[ros-kernel] Re: ReactOS GPL vs. proprietary drivers -NTFSDriverunder Linux + WINE

[Valentin]

I agreed about  better file systems like ext3, but  I don't make a porting
from   NTFS  GNU/Linux OS. I have used only docs and on-disk structs as
well.
We have many unimplemented  Cc-function to use captive Ntfs.
Besides, where we have to get original Ntfs.sys  without  breaking the laws.

Regards,

Valentin


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Kratochvil" <rcpt-ros-kernel.AT.reactos.com at jankratochvil.net>
To: "ReactOS Kernel List" <ros-kernel at reactos.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ros-kernel] Re: ReactOS GPL vs. proprietary
drivers -NTFSDriverunder Linux + WINE


> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:03:31 +0200, Valentin wrote:
> ...
> > ReactOS doesn't   aim to be  a copy of  clumsy MS NT (It means only
> > compatibility)
> > Why do you think that original MS Ntfs .sys is the best?
> > We have to create own Ntfs source to enable in  future  the performance
> > improvement and related development.
>
> NTFS filesystem data structures are too complex to have clear meaning just
from
> the disk structures themselves (such as in the case of VFAT). Therefore
driver
> with compatible filesystem data structures needs to implemented on the
basis of
> original NTFS driver reverse engineering. There is high probability (read
> "certainity") the compatibility will not be 100% as you would also have to
copy
> all the driver bug-to-bug compatibility.
>
> Using original ntfs.sys can give just better compatibility than any other
3rd
> party GPLed reimplementation could ever have.
>
> NTFS has no meaning as a standalone filesystem - there are better GPL high
> performance mature filesystems such as ext3 and Reiserfs. NTFS for
GNU/Linux OS
> has its only meaning as a temporary compatibility hack.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Lace
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-kernel mailing list
> Ros-kernel at reactos.com
> http://reactos.geldorp.nl:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-kernel
>