Page 1 of 1

NTFS driver

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:44 am
by temarez
Good news (in german) can be found here.

Hope that this effort will be successfull because it seems to be requested by Apple.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:56 am
by Andrewm1986
Can you tell us non-german speakers what it's about please :)

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:48 pm
by Dr. Fred
Full ntfs write support for Linux in less then a year.

EDIT: Here is another link about it. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-n ... 707733&w=2

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:29 pm
by frik85
I have heard about that developer who is working on a NTFS driver for MacOS X (for Apple) and a Linux driver port for about 10 days.
He forked the current Linux NTFS driver and improved it (as he mentioned on the mailing list of the NTFS Linx driver) and won't constribute it back.

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s ... d=14787915
http://www.kernel-traffic.org/kernel-tr ... makov.html

Apple will keep it "closed" until 10.5 release of MacOS X will be available in store.

Time will show us how useful the driver will be, license (GPL ?) and features (read/write?, sparse, stream, metadata, etc.).

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 am
by oiaohm
And time will tell if some feature gets added to NTFS that breaks it again. Write can never be just expected to work. If NTFS gets altered again as what happened in a small way between Windows 2000 and XP.

Same problem it does not matter how close we get on NTFS.

NTFS-Linux driver is GPL we could have a case of GPL breach. Basicly as soon as they release the binary to the public source should be aquirable.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:01 am
by Megari
NTFS-Linux driver is GPL we could have a case of GPL breach. Basicly as soon as they release the binary to the public source should be aquirable.
If he is the copyright owner (which is likely), he has every right to license his code as closed source. Not that I would not want his apparently paid work to be GPL'd.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:46 am
by oiaohm
Have to be verry careful here.
Also, various code snippets and especially the autoconf/automake automated
configuration, compilation and installation system have been ripped shamelessly
from numerous different GNU and Gnome utilities and libraries so "Many thanks!"
to all the people who have participated in their creation!
That is out of ntfsprogs. Some how I think that has to stay GPL. Unless the build system is completely replaced.

A lead developer does not give you the automatic right to relicence. If you do relicence you either have to have agreement from all developers that have submited code or provide required time by law for the person to reject the change. Most countries 7 years. Or remove every section of code that is not yours. This includeds bug patchs.

Reason why some project ask you to sign copy right over to them.

Normally safer not to do this just on a wim its just too high of risk.

APL major difference is that Apple does not have to give there alterations back. KDE has all ready provide Apple as company not to be trusted.

All ready one of the other developers is threating to sue if the licence is changed.

Basicly it is a question is the Source Code all his. If it is not He could be just a coder for higher. You can higher anyone to work on opensource projects. This does not mean they don't have the right to be payed for there time. Payed work gets GPL'd every day of the week.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:55 am
by Megari
oiaohm wrote:Have to be verry careful here.
Also, various code snippets and especially the autoconf/automake automated
configuration, compilation and installation system have been ripped shamelessly
from numerous different GNU and Gnome utilities and libraries so "Many thanks!"
to all the people who have participated in their creation!
That is out of ntfsprogs. Some how I think that has to stay GPL. Unless the build system is completely replaced.
You have to remember that the building tools such as automake and the compiler are separate from the program code. In any case, if the configuration, compilation and installation scripts have a license on them, it has to be obeyed, obviously. If the build system needs to be replaced, it will be. It would be surprising if Anton hadn't thought about all of the licensing issues.
oiaohm wrote:A lead developer does not give you the automatic right to relicence. If you do relicence you either have to have agreement from all developers that have submited code or provide required time by law for the person to reject the change. Most countries 7 years. Or remove every section of code that is not yours. This includeds bug patchs.
You are absolutely right. Anton said that the code is a complete rewrite, though. In any case, I believe even the current Linux driver is approximately 99% his and Szaka's doing (and probably Szaka has eventually agreed) as they are basically the only people working on this, if I'm not completely mistaken.

I do not believe Anton is ignorant of licensing. In addition, it would be bad for Apple if licensing wasn't done right, so I am rather sure their lawyers will make sure everything goes by the letter.

I hope we get the improved driver for Linux next summer as Anton seemed to promise.

NTFS

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:57 pm
by foofoo
oiaohm wrote:And time will tell if some feature gets added to NTFS that breaks it again. Write can never be just expected to work. If NTFS gets altered again as what happened in a small way between Windows 2000 and XP.

Same problem it does not matter how close we get on NTFS.

NTFS-Linux driver is GPL we could have a case of GPL breach. Basicly as soon as they release the binary to the public source should be aquirable.
Okay, but 2000 and XP are different operating systems which are not released every week.

Further we have the competition authorities.

Should be possible to catch up with it once you have a working implementation.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:19 am
by InFeRnODeMoN
Wasn't NTFS patented (along with VFAT and FAT32)? If yes, what drivers are you talking about?

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:52 am
by oiaohm
Note alterations causing minor data loss also happend on service packs as with in 2000. That was messy. MS has been careful not to break backward compad with there own drivers since then. This does not mean they cannot break ours without breaking theirs. They have the full specs and the source of their drivers in their hands. Catching up is not the issue. The issue is how much data did you loss because if it. Few stunts by Microsoft and People might not trust Reactos.

VFAT and FAT32 patents have never held so far.

NTFS has never had its specs released. Patenting involves releasing infomation. No direct patents as far as I know. I might be wrong.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:26 am
by Z98
With service packs, you're talking about at least a year or so before they get released. Besides which, if the person decided to switch over to ReactOS and they're using an NTFS partition that was created before Microsoft tried to screw ROS' NTFS support, they'd be fine.

I am curious though as to what changes this guy made that he claims makes the open source NTFS driver so much better.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:03 pm
by oiaohm
Money and that he is the lead developer. With a company paying you wages you have to offer something. Even if it cannot be achived.

The problem I see is that people are going to do what Schools and the like did with Windows XP/2000 before MS changed the licence. Install Reactos and Windows side by side or in there case install Windows XP and 2000 side by side or some case mult copies of 2000 side by side with different SP levels. Meaning they will both interact with NTFS with different drivers and secuirty shapes and cause trouble. Its the interactions where the problems are.

READ ME

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:08 pm
by samwise52
READ THIS POST TO GET ANWSERS TO YOUR QUESTION

http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2487