[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A5659A0.2030202@davidnewall.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:27:04 +0930
From: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
tridge@...ba.org, Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, john.lanza@...ux.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, corbet@....net,
jcm@...masters.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> If someone really wants a patch to corrupt their filesystems they know
> where to find it.
>
No need for pettiness. Andrew's already intimated that he's still
working the patch, and he's a very clever lad and knows if it corrupts
it needs more work.
What I don't understand is how anybody could be satisfied with the
status quo. We cannot leave vfat unchanged, for that will perpetuate a
pool of victims to be sued, and Linux loses credibility every time that
happens. Something *must* change.
What is especially attractive about Andrew's position (he said this more
eloquently than me) is that developing a solution to avoid the patent
will impact Microsoft revenues; and that will be most instructive to
them. That's almost sufficient reason by itself!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists