Reminds me... didn't OS/2 have the capability to store both short and long file names on a FAT16 partiton? How does that go with MS' patents? Where MS really allowed to file a patent on something that already existed?
/nitro2k01
On 3/10/06, Rick Langschultz rlangschultz@cox.net wrote:
I just have a question about High Performance and Global file systems implementation in a ReactOS version? It would be wonderful to cluster file systems on ReactOS. Also support for EFS would be great. Any plans yet? _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- -----BEGIN 2ROT13 MESSAGE----- The blog of nitro2k01: http://soundandcomplete.blogspot.com/ Saliga äro de som kan stava till 2k01! Sniphpha sniphph! -----END 2ROT13 MESSAGE-----
Reminds me... didn't OS/2 have the capability to store both short and long file names on a FAT16 partiton? How does that go with MS' patents? Where MS really allowed to file a patent on something that already existed?
I think the actual question is how you want to invalidate the patent. As far as I remember it costs even money if you want to attack a patent that you think is prior-art. How does that go with the work of volunteers...? I am involved in other FOSS projects and I would not want to sue someone else on behalf of a project or to be sued instead of the project. At last it is a volunteer's work ...
Just my 2 cents,
Oliver
I'm not talking about invalidating the patent as of today, to favor eg ROS, but I'm rather asking how they got could file the patent? Didn't IBM react? And moreover, was it legal for them at that point of time to file a patent regarding something that already existed. (Namely a file system capable of storing a long and a short file name for the same file)
/nitro2k01
On 3/12/06, Oliver Schneider Borbarad@gmxpro.net wrote:
Reminds me... didn't OS/2 have the capability to store both short and long file names on a FAT16 partiton? How does that go with MS' patents? Where MS really allowed to file a patent on something that already existed?
I think the actual question is how you want to invalidate the patent. As far as I remember it costs even money if you want to attack a patent that you think is prior-art. How does that go with the work of volunteers...? I am involved in other FOSS projects and I would not want to sue someone else on behalf of a project or to be sued instead of the project. At last it is a volunteer's work ...
Just my 2 cents,
Oliver
--
May the source be with you, stranger ;)
ICQ: #281645 URL: http://assarbad.net _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- -----BEGIN 2ROT13 MESSAGE----- The blog of nitro2k01: http://soundandcomplete.blogspot.com/ Saliga äro de som kan stava till 2k01! Sniphpha sniphph! -----END 2ROT13 MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:31:39 +0100 nitro2k01 nitro2k01@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about invalidating the patent as of today, to favor eg ROS, but I'm rather asking how they got could file the patent? Didn't IBM react? And moreover, was it legal for them at that point of time to file a patent regarding something that already existed. (Namely a file system capable of storing a long and a short file name for the same file)
/nitro2k01On 3/12/06, Oliver Schneider Borbarad@gmxpro.net wrote:
Reminds me... didn't OS/2 have the capability to store both short and long file names on a FAT16 partiton? How does that go with MS' patents? Where MS really allowed to file a patent on something that already existed?
I think the actual question is how you want to invalidate the patent. As far as I remember it costs even money if you want to attack a patent that you think is prior-art. How does that go with the work of volunteers...? I am involved in other FOSS projects and I would not want to sue someone else on behalf of a project or to be sued instead of the project. At last it is a volunteer's work ...
Just my 2 cents,
Oliver
It seems that the consensus was that a vfat mode that stores only long filenames would sidestep the patent.
On Sunday 12 March 2006 06:01, art yerkes wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:31:39 +0100
nitro2k01 nitro2k01@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about invalidating the patent as of today, to favor eg ROS, but I'm rather asking how they got could file the patent? Didn't IBM react? And moreover, was it legal for them at that point of time to file a patent regarding something that already existed. (Namely a file system capable of storing a long and a short file name for the same file)
/nitro2k01On 3/12/06, Oliver Schneider Borbarad@gmxpro.net wrote:
Reminds me... didn't OS/2 have the capability to store both short and long file names on a FAT16 partiton? How does that go with MS' patents? Where MS really allowed to file a patent on something that already existed?
I think the actual question is how you want to invalidate the patent. As far as I remember it costs even money if you want to attack a patent that you think is prior-art. How does that go with the work of volunteers...? I am involved in other FOSS projects and I would not want to sue someone else on behalf of a project or to be sued instead of the project. At last it is a volunteer's work ...
Just my 2 cents,
Oliver
It seems that the consensus was that a vfat mode that stores only long filenames would sidestep the patent.
AFAICT, the patent is valid because of the method it uses. OS/2 used a different, though somewhat compatable method. Now the fact is that a VFAT mode that just stores the long filename does sidestep the issue...
However, the FAT system, while simple and easy to implement, does present a lot of security problems. A better solution would be to build a new filesystem, perhaps using the FAT system as a base and have it incorporate everything people think they need.
This could mean file versions, it could mean journaling, definately means ACL's and advanced permissions and file owner information is another must-have. 2K and above also offer per-file/per-directory/per-drive compression and encryption - I have not seen how this works with 2K on an FAT system, but with NTFS it's quite seemless, even if it does cause some hiccups in the load time.
I'd be more than willing to help design the system, though my skill at such low-level coding for operating systems other than Linux is limited. For now, though, I'd suggest just keeping the FAT system in place - the MS patent only covers how the LFN's are stored, not the basic architecture of the filesystem itself.
DRH
As far as my reading of the patent goes, MS patented the storage of long file names in standard 32 byte fat directory entry structure.
The way this works is like this:
A fat directory is a set of 32 byte blocks that each contain filename, timestamp, property flags, and starting cluster for each file. One 32 byte block cooresponds to one file entry.
It is laid out like this:
Bytes 0 - 10: Filename ("." implied) Byte 11 : Attribute flags Byte 12 : reserved Byte 13 : millisecond of file creation (must be even) Byte 14 - 15: Create Time Byte 16 - 17: Create Date Byte 18 - 19: Last Access Date Byte 20 - 21: top 16 bits of starting cluster Byte 22 - 23: Last write time Byte 24 - 25: Last write date Byte 26 - 27: bottom 16 bits of starting cluster Byte 28 - 31: File size
To get long filenames, MS FAT marks the attribute byte of the 32 byte block with a special character that says that it is part of a long filename. Then the rest of the structure is packed with the bytes (unicode) of the long filename where ever they can be placed (byte 0 is a sequence number, byte 11 marks it as a long file name entry, byte 13 is a checksum of the cooresponding short dir entry, and there are a few other bytes that are reserved). So to complete a long filename, MS FAT uses a sequence of these long filename marked up directory entries, each beginning with a sequence number and the special "I'm part of a long file name" character, and ties them to the short file name directory entry for the file.
This means that every long file name MUST coorespond to a short filename 32 byte directory entry, but a short file name does not need a long file name entry.
Now the patent only covers storing long filenames along with short filenames in this way (as a marked up directory entry). ROS could still store long filenames in a different manner (a hidden translation file for example) and not violate the patent.
If ROS chooses not to implement short filenames at all on FAT, then it will not be compatible with other things that use FAT. This means that ROS FAT will not be compatible with Windows, Linux, cameras, etc...
Since, I will not be doing the work associated with this, I won't argue which way to manage this. I do, however, want the people who make this decision to understand the tradeoffs...
Just my 2 cents
(keep up the good work)
--mark
-
art yerkes -
D. Hazelton -
Mark Tempel -
nitro2k01 -
Oliver Schneider