> Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Barry Kelly wrote: > > > > [1] http://ntfs-3g.org/ > > > > There's a very important phrase in there, worth repeating: "users need > > to reliably interoperate with NTFS". Forget MS: think of the users. > > For me it seems that for you the word "users" means those who have the same > problem as you.
Sure, the developer scratches his own itch first, when he can. But I do know I'm not alone. > Your real problem is that, the NT POSIX subsystem can't handle all > filenames created by other softwares. Did you consider submitting a bug > report? No, that's not my real problem. I installed the POSIX subsystem in order to try and solve my real problem. My real problem is that I have files on my hard disk, taking up space, which I cannot delete. A problem that fixing CHKDSK could help clear up, but I've already managed to cause a bug report to be entered against CHKDSK for that, as you know. In essence, my problem is that NTFS-3G has damaged my disk's file system from Windows' perspective. > > Microsoft devs (or indeed devs from pretty much anywhere) don't have the > > authority to give "backing". What do you need? A patent cross-licensing > > deal with MS? I don't have the ability to get that, sorry. An internal > > design doc or spec from MS? I don't think you can legally get that > > without the cross-licensing deal at a minimum. > > > > So what do you need? > > I expect the NTFS specification published here clearly stating what UTF-16 > code units are not allowed to be stored in filenames: > > http://www.microsoft.com/interop/ I can find no such specification at that location, or available for licensing: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/search/results.mspx?techType=Any&ipCat=Any&feeStructure=Any&keywords=ntfs Why then, in the absence of such a specification, is there an NTFS-3G project at all? If you require such a specification to guide your implementation, it implies that this implementation shouldn't exist. Since it does exist, there must be other criteria guiding the implementation. What are those criteria, and how were they derived? You needn't answer, as I guess our exchange has soured, so there won't be any productive value in discussing further. I do think you're being disingenuous, though, and that you seem (from my perspective) to be letting a dislike for MS cloud your judgement, because I haven't seen you provide credible justification for the current behaviour other than that Microsoft "should fix their software" - yet similar MS software is in fact unaffected, and it's NTFS-3G that is creating these problems. > > And please, think of the users! > > That's why the driver works how it works. It doesn't restrict usage > but promotes better interoperability. For some definitions of interoperability, not including FS damage! :) > I'm sorry to say but you are in the minority demanding better > interoperability with a broken, niche system at the expense of > more users. Windows isn't a broken, niche system. Its POSIX subsystem might be, but at least it works a bit better with the rest of Windows. I only used the POSIX subsystem to point out a possible direction for NTFS-3G to help prevent the problems it's currently creating with Windows interop. I guess I'll look at this from downstream; at least I can work with my own patch for my local system, if all else fails. Thanks for your time, -- Barry -- http://barrkel.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ ntfs-3g-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
