2000 source
code is *illegal* and thus not an option.)
- Technical reasons: E.g. reiserfs has better performance and less trouble with fragmentation than NTFS
(less features though, AFAIK, but the average dual booter will not miss 'em).
- The shared data goes on a ("real") Linux, not a Windows partition. This means you have to move
less data should you finally decide to purge your Windows installation entirely.
I can think of some advantages of the NTFS approach, but none that seem to be able to outweigh
the disadvantages.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
