Microsoft Litigation vs. Linux NTFS Kernel Support 225
OrenWolf writes: "Microsoft has threatened to sue the current developers of r/w NTFS support in the Linux Kernel. Details can be found in the current Kernel Traffic post." No, your honor, we aren't a monopoly.
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Don't listen to Jeff Merkey (Score:3)
The great Double-Y Jerkey Merkey was under NDA with MS.
If he leaked trade secrets.. Then he's gonna get sued. Would serve him right.
He and his company have contributed NOTHING to Linux development except a lot of useless flame wars on l-k. He's not a NTFS developer, he had just joked about providing NDAed info to the Linux developers on l-k and MS reminded him to sit where he belongs (in their pocket).
I wouldn't listen to a damn thing that moron says.
[anonymous to prevent JM from throwing his lawyers my way]
Re:Reverse Engineering illegal now? Bull. (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Taking legal action to prevent people from engaging in legal behavior, in order to keep them from endangering your monopoly through completely legal means, is both abuse of process and anti-competitive behavior, both of which are illegal.
Suing people for reverse-engineering your code for purposes of compatibility is abuse of process, period.
-
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:1)
Boycott all thing MS? (Score:2)
Re:MS is an unhappy bunny? (Score:1)
It's still an intersting story: The Sun product is based on a very old licence AT&T had from Microsoft for "LAN Manager for UNIX", which dates back to the OS/2 days when MS/IBM had no more than 10% of the File+Print marketshare. Now that WinNT is more popular, Microsoft wanted to breach the agreement, and AT&T had to sue them in order to get access to Windows 2000 source code so that they could make their product.
Re: Almost, but not quite (Score:1)
I have to disagree with you on this. In my LARGE company, every Windows developer has a $1000+ MSDN subscription, plus tons of other Microsoft stuff. I also believe that everyday users run, not walk, to the store to buy the latest MS apps from the local retail chain. "Oh, Windows ME - I NEED to upgrade!"
My $.02
Re:Just let them try... (Score:1)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:1)
Yet they are now withdrawing that OK for reasons which are not shared with us. In fact; we got to see a (very?) small part of the letter these guys received from MS and in that letter I picked up some parts which I found 'odd'. IMHO you simply can't judge MS by these small parts of information.
Re:Don't listen to Jeff Merkey (Score:1)
Damnit! (Score:2)
(e-mail passed about M$)
Here's the article (Score:2)
tools we had been providing to customers based on their intellectual property. As a result of this, we can
no longer provide this tool in the United States." Andre Hedrick [*] asked, "Wait they attacked you after the
request for cross over support?" Jeff replied:
Yes Andre, they did, they accussed me of knowingly conspiring with Linus to provide full
NTFS on Linux based on the email you and I sent to them. The agreements they signed with
us were very liberal, and allowed us to create any tools and NTFS stuff we wanted, there
were no non-competes, or anything to stop us from providing stuff on Linux. What they
alleged was a belief that since we were going open source and supporting Linux NTFS users,
they believed it was impossible for me to keep a "chinese wall" in place in my head between
their IP and Linux IP. A very valid example of the legal theory of the "doctrine of inevitable
disclosure".
But I must admit, in fact what's going on here is that by pulling the open source NDS for
W2K off the table, I renigged on a "faustian" agreement to open source NDS on W2K. This
was compounded by the fact that we released the MANOS sources with a complete NT/W2K
PE and DLL loader (which we wrote "clean room", one of their old tricks). They found this
very irritating. They were quite unconcerned about our NTFS work on Linux until we posted
MANOS and announced an Open Source NetWare.
We've started our "clean room" NTFS core and I've spent some late nights working on it, and
we doubt they will take any action since we dissolved the agreement. The last thing they
need is for me to take the stand and testify just what kind of deals they offered to get us to
leave Novell in 1997 and divide the NetWare markets by using the "Linux IP Laundry-Mat" to
launder Novell's NDS for their consumption (Oh! Look what we found on the internet and
downloaded today!).
NDS would be a useless wart on the rump of Linux. It's for managing large numbers of file
and print servers, not internet/intranet servers like Linux. Linux already has vastly superior
internet directory capabilities.
Andre replied to Jeff's first paragraph:
Wait, this was a proposal of mine to MicroSoft to grant permission development in a clean
room model that only used white papers or other stuff that could be extracted passively.
I alos pointed out that this simple act of allowing open development of a public NTFS would
help them blow holes in the DOJ monopoly issue.
Jeff replied:
The way they took this was that we had changed sides in the war, since I was perceived to
be approaching them with you. Here's what they said about you,
"... We are concernd about the veracity of your associates. Despite the representations they
have made to you, we have not been taking GPL code from Linux and using internally at
Microsoft. This approach by these Linux people is little more than an attempt to [blackmail
Microsoft] with unsubstanciated rumors. We see no benefit whatsoever to provided NTFS
R/W capabilities on Linux
Not very nice to be sure. I know that black and white markings (like a penguin) are in style
right now, but white and black stripes are not !
But he concluded, "I have the ability to litigate against them. They know this and I doubt will go any further
than to bluster and threaten." End Of Thread (tm).
Mirror of ktpage (Score:3)
Yes, all internal links are broken :)
Re:So what! (Score:2)
Good God, if anyone plans to use NTFS under Linux as a primary fs they should be shot. But having the option to read/write would be really really cool.
Also imagine a linux box as a failover machine for that POS NT machine yer phb bought... simply slap them hard disks in it and keep going. Wouldn't that be a nifty way to prove Linux's mettle?
Not quite as simple as it seems (Score:5)
I'm not really sure of the details (I don't follow the kernel list), but I'm sure someone can expand on this.
Jeff V. Merkey used to work at Novell on Netware. He then left and went and developed something (a cleanroom NDS?) for a startup that had a fairly close relationship with MS. (I think the idea was MS was going to use this to combat Netware - like I said, I'm hazy on the details.)
Anyway, as part of that, (I think) he got access to the NT code, which means potentially MS might have a case, if he signed NDAs
Summary: Jeff V. Merkey had some prior realtionship with MS, which might give them a case. The rest is just hazy memories - I'll dig and try and remember exactly what was going on.
Re: (Score:2)
protocals are open (Score:2)
Re:Not exactly... (Score:3)
See how stupid that sounds? Obviously, you don't have to use non-FAT filesystems if you don't want to, but condemning something because it doesn't fit your particular lowest common denominator Win95 game box situation.
but at most places I worked, the C: was FAT while the raid drives were NTFS
Now imagine a Unix admin who installed the operating system on a partition with no file permissions and a file system known to be unstable. Wow, his Unix install would be almost as unstable as his Windows NT install!
I did NT admin for a long time (94-97), and I never understood why people used FAT OS partitions. You were bound to have a corrupted registry sooner or later. In a recovery situation, 9 times out of 10 DOS isn't going to help you, and you end up creating a parallel NT install so that you can mount the registry and fix whatever really went wrong, which is what you really should have done in the first place instead of messing with DOS.
Re:Almost, but not quite (Score:2)
2) If you actually read the license agreement for MS Office (95 and 97) an employee is allowed to install a copy of office on their personal PC for the purpsoses of work.
While people might think they are actually pirating Office, most are in fact not.
MS loses most of their money from fake product. I've seen the stuff put out in Singapore and Hong Kong. The CD's and pressed and silk screened. The inserts are on a four color proccess. You can go into any shopping district and pick up what looks like REAL MS product for pennies on the dollar. You'll find tons of shops in asia that don't even pretent to have the real thing. Just tons of CD packs with all sorts of prirate software. 1 CD for $10SG ($5US) 3 for $25SG ($12.50US). This stuff makes its way back to the US and is sold at computer shows, ham fests, and the like.
NTFS support in Linux bad for Microsoft? (Score:2)
This means Linux and NT co-exist on one box.
This configuration is of no good for servers as the user must reboot to switch from Linux to NT.
Thus it is only for Linux and a workstation and NT as a workstation.. Microsoft dose not seem sereously conserned about Linux compeating with NT in the workstation market.
This then would be a develupers or "hackers" (hacker as in hobbyest not as in criminal) box.
To elimiate this Microsoft could be betting that Windows NT would be selected over Linux.
On a develupers box this is a non-consern. It would make it hard on the develuper but nothing more.
On a hacker (as in hobbyest) box NT would go.. Linux is simply the os of choice for hobbyest and Microsoft has been none-to-friendly with hobbyests. (Posably still bitter about all that theft of Microsoft Basic back in the 1970s).
At base of this seems to me to be a general addatude in busness of suing just to sue.
Basicly busnesses (to spite populare opinion [Ahem: CmdrTaco] you do not need to sue everyone who violates your IP rights it is perfictly ok to overlook some violation.. only trademarks require this and you can issue liccenses instead of suing everyone named "Barbie") sue anyone who violates there IP even if it's violated in a way that benifiets them. With IP law you don't need to prove damages unless someone invokes "fair use" the idea being nobody is going to sue if they aren't damaged. That hasn't been the case in recent years.
Microsoft isn't the worst in this area. Matel seems to stop short of suing little girls...
Now it bothers me a great deal that Microsoft even holds IP rights on the NT file system.
Microsoft did pritty well from letting everyone using the Dos file system. Wordprocessor appliences would use the Dos FS... Atari ST and the Commodore 128 (with the 1571) could read Dos disks...
For a while it was the universal disk format that EVERYONE used.
Now Microsoft wants to protect it's Windows NT file system...
Fine... we can support everyone else under the sun (sparc hehe).. and let Microsoft build a wall around itself.
Now it seems to me Microsoft is basicly acting in paranoia over the people doing the work.
Microsoft can play it's little games and have it's little childish tantrum. But in the real world you just don't get along with everyone. It's gona happen. You can not expect everyone to agree with you.
I mean gezz.. "Oh my god a Linux advocate is accually working on this thing" Well duuu... I mean.. Oh my god.. Microsoft employees work on Windows.. Both Microsoft employees and Linux advocates are nice people some times you can a Linux advocate and a Microsoft employee in one room and not have a fight..
This whole mess is silly... It's just Microsoft trying to get back at someone becouse they think he "switched sides".
Hay Microsoft.. It's not a religion.. it's just software... grow up...
(Linux advocates can be annoying.. some are down right rude... but at times like thies I feel the zellotry in Linux has nothing over Microsoft)
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Untrue. This was not the article title as I submitted it. it was submitted as: :)
'Microsoft threatenes litigation over NTFS in Linux'
..which was the title in the kt post. I didn't even include the word 'kernel', and made the distinction in my submission that it was the *developers* being sued. In this case, it is the editors fault.
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
If they can physicially get to your servers, you're fucked in so many ways that it doesn't matter.
Crypto filesystems.
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Encrypting files or filesystems is the only way to guard against physical access to the disk.
Re:Winternals (Score:2)
I used it on a boot disk to exploit the ntfs partitions on my universities NT4 workstations and certainly i never copied any files from them to make it work.
Microsoft sues NTFS support in Linux kernel! (Score:3)
--
Re: (Score:2)
Physical access == full access. (Score:2)
... or install a trojan in the system to intercept whatever the decrypt key is
For that matter, there's the old "rubber hose" method of decryption. You beat the user with a rubber hose until they cough up the decrypt key.
Anyone who thinks encryption is the solution to all problems is being silly.
Re:NTFS support in Linux bad for Microsoft? (Score:2)
Microsoft is concerned any time ANYTHING they have that someone else doesn't is about to be released.
They don't want their file formats 'discovered'. They don't WANT anyone else to have NTFS. Otherwise, it becomes tooe asy to switch.
They don't WANT an RDP/X translator, even though there would be a HUGE market for it, because it would ease transition away from MS.
They don't WANT office on other platforms, because it would ease transition away from their OS.
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
:-)
Jeff
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Re:What does this have to do with monopoly? (Score:2)
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Re:Plan B (Score:2)
Microsoft has always employed a shrewd combination of legal intimidation, outright purchasing, and thievery to steamroller the competition. In fact, they have been known to sign NDA's with competing companies, or companies who dominate a market M$FT wants, only to release a nearly identical product about 6-12 months later.
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Don't listen to Jeff Merkey (Score:2)
I'm not sure where they come from and I honestly hope that it isn't true but he's blown up a few times and the idea that it is alchohol related seems to fit so well it's almost humorous. Kernel traffic always ignores the good stuff on the kernel list.
Re:Umm... (Score:4)
Linux Kernel mailing list archive [insecure.org], with 133 messages from Jeff V. Merkey in the last 26 days, including his posts about Microsoft.
--
ntfs and linux aren't compatible (Score:3)
So, yeah, good NTFS support would be nice. But don't hold your breath. I doubt the "Core Developers" will allow Linux to fully support NTFS.
___________________________
Just let them try... (Score:3)
Now, the NDA thing is much more interesting, and could be more of a problem. However, Microsoft cannot possibly prove that any NDA's are being violated. To do so, they would have to disclose their source code -at least those parts of it which deal with NTFS- and we all know they'll never do that due to their irrational fear that if someone saw their source they might make something better (never mind that they already do this without having seen the Windows source, so I doubt it would change things much). I suppose it's possible; I've never seen the NT code (sometimes I wonder if Microsoft even lets its programmers see the Windows source), but there could be things in common between them. But how can I be certqain of this unless I can see both sources and compare them? I can't. Neither can a judge. Therefore, there's no way to prove this guy guilty, so Microsoft can't win this case.
But let them try. Let them waste millions on a case they cannot win. This'll be fun
----------
Loss of NTFS security (Score:4)
Re:How ridiculous (Score:2)
If Linux, *BSD, and others acquire r/w/x support for NTFS the Collective has a lot to lose. NTFS support for on-the-fly data compression/decompression would be extremely useful for Linux et al. Additionally, this would make the migration from NT to Linux much easier. I could put all of my data on a secondary NTFS partition and mount Linux right over the top of NT with no loss of anything.
One of MSs very real concerns has to be a sudden increase in the migration to competing OSs. I think I hear them opening the flood gates now. :)
Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.
Re:What does this have to do with monopoly? (Score:2)
They want to be the only one with an OS that can do NTFS.
The only company that can do something, enforced at gunpoint (which is the end result of a lawsuit, the courts enforce a ruling under threat of jail), and you don't see how that's a monopoly?
-
Reverse Engineering illegal now? Bull. (Score:2)
If they argue this point they are saying in essence the whole basis of their monolopy (cheap intel hardware for their products to run on) is illegal. They are as one reader put it shooting themselves in the foot. If they don't want to steal ideas from the companies, they don't need to go down this route.
The funny thing is they will not scare linux developers the same way they would frighten a small corporation. Sic Stallman and Mr. Maddog Hall on them at the same time.
Re:so much for dd being the winner (Score:2)
-
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Re:How ridiculous (Score:2)
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Let's review the title of this article. These are the words that the /. people chose to summarize this issue:
Microsoft Litigation vs. Linux NTFS Kernel Support
Can you IMAGINE the /. response to similar hyperbole coming from Redmond directed against Linux?
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Re:This is a stupid idea even from Microsoft's POV (Score:2)
--
NTFSdos - sysinternals (Score:2)
___________________________
Re:Why stop there? (Score:2)
This has actually happened. When MSWord 97 came out some antivirus code had to be withdrawn initially under a threat of litigation. The reason for this was that none of the naso-anal interfacing agreements between antiVirus vendors and MS covered the new formats. So MS threatened to sue them for being able to read and write (desinfect) files. It's been a while since than, but sure one can find references for it.
Same has also happened with programs using the Mircosoft "proprietary" domain policy formats. *.POL files. There is no rocket science there, they are just simple windows registry dumps. But MS actually successfully stalled samba's wide usage for MS domains for about a year by targeting anyone documenting the files. In other words theretening to sue you for writing text files and giving them a *.POL extension. You can find some info on this if you take an older samba source, untar it and look in the documentation section.
And to conclude this is Jeff^WStef W. Merkey speaking.
NTFS code on t-shirts (Score:5)
So, when are the t-shirts printed with NTFS code coming out?
Re:This is a stupid idea even from Microsoft's POV (Score:2)
- "Linux is good enough for them to worry about"
- "They publicise the fact the Linux has NTFS support"
- "They publicise Linux in general"
- "They unleash thousands of press articles on how Microsoft is scared and is having to rely on lawsuits to compete."
I'm certainly not defending their actions; I think it's a pretty stupid thing for them to do. But I do see, sort of, why they're trying it.For things like "intellectual property" or whatever Microsoft is calling it this week, it doesn't really matter who's bigger, especially if both parties are competitors.
True, but they do it in an "but it shouldn't and our lawyers will make it go away so don't count on it" way. If they think they can get away with it, not something they'll worry overmuch about.
Heh, with all the media attention Linux has been getting (it's getting so the average reporter even knows how to say it), the term "a drop in the bucket" comes to mind. ^_^
Exactly! As has been stated before (though in slightly different context), "See, we're not a monopoly!"
--
http://www.balorn.net/
Re:NTFS code on t-shirts (Score:4)
NTFS is huge.
MS is an unhappy bunny? (Score:2)
The story I was told was: AT&T obtained a source license from MS for NTFS. However, the MS land sharks were asleep that day and forgot to include a license clause preventing AT&T from further sub-licensing the source. AT&T promptly turned round and sub-licensed their code to Sun.
So there are copies of NTFS source floating around at least two major compeditors of MS which must make them a tad touchy on the subject :-)
(Some) more info (Score:5)
Okay, Jeff V. Merkey's company, the Timpanogas Research Group [timpanogas.com] is a Microsoft ISV [timpanogas.com]. Now this doesn't mean anything in itself, but some MS ISVs do have access to the NT code.
Here [google.com] is a (google cached) post about some problems Merkey had with his open source NDS implementation - Novell wanted him to sign a NDA.
Read this:
and this:
Now if this David Gobel person really did write "NTFS for MS", and now he has some kind of relationship with Merkey, Merkey's company or Linux, there could be a problem.
Also, read http://www.zd net .com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2426902,00.html [zdnet.com] for some more background (okay, it's ZdNet, so don't take it too seriously!)
Of course, I still don't know the details - just enough to annoy some people if I've got it all wrong!
Winternals (Score:2)
I recall reading a M$ knowledgebase article about some methods for deploying NT 4 (I think) that actually recommended using these third party tools. (Oh and they provide fat32 support under NT4)
Now why is it acceptable to make tools that enable microsoft operating systems to read microsoft disk formats, but not make those same tools for other operating systems.
Surely winternals have set a precedent for acceptance of tools capable of utilising NTFS and the DoJ would have a fit if they weren't attacked when the linux version was
Anyway the last I recall FAT, FAT32 & Jolliet systems have been supported in linux for sometime. Is hacking thier flagship (as if) filesystem more punishable?
Re:NTFS code on t-shirts (Score:2)
So we should be seeing them here in the US pretty soon, then?
Hey! I resent that! Why, if it weren't for all these empty cheetos bottles and 7-UP bottles that I have to clear away, and the fact that the nurse is off today so getting to an upright position is out of the question, I'd deck you!
NTFS and Linux: A Match Made In Hell (Score:2)
We had to make it bug-by-bug compatible with M$.
I like the basic tenor: If it was built on NT code, then chop it. (It ain't GNU then anyways.) If it was clean room (aka raw GNU code from the ground up) then it is protected.
Besides, it predates the DMCA. Ha ha ha!
Hope this doesn't fall under the DMCA (Score:2)
To sum up in Counter-Strike fashion, Microsoft points their AWP at the heads of these coders, while the DOJ, the big kahuna of the server of the software market, is ready to kick them into oblivion.
Re:Just let them try... (Score:2)
Damn, there goes my NT rescue disk! (Score:2)
Oh the irony of it all. The next thing we will hear is that Linux can't be used for rescuing NT
Wrong. (Score:5)
<p>
When Jeff said, "Microsoft has threatened us with litigation due to our support of Linux NTFS development" the <b>us</b> he was referring to was his company, not <i>linux</i> proper.
<p>
Jeff was giving people a binary NTFS tool to help people recover their file systems after they got damaged by some bugs in the linux NTFS drivers. This is probably what Jeff is referring to when he says, "Microsoft demanded that we delete any and all NTFS tools we had been providing to customers..."
<p>
Micro$oft is NOT threatening linux. M$ is NOT trying to have the NTFS driver removed from linux proper. This is not clear in the linuxcare article, but is clear if you followed all of Jeff's (sometimes logic-challenged) posts. One final note, you have to mentally tone down posts from Jeff, he tends to be <understatement> overly dramatic </understatement> and has a strange combative/cooperative cycle of posts.
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Yes, it would, and that's exactly what it's been doing for a couple of years now.
-
Whats the problem? (Score:5)
The article itself states that they asked MS for a license which allowed them to use the NTFS specs. An fs which was completely stolen^H^Hdeveloped by MS :) But thats not the issue; iirc MS has licensed NTFS and they own the specs. If you want to use it in another way then accessing the available NT routines you'll need a licence. Like it or not; thats MS decision and you can only respect it.
The way I see it these folks decided to break the agreement (see quote) and therefor also threw away their right to make use of the MS specifications and routines which allowed them to access the NTFS internals. So? Is MS evil just because they are defending their product here? Sure, MS usually takes actions which are highly controversial, their development of NTFS is right among those IMHO (remember hpfs?). But that does not mean that every action taken by MS is evil/monopolistic/unfair/dictating/ by default. Besides, please do not forget that we only see 1 side of the story here. We didn't even get to see the entire letter send by MS.
Anyway; these people should stop whining IMHO. If they want to develop NTFS based programs and don't want to be restricted by the will of MS they should do what other did before them; buy the appropiate MS development tools which gives them the right to use the NTFS specs in their own software. Whether that software is Linux or Windows based is irrelevant.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2)
about his work on NTFS, and MS had explicitly OKed this work. If this
is so, then they cannot use this intellectual property argument.
Re:Simple sol'n (Score:2)
----
Ha (Score:4)
Yes Andre, they did, they accussed me of knowingly conspiring with Linus...
That bastard Linus, he has entered a conspiracy to destroy Microsoft!
I think, in general, that OSS gives Microsoft fits because it is something that they can't make go away by buying it. If your are used to innovating with your pocketbook that would really screw things up, maybe this is the beginning of plan B: Innovate with lawsuits.
Re: Almost, but not quite (Score:2)
b. You might have found the one exception to the rule there: low-end MS OS upgrades. For some reasons, these upgrades fly off the shelves. I think a large part of the reason is the price point: they're at or below the $100 magic mark. You'll most likely find the same isn't happening with Win2K or MS Office. Go ask your Electronic Boutique, Best Buys, CompuUSA etc, they'll most likely tell you that those sales completely pale in comparison to Win9x/Me upgrades.
Speaking of MSDN subscriptions, that's one of the HUGE copy-for-home-use candidates in the developer community. Considering the price point, that's not really surprising.
Why stop there? (Score:2)
Re:Mirror. (Score:2)
It may have been there, but isn't, now. Koos has copied it in time, though, here [idefix.net].
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
Re: Timpanogos - Wolf Mountain - A Curiosity (Score:2)
I also recall that there was a company called "Wolf Mountain" in Utah Valley -- or at least, it was called Wolf Mountain until it was discovered that this group of ex-novell employees was working on a clustering project remarkably similar to one at Novell, which had been intenally code named "Wolf Mountain". I think these are the same people.
The faustian Microsoft deal references seem to help explain why they were so blatant about everything at the time.
Re:Almost, but not quite (Score:2)
That's exactly right. I think MS is prepared to (and does) tacitly accept a lot of piracy in the home arena for the sake of brainshare. While some people might blindly disagree that home software piracy is rampant, that is one of the principal reasons for MS's desktop dominance. Unfortunately it is also something extremely hard to get concrete figures for, since few people will openly admit to piracy when questioned (even when promised anonymity). You pretty much have to rely on empirical data and on personal observations.
This is a stupid idea even from Microsoft's POV (Score:3)
Let us say Microsoft does sue Linux for NTFS support. That means:
That Linux is good enough for them to worry about.
They publicise the fact the Linux has NTFS support
They publicise Linux in general
They unleash thousands of press articles on how Microsoft is scared and is having to rely on lawsuits to compete.
By keeping quiet:
Far less people would know Linux had NTFS support
They can keep up the pretence that they don't need to worry about those pseudo-Marxist hippie long haired hackers are up to.
-- Piracy is a vicitmless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
Not in MS/OS's best interest (Score:3)
I also predict the death of the OS division within 5 years of the breakup.
Re:Just let them try... (Score:2)
This whole situation is quite serious. Microsoft could very well be using it as a test flight for future lawsuits in which they attempt to take down huge portions of major open source projects. While the NTFS thing is, by itself, a tempest in a teapot, we have to pay attention to Microsoft's machinations very carefully. They are a huge company with hundreds of well-paid corporate lawyers, and a strong interest in making the Linux movement fail. It's a chess game: just because a particular move doesn't knock something out immediately, it doesn't mean that the same move won't have a significant effect later on.
Keep your eyes open. Always assume the worst of intentions when Microsoft does anything.
--
Groundless (Score:3)
IMO, a classic case of M$ using threats to illegally maintain a monopoly.
BTW, a THREAT of a lawsuit, when groundless is actionable. If I were these developers, RMS, Linus, or Red Hat, I'd be sending copies of this threat to the Supreme Court and Judge Jackson.
I suppose this threat means that M$ has given up on making `Doze 2000 a better product than Linux and now have to take to the courts for protection?
It's called NTFSDOS (Score:2)
The Linux driver is nothing new, and Microsoft didn't sue the sysinternals guys over this.
Methinks the Linux authors did something else besides reverse engineer a solution.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
However, the Linux Kernel article does give hints that something else was going on. It sounds like Jeff Merkey, one of the kernel developers, used to work for Novell or something and was going to put NDS (Novell Directory Services) into Linux, and had both a license agreement with Microsoft for something else, and an informal understanding with Microsoft about NDS on Linux.
They talk about the Linux Laundromat - the idea being that Microsoft could get NDS support for Windows by downloading it from the internet - in the Linux code. Since Jeff Merkey has quit working on that, Microsoft is pissed... or something like that. For full understanding of this issue one would probably have to either interview Jeff Merkey and the other developers, or read hundreds of messages of the Linux Kernel Development mailing list. (There's an idea for slashdot - Interview the Linux Kernel Developers as a group.)
Microsoft has reason to be worried though. NTFS is a good file system - if you installed Linux over NT and it worked, and could read your data, there might not be any reason to wipe the hard drives and convert to ext2fs - a much scarier step that many companies would balk at.
With NTFS support in the Linux kernel, NT file servers, print servers, and web servers could be converted to Linux in about an hour with the safety of "if anything goes wrong, we'll just boot back to NT."
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
MS may lose its copyright in the US (Score:2)
protect your monopoly, you may lose the copyright,
IIRC. (IANAL)
Too bad the servers are down (Score:2)
Re:What does this have to do with monopoly? (Score:2)
I mean, just because they don't want others to use their NTFS filesystem does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly.
I have to disagree with this. If MSWinNT is the only OS that can read/write NTFS filesystems, then if you want to read/write an NTFS filesystem (whether it be yours or someone elses) you HAVE to use MSWinNT - you can't use anything else. MS prohibits it
I think this constitutes a monopoly on the NTFS filesystem.
This is a BAD thing.
Begin hypothetical situation
Suddenly, whether you want to or not, you HAVE to own...er...license MSWinNT if you want to legally run a data-recovery business - because you know that customers will come to you with NTFS partitioned disks. (This ain't a perfect world where everyone who runs a business runs *nix, after all ;P )
Thus the need to get at and/or change any data on an NTFS partition requires that you purchase a license for MSWinNT.
Indirectly, MS would effectively own any information on an NTFS partition, as in order to use that data, you (or someone) would have to go pay the "MS Tax" to get at it.
End hypothetical situation
Next thing you know, they'll go after the VFAT support... ;P
This make microsoft look bad (Score:2)
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:3)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2)
TWW
Re:Simple sol'n (Score:4)
Even if the people writing the code have written it from scratch and both they and Microsoft agree on that, they might have signed an NDA. (in this case, IIRC from reading LKML, that is what has happened)
The problem then comes down to being able to demonstrate that you haven't used any information provided under the NDA in writing the code. That can be tricky.
What does this have to do with monopoly? (Score:2)
Many companies do things like this, Micro$oft is not the first (although probably the worst
MS OS can USE NFS and so can you! (Score:2)
yes. They claim that you can share "Unix Style" paths or UNC's on a server. It does also support SMB (although Samba is not Recomended, surprise). I quote:
Server for NFS is an NFS server implemented on a Windows-based server. It allows UNIX-based NFS clients to access files on Windows-based computers the same way files on other UNIX NFS servers may be accessed. For UNIX-based NFS users, this process is completely transparent. File level access is determined by the user's UID or GID as well as by Windows access control lists (ACLs). Server for NFS supports NFS on all Windows-based file systems including FAT, CDFS, and NTFS.
Take a look at Microsoft's Use Of NFS [microsoft.com]
This may be the easier way to have M$ clients interconnectivity with unicies no?
This still does not make NTFS clients illegal though...and the MS client still is propritary, but hey its a start.
MicroTurd Alert (Score:2)
This is such a twisted troll that it's hard to know where to start. Since when do you need to buy a liscence to reverse engineer? This seems to be the core of this bait. It has little to do with the relavent problems.
By reading this article you agree to use your computer only as I see fit. If you do not agree, you may stop reading this aticle, remove it from your computer and send it back to us at your expense. The liscence hereby granted to use your computer includes the ability to use myFileSystem which you must install now. You may not read myFileSystem with any tool not sold by me. This includes physical and microscopic examination and reconstuction by abacus or weejee board.
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
This [eunet.no] is a lifesaver - It's come in handy for both recovering admin passwords
(some people where I work have the admin password for their machines)
as well as recovering data from corrupted filesystems.
--
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
For instance, one workable (done it) procedure to "fix" a lost root password on SCO, HP/UX, and AIX, is to crash the box, bring it up off different boot media, mount up the / partition, and edit
This is why most serious data centers have locks on the doors.
Meow
Almost, but not quite (Score:2)
So in a perverted sense, while MS fights piracy with all their might, their brainshare and desktop share is due in large part to soft piracy. In that light, it doesn't matter how nasty Microsoft's image gets, since a lot of people don't pay for the software anyway, they don't mind swiping it regardless of MS's bad PR.
Re:Loss of NTFS security (Score:2)
Unless your filesystem uses encryption, or can run on top of an encrypted device. [ira.uka.de]
---
Re:NTFS code on t-shirts (Score:5)
When the average person gets significantly fatter.
So we should be seeing them here in the US pretty soon, then?
___
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2)
I think there is reason to doubt Merkey's account of things, but if what he says is true, then MS have no case.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
um... YY males????
Missing a bit of genetic information there, aren't we? (A Y chromosome is an X chromosome with a leg missing).
i hope this doesn't pan out for m$ (Score:2)
Umm... (Score:5)
Reference: Linux NTFS page [hu-berlin.de]
How ridiculous (Score:2)
Also, I don't see what MS has to lose by having NTFS support in Linux. The only people who'd need it are possibly those who are dual booting NT and Linux, in which case they are using MS's product anyway so they aren't losing out that way. And it's unlikely that NTFS is going to become "the" standard journalling filesystem and take away more (ha!) of NT's share of the Server market. Isn't it? What with ext3, or ReiserFS or whatever its called this week just around the corner...