I just have to wonder if Micheal is retarded or simpy trying to create a negative image of Linux / Open Source, this 'article' is a goddamn joke. Claiming that Linux 'still doesn't have 'proper' extFAT support'. Proper? As in in-kernel support? He knows full and well that the reason Linux doesn't have in-kernel support for exFAT or NTFS is that they are patented proprietary Microsoft filesystems and that including them would open up a new possible attack vector for Microsoft (you know, that company which is running around threatening to sue Linux using companies over patents unless they pay up). And yet while fully knowing this he uses it to attack Linux.
Meanwhile, just like with NTFS, exFAT is fully supported on Linux through fuse which is a file-system implementation OUTSIDE of the kernel, where it belongs given it's patented and proprietary nature.
But that doesn't stop Micheal from going with the bullshit headline of 'Microsoft's exFAT still crap on Linux'.
I mean wtf? I used to say that if Phoronix actually got their game together and fixed their appallingly bad compiler benchmark suite then I would happily pay for a subscription, not anymore. I'll keep clicking the ads from time to time to make up for the bandwidth I use here but no way will I buy a subscription on a site which is consistently puring out pure bullshit intended to make Linux and open source in general look bad. I don't know what Micheal's endgame is but it sure as hell isn't the promotion of Linux.
I wonder where the article is that covers the craptacular UDF tools we have in UNIX land. Why do I need Windows Vista/7 or Mac OS X to burn an honest UDF CD/DVD/Blu-ray?
UDF support in Unix is not bad generally. Solaris, FreeBSD, OS X all have good UDF support.
Linux UDF support is lacking a bit though, both on kernel (no write support for UDF 2.5+) and userspace (no fsck) side.
Actually, I have a binary called udffsck on my brand-new Gentoo install. Only problem is, it doesn't seem to do anything as far as accepting -h or --help.
Interesting, I'm guessing those are from sys-fs/udftools? http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-udf/ (#qfile udffsck)
Originally Posted by wswartzendruber
The fsck from Linux udftools is indeed not functional.
"The GPL is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." -Sweaty Steve
Originally Posted by XorEaxEax
"Microsoft's Chief Council, Horacio E. Gutiérrez, is a cancer that attaches himself to technology that Microsoft didn't create or contribute to and trolls it with bogus patents." -Reality
exFAT is untouchable if only for the reason that Microsoft has patents on it. Their gold partner Tuxera, which has Tuxera exFAT, distributes exFAT for FUSE as proprietary software for Linux and collects patent tax for their bosses at Microsoft.
I also believe the Microsoft Gold Partner Tuxera is a GPL violator that has stolen GPL licensed source code for XFS for Linux and made it into a proprietary IFS for Windows (both violate the GPL. I doubt they used the FreeBSD implementation since it is not only crap, it is read only.
The only version of XFS with any maturity and completeness that has any source code available is under the GPL, and Tuxera won't answer my email when I ask them where they got "Tuxera XFS" from. I have notified several of the copyright holders on XFS of Tuxera's activity. They can pursue legal remedies if it does turn out to be the case that Tuxera XFS violates the GPL, which is more likely than not.
Have you got any evidence apart from "suspecting it"? Because you make some pretty bold statements here based on what looks like your mere intuition.
Originally Posted by DaemonFC
Mind that I'm the first one to oppose software patents and I'm actively lobbying against them here in the EU, but in the US the blame lies in the laws, not in those who take advantage from them.
Even more suspicious would be Tuxera Ext2/3/4. Something just doesn't seem kosher about this. There has been a lot of effort to implement these file systems on Linux, yet a small proprietary software company with only a few programmers independently implements all this stuff? I am kind of not buying that. I'd say it is "Very Likely" that Tuxera is a GPL violator that is using stolen source code. Again, it would require proof, that barring a lawsuit from one of the copyright holders on those file systems or the VFS layer for Linux (which Tuxera would also need a Windows port of) which would compel Tuxera to cooperate and admit where the source code came from.
The way a lot of GPL violators get away with it is that the copyright holders either don't care enough to do anything about it, or are not independently wealthy enough to take the suspected violator to court.