|
From: Richard R. <nt...@fl...> - 2003-04-03 23:12:22
|
Hi All, I've just released NTFS RPMs for RedHat 9 (Shrike). I haven't had a chance to test them, so be careful. http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/info/redhat.html (detailed instructions included) Cheers, FlatCap (Rich) nt...@fl... WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net |
|
From: Szakacsits S. <sz...@si...> - 2003-04-04 07:23:17
|
On 4 Apr 2003, Richard Russon wrote: > I've just released NTFS RPMs for RedHat 9 (Shrike). BTW, what's the point distributing the old, broken and unmaintained NTFS driver instead of the new, correct and maintained one what Mandrake, Gentoo and others use? > http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/info/redhat.html There might be also some addition to this statement on the above page: "Due to the uncertain legal status of using the NTFS driver, RedHat have chosen to leave the driver out of their kernels. " From a recent ZDNet article at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-994429.html that was relayed also in CNET, BusinessWeek, etc: Red Hat said technical and legal issues currently prevent NTFS support. "We need to verify that Microsoft doesn't hold any patents in the area we might be violating. We're still doing investigation in that area," said Matt Wilson, manager of Red Hat's base operating system, in an interview Tuesday. "Realistically, given the level of documentation Microsoft gives for NTFS, I don't know that I'd trust anyone's implementation except for Microsoft's," he added. No comment. However since I'm also asked repeatedly about this issue, I consider to quote and comment it on the ntfsresize FAQ page. I've asked Matt Wilson if this would be ok but didn't get reply. Szaka |
|
From: Richard R. <nt...@fl...> - 2003-04-04 16:56:04
|
Hi Szaka, > > I've just released NTFS RPMs for RedHat 9 (Shrike). > > BTW, what's the point distributing the old, broken and unmaintained NTFS > driver instead of the new, correct and maintained one what Mandrake, Gentoo > and others use? Because I *cannot* compile the new driver into their kernel and make it work. To backport the new NTFS driver to 2.4 involves changing code outside the ntfs code dir. If I were to do this the module would not with the redhat kernel. So most users have the choice: the old driver or no support at all. > Red Hat said technical and legal issues currently prevent NTFS support. I've talked to several RedHat technical folk. They don't see any problems with using NTFS. Without breaking into a long rant, there's not much else I can say. Cheers, FlatCap (Rich) nt...@fl... WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net |
|
From: Richard R. <ri...@fl...> - 2003-04-12 15:18:31
|
Hi Szaka, Carelessly, I managed to lose your reply (after reading it), but it went something like: > Why, oh why do you hate RedHat so :-) It's nothing specific, I just can't understand what they're up to. ntfs has been a rough ride, lots of people have lost lots of data, but it's fairly stable now, even the old driver. The redhat engineers agree. Perhaps they really are worried about being sued. Perhaps they think that they're a big enough target for suing. But of all the questionable things in a linux distro they omit ntfs and mp3. Surely they're trying to get people to move over from windows? OK, so you've installed redhat for the first time and you want to look at your windows partiton. You can't. So you read the release notes. rh8 had a clause that said, "oh, btw, you can't see ntfs". rh9 doesn't even have that. You search redhat's site for clues. None. wtf? (actually, now they recommend recompiling). mp3s get slightly better treatment. Perhaps I should hassle redhat more. The last time I tried I was ignored. If they just acknowledged the existance of ntfs. In a way it doesn't matter too much. Type ntfs into google and we come up first. Lots of newbie rh users find us and find happiness. /me sighs Rich. |
|
From: Szakacsits S. <sz...@si...> - 2003-04-15 03:21:40
|
On 12 Apr 2003, Richard Russon wrote:
> Carelessly, I managed to lose your reply (after reading it), but it went
> something like:
>
> > Why, oh why do you hate RedHat so :-)
I don't know you hate or not Red Hat but I thought you don't want to tell
the rant you mentioned publicly, so this is why I asked "You can send me
privately, I'd be interested ...".
But thanks for sharing your opinion, I'll do the same :)
> It's nothing specific, I just can't understand what they're up to.
You're not alone but I have also some guesses :)
> ntfs has been a rough ride,
True. And my impression is, by urban legends/myths it will continue if we
don't do more about it. There are a lot of confusion out there. New driver,
old driver, which one supports what in what quality, in what kernels they
are included, in what distros which one, etc.
Unfortunately none of the NTFS document answers all of them. It explains
the issue partly but the info became outdated (correct but not enough
details, explanation and updates).
> lots of people have lost lots of data,
Honestly, I really don't understand why the old drivers NTFS write support
wasn't just dumped completely. It's _not_ experimental or dangerous, it's
_broken_. It shouldn't be included in stable, ever.
Now the FUD, "Linux NTFS driver is experimental, dangerous and destroy your
data" is pretty strong. People don't know/care about new or old drivers.
I've even see this FUD for the read-only functionality.
> but it's fairly stable now, even the old driver.
Personally I use exclusively Linux for almost a decade and I don't use/need
the NTFS driver, just for development :) My opinion comes from my tests but
mostly from real users.
They complained a lot about the _old_ driver. But all problems I've ever
heard of the _new_ driver is fixed in BK.
> The redhat engineers agree.
That's good but ... see below.
> Perhaps they really are worried about being sued. Perhaps they think
Perhaps. BTW, what about FAT, samba and others?
> that they're a big enough target for suing. But of all the questionable
> things in a linux distro they omit ntfs and mp3.
mp3 could be also due to valid legal issue. Moreover, still see below ...
> Surely they're trying to get people to move over from windows?
That's I'm sure. They are _not_ interested in the desktop (at least for
now). Many Red Hat investor is interested in Windows on the desktop. They
divide the market, Linux on servers, Windows on desktops. None of them is
the best but good enough in its own area so they can make more money from
services.
I've used Red Hat over 7 years but I didn't see they wanted to make it
_really_ user friendly [and in general they tend to make bad technical
decisions]. I was shocked when tried out Mandrake recently. That's user
friendly! After a Red Hat install usually I need 1 day to make it usable
for work, with Mandrake it was less than 10 minutes!
> OK, so you've installed redhat for the first time and you want to look
> at your windows partiton.
No, I can _not_ install Red Hat on a Windows box (they are almost always
preinstalled on NTFS). Red Hat doesn't support doing so. This is already a
long time problem for many of my friends and at work. And I'm not willing
wasting time to workaround this limitation anymore. Mandrake won by KO.
> Perhaps I should hassle redhat more.
I think you shouldn't. It's not _your_ job. It's their customers'. I really
thought Red Hat pays you to make the binary modules for them. It's a quite
big favour and overall it damages the Linux-NTFS project and its users
either they use Red Hat or not. Why?
1) Your valuable time is wasted that could be spent improving NTFS on Linux
2) Red Hat customers don't get official support from Red Hat
3) Unmaintained driver is distributed
4) Lower quality driver is distributed
5) Confusion kept alive between the old and new drivers
> The last time I tried I was ignored.
So ignore them, you too. Advice users what some Red Hat engineers advice on
the kernel list when one wants some security or whatever fix for vanilla
kernel "ask your vendor for fix/update!". Apparently the real loosers are
the Red Hat users _but_
1) it was their choice
2) there are clear instructions how they can do it yourself
3) in the long term they would benefit if Red Hat ever support NTFS
4) there are many other distros out there that support NTFS out of
the box without any pain
> If they just acknowledged the existance of ntfs. In a way it doesn't
> matter too much.
I disagree. I think it matters a lot. It damages both the project and Linux
by slowing down its adaption [it's just one of the many bad decisions Red
Hat makes, although maximizing profit in the short term by focusing only on
the server market might make sense to its shareholders].
> Type ntfs into google and we come up first. Lots of newbie rh users
> find us and find happiness.
It's a short term, _expensive_ solution and it doesn't fix the _root_ of
the problem. Actually just the opposite, it covers the real problem, I
think.
Szaka
|
