December 2003 - Legacy - lists.gtalug.org

M$ to license FAT
by jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:45:29AM -0500, Taavi Burns wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:37:42PM -0500, John Macdonald wrote: > > # U.S. Obvious #5,579,517 > > Long Common name space for and shorts filenames > > # U.S. Obvious #5,745,902 > > Method and system for accessing has file using file names having different file name formats > > # U.S. Obvious #5,758,352 > > Long Common name space for and shorts filenames > > # U.S. Obvious #6,286,013 > > Method and system for providing has common name space for long and shorts spins names in year operating system > > Okay, as someone else said, these all seem to relate to long filenames > on FAT (i.e. VFAT). What about people who don't use those extensions? > My digital camera sticks very strictly to the old 8.3 filenames. And > hey, if a Linux person needs to use a FAT drive for file exchange, but > usually use Linux, there may be a revisiting of UMSDOS. ;) That's no going to work. Long names are convenient to use, and the MS license is just 25 cents per device (or less - there is a cap so large volume manufacturers pay less per device on average). A free alternative might be better (ext2 might work), but again it is the camera and USB device makers that have to be convinced. For now, they support FAT and ensure Windows customers or go to lengths to allow Linux customers and reduce their sales to Windows customers. As a higher proportion of the target customers become Linux instead of Windows, they will eventually get some incentive to change - that will like happen first outside of North America. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

M$ to license FAT
by taavi-LbuTpDkqzNzXI80/IeQp7B2eb7JE58TQ＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:02:17PM -0500, Robert Brockway wrote: > Maybe the manufacturers of these devices will change to another filesytem > (they can take their pick from many choices available in Linux & BSD) in > order to avoid paying the licencing fees. I was initially thinking about But if they can avoid paying a license fee by promising to not use functionality that they're already not using... > All the manufacturers need to do is supply the filesystem driver when they > install the s/w on the MS-Windows. Adding drivers all over the place is > part of the MS-Windows culture. But they'd need to write and maintain that driver...and for what? If they NEED long filenames, then ok. Otherwise I really don't see the point. > Patents expire when Mickey Mouse is no longer profitable, or is that > copyrights, I can't remember. That would be copyright, but the precedent is set for a sufficiently profitable <noun> to have its public domain-ness delayed. -- taa /*eof*/ -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

M$ to license FAT
by robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, John Macdonald wrote: > That's fine for a dual boot Linux getting access to > the licensed MS file system, but if another poster > was right about USD memory disks and such devices > using FAT, the "damage" is that you used a Linux > instead of buying Windows to read the USB device. Maybe the manufacturers of these devices will change to another filesytem (they can take their pick from many choices available in Linux & BSD) in order to avoid paying the licencing fees. I was initially thinking about Linux's implementation of the Minix1 FS because it is lite but it is limited to 64MB iirc, which is already too small for these device. All the manufacturers need to do is supply the filesystem driver when they install the s/w on the MS-Windows. Adding drivers all over the place is part of the MS-Windows culture. > Does anyone have any details of exactly what is > patented and when the patent(s) expire? Patents expire when Mickey Mouse is no longer profitable, or is that copyrights, I can't remember. Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy at public.gmane.org, zzbrock at uqconnect.net Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org) "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

M$ to license FAT
by taavi-LbuTpDkqzNzXI80/IeQp7B2eb7JE58TQ＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:16:16PM -0500, John Macdonald wrote: > > Okay, as someone else said, these all seem to relate to long filenames > > on FAT (i.e. VFAT). What about people who don't use those extensions? > > My digital camera sticks very strictly to the old 8.3 filenames. And > > hey, if a Linux person needs to use a FAT drive for file exchange, but > > usually use Linux, there may be a revisiting of UMSDOS. ;) > > That's no going to work. Long names are convenient > to use, So the Linux driver won't support them. If the storage device just doesn't bother to use them (which is VERY easy to do), then there's no royalty to pay. In fact, how many digital cameras do you know that actually use long filenames? The VFAT spec is ugly compared to FAT, which is relatively simple. That's the biggest reason to use FAT: simplicity. > and the MS license is just 25 cents per > device (or less - there is a cap so large volume > manufacturers pay less per device on average). That's if the manufacturer uses VFAT. I don't see that, though. > A free alternative might be better (ext2 might work), > but again it is the camera and USB device makers Now that I think about it, the USB device makers have nothing to say in the matter. I also have a USB SmartMedia reader, and the SmartMedia cards just show up as removeable SCSI drives. I can format it any way that I please. > that have to be convinced. For now, they support > FAT and ensure Windows customers or go to lengths > to allow Linux customers and reduce their sales to > Windows customers. As a higher proportion of the > target customers become Linux instead of Windows, > they will eventually get some incentive to change - > that will like happen first outside of North America. They'll probably just stick with plain old FAT. If they need long filenames, they'll probably go to VFAT (which is still readable as FAT). If they REALLY want to be with the Linux crowd, they can do UMSDOS. They could even do both FAT and UMSDOS, but keeping those two in sync when the storage is used outside the space of the device which keeps them both in sync would be a nightmare. -- taa /*eof*/ -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

M$ to license FAT
by jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:34:48AM -0500, John Macdonald wrote: > That's fine for a dual boot Linux getting access to > the licensed MS file system, but if another poster > was right about USD memory disks and such devices > using FAT, the "damage" is that you used a Linux > instead of buying Windows to read the USB device. According to a couple of articles at the Register, it is speciufially at this sort of device that MS is initially directing its force; but the eventual aim is to use patents to provide MS with a revenue stream now that it's monopoly position has reached its limit to provide continue exponential growth. They claim that this is the first stage in an attack on free sofware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34348.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34391.html > Does anyone have any details of exactly what is > patented and when the patent(s) expire? They don't state anything about patent details in the Register articles, but they refer to the MS web page that describes the FAT licensing of Intellectual Property, which refers to 4 existing patents: * U.S. Patent #5,579,517 * U.S. Patent #5,745,902 * U.S. Patent #5,758,352 * U.S. Patent #6,286,013 and to another patent covering additional innovations where the patent has not yet been granted. The lowest numbered one was files Apr/1995 and granted Nov/1996, so the patents themselves are in no danger of expiring for a number of years (but I suspect that the patented concepts are significantly older and should be in danger of passing the expiry limit for when they were first available). A French article gives some details on their meanings: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://blog.saint-elie.… # U.S. Obvious #5,579,517 Long Common name space for and shorts filenames # U.S. Obvious #5,745,902 Method and system for accessing has file using file names having different file name formats # U.S. Obvious #5,758,352 Long Common name space for and shorts filenames # U.S. Obvious #6,286,013 Method and system for providing has common name space for long and shorts spins names in year operating system -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

volunteers need to do some Python programming
by fcsoft-3Emkkp+1Olsmp8TqCH86vg＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

iCanProgram.com has been offering online programming courses for nofees since Jan 2002. By most measures it has been a great success with over 2000 students since Jan 2002. One of the older courses is in need of a "spruce up". This course uses Tcl/Tk to introduce programming to complete beginners. Tcl/Tk was chosen because I knew the language and it is freely available on any OS platform including that dreaded Gatesware. I'd like to enhance this course material with Python/Tk examples in parallel to Tcl/Tk. Unfortunately, I don't know Python sufficiently well to author this material. If you are interested in volunteering your talents to this task please contact me off list and we can discuss what I had in mind. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

2 1

M$ to license FAT
by taavi-LbuTpDkqzNzXI80/IeQp7B2eb7JE58TQ＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:37:42PM -0500, John Macdonald wrote: > # U.S. Obvious #5,579,517 > Long Common name space for and shorts filenames > # U.S. Obvious #5,745,902 > Method and system for accessing has file using file names having different file name formats > # U.S. Obvious #5,758,352 > Long Common name space for and shorts filenames > # U.S. Obvious #6,286,013 > Method and system for providing has common name space for long and shorts spins names in year operating system Okay, as someone else said, these all seem to relate to long filenames on FAT (i.e. VFAT). What about people who don't use those extensions? My digital camera sticks very strictly to the old 8.3 filenames. And hey, if a Linux person needs to use a FAT drive for file exchange, but usually use Linux, there may be a revisiting of UMSDOS. ;) -- taa /*eof*/ -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

M$ to license FAT
by jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:19:55AM -0500, Tim Writer wrote: > cbbrowne-HInyCGIudOg at public.gmane.org writes: > > > > As the title says. Impact on Linux ? > > > > If the claims are true, that there are "live" patents still in place on > > FAT, then it is conceivable that there might be patent infringments, or > > at least places where MSFT could _claim_ that there are. > > IANAL but, as I understand it, damages in a pattern infringement case are > usually awarded on the basis of lost profit, i.e. the profit M$ would have > made if it weren't for the infringement. Linux users who want access to > their FAT files (from within Linux) aren't about to purchase an M$ product > (or licensed product) since there's no product available with the > required functionality. Consequently, while patents might have been > infringed, damages are $0. That's fine for a dual boot Linux getting access to the licensed MS file system, but if another poster was right about USD memory disks and such devices using FAT, the "damage" is that you used a Linux instead of buying Windows to read the USB device. Does anyone have any details of exactly what is patented and when the patent(s) expire? -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

Hard drive recovery
by jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:30:22PM -0500, Robert Brockway wrote: > I've been thinking about a talk on backup best practice for TLUG. I went > in to this a little at the end of my optimization[1] talk but have we had > anything else like this recently? We could go from the sublime to the ridiculous and give a pair of talks. (Each listener could choose which was sublime and which ridiculous.) I could describe the technical aspects of EMC hardware and software. That includes high end storage systems capable of: - accomodating and routing around communication failures in a storage network - transparently maintaining multiple copies of live data, both local and remote - transparently making point in time copies of live data, again either locally or remotely I could also provide some info about the complications that can occur when you try to copy data that includes live databases - there are a number of ways that you can end up with errors or problems unless you take special care. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

M$ to license FAT
by henry-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg＠public.gmane.org 08 Dec '03

08 Dec '03

On 8 Dec 2003, Tim Writer wrote: > IANAL but, as I understand it, damages in a pattern infringement case are > usually awarded on the basis of lost profit, i.e. the profit M$ would have > made if it weren't for the infringement. Linux users who want access to > their FAT files (from within Linux) aren't about to purchase an M$ product > (or licensed product) since there's no product available with the > required functionality... Microsoft would undoubtedly claim that if access to FAT files was important and only Microsoft could do it, those people would be running Microsoft operating systems instead of Linux. That may or may not be exactly true, but it *is* true that the more things there are that Linux can't do, the less practical a system it is for people who need to get things done, and the more people are driven into the welcoming arms of Microsoft. This does provide a plausible argument that there are real monetary damages being suffered. Henry Spencer henry-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg at public.gmane.org -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0