|
From: Andrew C. <cl...@gn...> - 2002-11-17 22:58:04
|
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:01:56PM +0300, Paul Boettcher wrote: > AC> What I meant is: "users would need a MS licence". > This is a sly problem. Officially user would need MS license only if > he/she has intention to use NTFS driver. And I can say, that almost > nobody would go the right way, and would steal these driver files. If we tell our users (implicitly) to break the law, then Microsoft can target those users. It might be bad PR for them, but it also might be bad PR for us. > Quite the same, that Misrosoft does with other good, but non-MS or > non-brand named products. Wrapper developers can't be brought to > account for end user's decision. Actually, you'd want to speak to a lawyer about that. "Insightment". > AC> The fact the users have to unpack these files "themselves" makes > AC> it a PITA. > Sorry, I don't know such abbreviation "PITA". PITA == pain in the arse. Google it! ;) > AC> They aren't competing. We (GNU/Linux) are. > So, I can predict that NTFS driver will never be up-to-date product > and will be always dangerous at writing to the disk. Actually, the Samba people have managed to achieve good compatibility. Linux-NTFS still needs the journal format to be reverse-engineered... if that happens, I don't see why write-support couldn't become safe. Cheers, Andrew |
