Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: Calum on 27 April 2010, 16:15
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/microsoft_german_fat_patent_appeal_upheld/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/microsoft_german_fat_patent_appeal_upheld/)
Basically Microsoft now hold a patent meaning they own the "invention" of implementing long filenames under a FAT or VFAT filesystem! Considering that virtually all operating systems and a huge percentage of handheld devices implement this, and considering the EU is historically not too keen on granting software patents, what does this mean in real terms?
It's not even a case of a technological answer, because a patent means microsoft owns this concept, not the technology used to implement it! Write new code if you want, microsoft are now legally allowed to charge you money for implementing long filenames under FAT regardless of who wrote the code.
Pathetic. That's my opinion anyway.
-
Microsoft, Microsoft, What is the best type of punishment to undertake on you?
-
I was just looking into this a little bit. It appears that most systems support FAT, but they don't use it themselves. So the very worst that could happen is that a specific avenue of interoperability would close down. Which honestly doesn't sound like it would be in Microsoft's best interest. I could see them going after companies that sell flash cards or USB sticks, but not after Apple and Linux for implementing support.
-
I doubt they would go after the companies that make the hardware Windows uses.
This is a software patent anyway, they can't go after hardware just because of how software formats it. Besides, when they sell an empty flash drive - it isn't using long file names yet until a file is saved with one.
Software patents are pretty silly
-
Microsoft, Microsoft, What is the best type of punishment to undertake on you?
Punishment? It's civil law.
-
Play nicely now guys.
I don't know why most USB drives are formatted with FAT - even straight from the factory. Guess its because windows doesn't support much else, and NTFS support is iffy on other platforms.
-
historical reasons. VFAT is the de facto standard, just like microsoft wanted.
It's actually the same setup as a protection racket, and microsoft have been doing it since 1975 with all sorts of technology. They basically tell everybody they're screwed if they don't conform to microsoft's rules (which is true because most people fall for it and anybody who doesn't gets left out in the cold by the market) and then they go round shortly afterwards forcing protection money out of you for playing by microsoft's rules. A classic one-two punch combination.
And yes, software patents really suck, because they stifle true innovation, which is exactly what microsoft wants to happen. if the information technology economy starts being more based on innovation and less on marketing, microsoft will be in real trouble. software patents are a godssend for them.
-
No innovation? That is funny because Windows is the system with all the innovation. MacOSX and Linux stay almost exactly the same, my debian desktop looks the same as always and it has its charm.
Personally if Microsoft didn't need to hold defensive patents against faggots like Red-Hat, Novell, IBM, Oracle, Apple, and so on and vise-versa a lot less of the market capitalization would be spent on bullshit intellectual property lawyers a lot more innovation could be done. Yet Microsoft is the only software company that still does innovate, Microsoft are the ones who developed technology so solid-state disks and hard drives can both be used at once for the files that run faster on each. Microsoft are the ones that have the largest and most powerful API, and by far the easiest SDK.
The real worry is that intellectual property leaves a monopoly now for big companies. Smaller software development outfits are severely limited by these coercive intrusions into their business. Not every man with an idea has access to a farm of lawyers. The real criminal here is the Governments that keep a body that was invented by an insane English tyrant King which has no economic sense at all. Get rid of patents, Microsoft is fine, apart from the Blue Screens of Death that everyone with x64 has... and that is what we are talking about, not Microsofts legal necessities.
Microsoft don't need patents, they can buy anyone they want, unless Larry Ellison at Oracle beat them to it. The fact is patents stifle competition and market forces and the computer world is at the whims of every insane patent officer.
You know what I think? I don't think you even know what you are talking about, and add nothing of value to this forum.
-
No innovation? That is funny because Windows is the system with all the innovation. MacOSX and Linux stay almost exactly the same, my debian desktop looks the same as always and it has its charm.
that's reasonable. i think judging an OS by how your desktop looks is a sound policy.
Personally if Microsoft didn't need to hold defensive patents against faggots like Red-Hat, Novell, IBM, Oracle, Apple, and so on and vise-versa a lot less of the market capitalization would be spent on bullshit intellectual property lawyers a lot more innovation could be done. Yet Microsoft is the only software company that still does innovate, Microsoft are the ones who developed technology so solid-state disks and hard drives can both be used at once for the files that run faster on each. Microsoft are the ones that have the largest and most powerful API, and by far the easiest SDK.
it's an opinion.
The real worry is that intellectual property leaves a monopoly now for big companies. Smaller software development outfits are severely limited by these coercive intrusions into their business. Not every man with an idea has access to a farm of lawyers. The real criminal here is the Governments that keep a body that was invented by an insane English tyrant King which has no economic sense at all. Get rid of patents, Microsoft is fine, apart from the Blue Screens of Death that everyone with x64 has... and that is what we are talking about, not Microsofts legal necessities.
actually i think you make a lot of sense here in all seriousness.
Microsoft don't need patents, they can buy anyone they want, unless Larry Ellison at Oracle beat them to it. The fact is patents stifle competition and market forces and the computer world is at the whims of every insane patent officer.
i know you like to know when i agree with you, i'm pretty much in agreement here.
You know what I think? I don't think you even know what you are talking about, and add nothing of value to this forum.
oh! and it was going so well. Well, we'll let the audience decide shall we?
-
VFAT is a good system, in that it's simple, easy to implement and in wide use.
This patten still means that everyone will be able to use VFAT, it only affects long file names used by Windows: you can still use short 8.3 file names used by Windows 3.1 and DOS.
I don't know if this patent just covers the MS system, could you invent your own long file name system which is not compatible with Windows and use it instead?
If so, it will just make things harder, although not impossible. If compatibility with Windows is an issue you could write your own driver which will enable Windows to use your own long file name standard.
-
Either way Microsoft made a mistake, everyone will use their own systems, making compatibility with Windows almost impossible.
-
however the vfat filesystem will remain the de facto standard. as aloone jonez says it just means somebody writing a proper windows interface for ext3 or whatever (though will this be harder than for example ntfs support for linux?) and yet most people get their various storage devices preformatted with vfat, that's the real issue, same as people who get their PC preloaded with ms windows.
so saying this is not an important issue is missing the point. it may not be an important issue for a small minority, but it still is, because if it's an issue for the majority, even if you're not part of it, you still have to live in the society formed by that majority.
-
As a sidetrip from this topic, what is a good replacement. I've always formatted my usb sticks as VFAT because it was the most usable format for moving data between my Mac and a Windows computer. What about between a Mac and a Linux computer? The Mac is using HFS+ and the Linux computer is using ext4. For now, VFAT will work, but eventually, the incomplete support from both OSX and Fedora will cause the drive to be cluttered and clogged, unless I can use Windows to clean up or reformat.
-
I wasn't talking about replacing VFAT, just the long file name convention which is the only thing that's patented, unless it applies to any incomparable method of implementing long file names on VFAT, in which case we need a different system.
I would've thought that ext3 would be too complicated to implement on embedded device with a tiny amount of memory. The file system needs to be simple as possible, no journalling, per user permissions or anything complicated like that, only simple file name, date, time and attributes need to be stored.
-
I wasn't talking about replacing VFAT...
I was. I'm serious insofar as I am interested in finding a filesystem that is totally compatible with either my Mac (HFS+) or my Linux (ext4) to use on a thumbdrive that will be transferring data back and forth between the two. My concern is not that I'm violating a Microsoft patent, but that I won't be able to do comprehensive disk maintenance without Windows nearby.
-
Does mac not support ext2 or ext3? No way to add support?
-
Accidently run Bill Gates over and torch Microsoft? :P Seriously though, Apple or Linux (all 4850349275025425 of them (yes I did just bash the numberpad) ) will find a way around this problem, they always do. And Microsoft will cause another problem, we'll walk right back around, again. All Microsoft is, is a big fat annoying fly that happens to be in the drink of computing. Yes I will now bash my head against the nearest keyboard, OUCH!
EDIT: Note to self, act more sane
-
Does mac not support ext2 or ext3? No way to add support?
I don't know. Which is why I'm asking questions.
-
Does mac not support ext2 or ext3? No way to add support?
I don't know. Which is why I'm asking questions.
A quick google couldnt find the answer? I'm not gonna fucking do it for you.
-
It wasn't really that kind of question. More of a "hey, if you've got an idea, please share".
Ext3 is not natively supported by OSX. Support can be added with paid 3rd party software. It's kinda disheartening when you hear that one of the "easiest" ways to get ext3 support in OSX is to install a virtual Ubuntu.
-
that's not a linux problem by the way.
also, by the way, HFS+ support is surely available as a kernel module for linux? This website seems to suggest it might be: http://www.google.com/search?q=hfs%2B+linux+kernel+module (http://www.google.com/search?q=hfs%2B+linux+kernel+module)
-
^ What's the command to find out if a particular module is loaded into the kernel? I know it is available, because I've built kernels with built-in HFS+ support before. But I'm pretty sure it's still not standard.
FYI, sometimes I will ask a question that I am quite capable of looking up the answer to. It's not because I'm lazy, but because I'm kinda busy, and that particular knowledge, while important, is just not all that high on my list of priorities. I realize that you are probably also kinda busy, and that answering my questions is not very high on your list of priorities. UNLESS it's one of those things that you just kinda know off the top of your head and can share without having to do any kind of work, I fully expect you to ignore it. In fact, from now on, if I ask a straightforward question, please just go ahead and assume that what I'm really asking is that if you know the answer without looking it up, please feel free to share (and know in your heart that I would be willing to do the same for you on things that I know well). The point here is to pool knowledge, after all.
-
^ What's the command to find out if a particular module is loaded into the kernel? I know it is available, because I've built kernels with built-in HFS+ support before. But I'm pretty sure it's still not standard.
lsmod
search your package manager for hfs and/or hfstools, once the relevant package is installed (and its probably the one that ISNT hfstools) id expect hfs support to 'just work' or else id be disappointed. I havent needed to mess about with modprobing etc since I was using slackware, mandrake and linux from scratch, pretty much, so i try to avoid that carry on.
FYI, sometimes I will ask a question that I am quite capable of looking up the answer to. It's not because I'm lazy, but because I'm kinda busy, and that particular knowledge, while important, is just not all that high on my list of priorities. I realize that you are probably also kinda busy, and that answering my questions is not very high on your list of priorities. UNLESS it's one of those things that you just kinda know off the top of your head and can share without having to do any kind of work, I fully expect you to ignore it. In fact, from now on, if I ask a straightforward question, please just go ahead and assume that what I'm really asking is that if you know the answer without looking it up, please feel free to share (and know in your heart that I would be willing to do the same for you on things that I know well). The point here is to pool knowledge, after all.
I know exactly what you mean, but your response in this thread suggested I shouldve provided the answers to the Qs that I asked, for you.
-
If only it were this easy on OSX ay: http://fs-driver.org/ (http://fs-driver.org/)
Note: yes, this is an ext2 driver but it can mount ext3 volumes as the two are backward compatible, however without journaling just to mount it more than 25 times you are going to need to duel boot or use a VM Linux to run fsck.
Kinda fucking gay they don't make a Windows fsck.ext2 for it, then it would be bareable.
-
If only it were this easy on OSX ay: http://fs-driver.org/ (http://fs-driver.org/)
Kinda ridiculous that it isn't.
NOBODY in the OS X world decided to make an EXT2 driver, and not charge money for it? If that is true I'm making this official: Apple users, they are the scum of the computer world.
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and saying that your average Mac user is probably no more of a power user then your average Windows user, which may explain why there is so little interest in supporting what are primarily *nix file systems.
The percentage of people who have a combination of Windows and Linux systems at home or dual boot Windows and Linux (this is where that ext2 driver comes in real handy) is probably much much greater then those that have Linux and OSX systems.
-
If only it were this easy on OSX ay: http://fs-driver.org/ (http://fs-driver.org/)
Kinda ridiculous that it isn't.
NOBODY in the OS X world decided to make an EXT2 driver, and not charge money for it? If that is true I'm making this official: Apple users, they are the scum of the computer world.
Man it would be a human rights violations for people who toil on such shoddy development environments to not get paid for their work.
Of course, for things like ext2/ext3 they could stop being fucking faggots and just merge some of the FreeBSD 8.0 crap over. Do you even get ndis network drivers on OSX?
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and saying that your average Mac user is probably no more of a power user then your average Windows user, which may explain why there is so little interest in supporting what are primarily *nix file systems.
The percentage of people who have a combination of Windows and Linux systems at home or dual boot Windows and Linux (this is where that ext2 driver comes in real handy) is probably much much greater then those that have Linux and OSX systems.
That's true, but would you not also think the ethos of Apple trickles down to the Apple population, making them greedy? :D
(sounds outrageous but this is not all joking: you must believe there is a correlation that influences gnu/linux distribution users to help their community more than Apple/MS users would be influenced)
Now theres a reason to keep Apple out of your home, if ever there was one.
-
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsx/ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsx/)
Found this, ext3 is backward compatible with ext2.
-
So an ext2 driver can access an ext3 volume, minus ext3s new fancy features?
-
Pretty much.