-
Flickr Feed
Subscribe to feedOn the TomTom settlement: Microsoft Rolls Back its “Open” Promises
March 31, 2009 |
In the last several days Microsoft has shown that despite claims of acquiring a newly found respect for open principles and technology, developers should be cautious in believing promises made by this “new” Microsoft. When it counts, it appears that Microsoft still actively seeks to undermine those technologies or standards that are truly open, especially when those technologies pose a significant threat to their business.
Yesterday, Microsoft announced with a formal press release a settlement of a nuisance patent case filed against a smaller company. Despite Microsoft’s protestations to the contrary, the press release makes it clear that the motivation behind this case was the fear, uncertainty and doubt Microsoft hoped the suit would create around the use of Linux. Linux is, not coincidentally, one of Microsoft’s strongest threats in the server, embedded and desktop computing arenas as evidenced in recent remarks make by its CEO Steve Ballmer.
But the settlement of this suit only proves two things. First, the software patent system in the US needs reform. The need for reform stems from why common functionality like this (which is neither innovative nor novel) was granted a patent in the first place.
Second, it proves that, even apart from this larger issue, this case is a non-event. The technology at the heart of this settlement is the FAT filesystem. As acknowledged by Microsoft in the press release, this file system is easily replaced with multiple technology alternatives. The Linux Foundation is here to assist interested parties in the technical coordination of removing the FAT filesystem from products that make use of it today.
There is another silver lining here. We read the outcome of this case as a testament to the power of a concerted and well-coordinated effort by the Linux industry and organizations such as the Open Invention Network, the SFLC and the Linux Foundation. This was not merely a typical David vs. Goliath story. This time David aligned itself with the multiple slingshots of the Linux community. Microsoft relented as soon as TomTom showed they were aligned with that community and ready to fight. The system is working.
There is one other fact clear from this case. Microsoft does not appear to be a leopard capable of changing its spots. Maybe it’s time developers go on a diet from Microsoft and get the FAT out of their products.
Popularity: 55% [?]
Comments
58 Comments so far
-
Jim Zemlin
Jim Zemlin is executive director of the Linux Foundation. He's widely quoted in business publications on open source issues and frequently speaks around the world.
[…] a blog post today, Zemlin warns developers to be wary of Microsoft’s new found respect for open principles, […]
“Speak your mind”, not much point.
Microsoft is undermining Linux and Open Source at every opportunity. This will not change, nor will it ever. The likes of Tom Tom will become another mouthpiece as to how Linux and Open Source infringes on Microsoft patents.
Now how the rest of the world addresses these issues will be interesting. Microsoft has lots of money, but it can only buy of so many countries. At some point even the money for bribes and blackmail run out. It was once said Microsoft had 60 billion dollars in cash reserves. Now I hear this has been whittled down to 10 billion, the Xbox and all those other endeavours must really suck profits dry.
The rest will be left to the whims of history, let us hope it is a more open one.
Nice rant but where is a discussion of the issues?
You make A LOT of assumptions without facts as to what this was about and who was right or wrong if anybody and once again simply choose to spread FUD, innuendo and opnion rather than trying to take a balanced approach to explaining specifically what the issues were and speculate from a point of evidence, analysis and informed opinion.
You do Linux no service by continuing to simply rant and rave about the so called ‘big bad Microsoft’ which is a different Microsoft from 10 years ago (plenty of evidence to support this) and yet you hypocritically don’t say anything about other companies such as Google and Apple who are probably more proprietary and controlling than Microsoft in many important areas.
I wish we could go back to the old days where the technology ideologists and the stupid childish discussion and rhetoric around MSFT vs Linux vs Google vs Apple were few and far between and everyone simply worked together using a mix of technology - which by the way is how it is in most mid or large organisations.
I make the argument that Microsoft filed patents using techniques and cash aquired while acting as a monopoly. As such that booty is illegal goods. Convicted criminals do not get to keep the fruits of their crimes. This argument needs it day in court too. Imagine if convicted drug dealers got to keep their drug selling profits. Why Microsoft gets that priviledge is gross.
Nice spin, but failed argument, its beyond me how you can say MS lost out, and TomTom was the winner after backup from FOSS, It seems more like after TomTom checked with OIN and FOSS the very next thing they did was cave to MS. Not only giving in to the MS patents but also giving up their own patents that were in the counter claim.
Sure there are other FOSS file system alternatives, so why did you (foss) use FAT ??
The answer is simple, FOSS wanted ride the coat tails of MS and windows, FAT might not be the best but its used by the most ubiqious and popular OS.
FOSS would not have this problem if it was not for the FACT that FOSS would rather use something of someone elses that is popular than to use their own innovations.
FAT is used by everyone, from SD cards to USB memory sticks and digital cameras, FOSS use FAT so they dont have to compete with MS, they just have to simulate it.
This is WHY FOSS has so much trouble progressing and advancing the state of the art.
Its the FOSS culture to copy and take whatever they think will be popular and incorporate it, mabey even assimilate it. (FOSS is the true BORG). Starting with the Kernal itself, do you not remember that Linux is simply a clone, copy, knockoff of UNIX, Torvalds and RMS have publicly stated this.
They took UNIX section by section, no innovation, no inventiveness.
So now its coming back to bite you, and I for one am glad, its about time FOSS lived up to its claims. and got into the present day.
As well as giving up FAT, you should re-write the OS Linux, make it something new and innovative, not a copy of someone elses development.
IF FAT was obvious and not innovative why did you use it again?? oh thats right because its popular, and FOSS wants to be popular as well, trouble is in the software world there is no prize for second.
FOSS cannot see this and as such its remained in teh backwater of movements for the past 17 years. That in itself is something of great shame for FOSS.
FOSS could be so much better by now after 17 years, but its too concerned with immitation and theft.
Why do you want patent reform, so its easier for you to steal other peoples idea’s, how is this going to help innovation.
How is it innovative, to steal FAT or UNIX instead of inventing something your own that is better ??
FAT is innovative and novel
Think rollerblades, they are patents, it seems obvious to put wheels on the bottom of shoes there is even prior art, (rollerskates), its obvious right.
but what about putting the wheels in a line (in-line skates) instead of side by side, surly that could not be patented or defended in court !!! but it has and it won. !!
So give up trying to change the law to allow theft, and try to actually innovate instead of immatate.
Lets hope the next 17 years seems some major changes to FOSS, starting with their OWN OS and applications and not just ripping off what others have done.
Otherwise Linux/FOSS will remain the tiny novelty that it is today. which is a very sad state of affairs.
I also dont understand why the FOSS community cannot see this for what it is. Are you blinded by your desire to steal and corrupt?
If you hate of MS because they are so successful or that Linux is so unsucessfull ?
“Microsoft is undermining Linux and Open Source at every opportunity”
Ofcourse Linux and Open Source would never to anything to undermine Microsoft right
I wonder why such a double standard? you use MS’s idea’s and popularity, but you cry about it when your caught with your fingers in the MS (and UNIX) cookie jar.
I agree the Linux Foundation should lead the development of a FAT Free File System (F3S) and coordinate its deployment via its members.
At this point, this would surely be one of the most decisive initiatives it could undertake to meet its objective of “promoting the growth of Linux”; though any such F3S should be usable by any OS to allow it to be a truly open means of data interchange.
It is time for the Linux Foundation to show that they are usefull to something.
You should kick the FAT patent in court, not trying to scare Linux users that they can burn their USB keys or pay Microsoft for reading them.
My reading suggests that this isn’t even about FAT as such, but as FAT with the long filename stuff. Taking long filenames out by itself would seem to degrade the device’s capability. Replacing FAT all together opens a can of worms with interoperability and the large installed base of FAT-using devices. It will be interesting to see how the community addresses that (if indeed getting the FAT out is the chosen route) without that blowing up.
The last thing we need is another format war.
In response to Darryl: While there are many FOSS users and developers that would not mind seeing the end of Microsoft (an emotional, not rational objective), it cannot be said that the goal of FOSS is to undermine the efforts and success of Microsoft. The objective of FOSS is to offer and alternative that meets more of the needs of users than does the likes of Microsoft and similar software vendors. FOSS offers users unlimited access to the software they use. It also offers the users obsolescence protection by having access to the source code and standards for which the software was written.
That kind of freedom is counter to the desires of most closed source companies because lock-in is seen as key to reoccurring profits necessary to maintaining a healthy enterprise. Microsoft sees (software) products, not service(s) as the most important element of their revenue stream. But products that do not require renewing service contracts or constant repurchase (paid updates) or replacement, do not generate long-term profits.
As in any other industry, attempting to break the monopoly like hold tends to require inter-operating with the monopoly product(s). That (interoperability) is what consumers want when transitioning from one product line to another.
Yes there are some FOSS users and developers that whine when Microsoft takes an external idea from the FOSS community and implements it in their own products, but by far, the majority of us see it for what it is, the highest for of sincere flattery.
However Microsoft is fighting that interoperability effort by attempting to enforce patents on certain algorithms that are necessary to offer interoperability. Since most floppy disks come factory formatted using FAT and most portable disks (USB, SD, MicroSD, CF, etc…) come formatted in FAT either FOSS systems have to reformat the disk *or* be able to read and write using the FAT algorithm. If they choose to refomrat the disks, there is a high likley hood that the consumers other products (camera, GPS, iPod, MP3 player, etc…) will no longer be able to read that dis itself. So if FOSS wants to play nice in the consumer device world, FAT is an unfortunate necessity. There is no desire within the FOSS community to kick Microsoft out of the consumer device world, just a desire to allow FOSS products to play in that space also.
Microsoft is still mostly (software) product oriented, and FOSS attempts to deliver what we feel are better products; to that end yes there is what one could call an undermining effort afoot. But the desire of FOSS is to compete on features, performance and most importantly freedom (ability, not cost), not on legal and technicality terms.
As to your comments that FOSS should innovate, it does. And its primary innovation is absolute freedom for the user. That is not to understate the technical innovation going on in many FOSS projects, but freedom is one innovation that cannot be topped (only equaled). As it is, there are many superior file system algorithms as compared to FAT, but many consumer devices only understand FAT, therefore to inter-operate with those consumer devices, you must speak FAT.
Something to keep in mind the US and European law actually forbid most artificial barriers to competition even if they do not always enforce those laws. So Microsoft has to be careful legally in enforcing FAT licensing for fear of losing any ability to ‘control’ use of the FAT algorithm altogether (loss of patent) or losing any profit (fines and penalties). If Microsoft really felt it had a case it would have pursued said case to the end. As it is they chose to drop the issue. So how critical was FAT to their (and only their) needs anyway? It becomes obvious that there is no case for enforcement of that patent. Either Microsoft realized that they faced having the patent invalidated if challenged in court (said originality of FAT algorithm is obviously in question) or they realized that they faced the potential of losing the patent (government revocation) in the legal system through potential future antitrust enforcement.
Because the legal system (patents, lawsuits, etc…) can be used for less than noble purposes by those with vast resources against those with significantly less resources, groups like the Linux Foundation are necessary to bolster the resources of those trying to find a toehold or maintain a foothold in the software/computing, or even consumer device, industry. FOSS based companies and projects tend to want a fair competitive shake while entrench closed source companies have no financial desire for real competition. Competition means the entrenched company has to expend more financial resources on research and development which cuts into their net profit. This legal maneuver is one of many where Microsoft (insert other entrenched company names) thought that the legal route might be cheaper than the R&D based competitive route.
Enjoy,
Woody
Here’s to hoping the industry moves beyond FAT since it is quite obsolete and begins using a filesystem that is made specifically for solid state drives/USB keys. If some of the current USB keys can cram U3 down your computer’s throat, surely the industry can include drivers to make up for the Windows’ deficit much the same way. Where Linux easily supports dozens of filesystems beyond ext3 out of the box, Windows does not and requires intervention.
It won’t be long before the sheer available size of USB keys will cause the use of FAT to hit the wall.
Sorry if this is a repost, it appears my first submission got lost…
In response to Darryl: While there are many FOSS users and developers that would not mind seeing the end of Microsoft (an emotional, not rational objective), it cannot be said that the goal of FOSS is to undermine the efforts and success of Microsoft. The objective of FOSS is to offer and alternative that meets more of the needs of users than does the likes of Microsoft and similar software vendors. FOSS offers users unlimited access to the software they use. It also offers the users obsolescence protection by having access to the source code and standards for which the software was written.
That kind of freedom is counter to the desires of most closed source companies because lock-in is seen as key to reoccurring profits necessary to maintaining a healthy enterprise. Microsoft sees (software) products, not service(s) as the most important element of their revenue stream. But products that do not require renewing service contracts or constant repurchase (paid updates) or replacement, do not generate long-term profits.
As in any other industry, attempting to break the monopoly like hold tends to require inter-operating with the monopoly product(s). That (interoperability) is what consumers want when transitioning from one product line to another.
Yes there are some FOSS users and developers that whine when Microsoft takes an external idea from the FOSS community and implements it in their own products, but by far, the majority of us see it for what it is, the highest for of sincere flattery.
However Microsoft is fighting that interoperability effort by attempting to enforce patents on certain algorithms that are necessary to offer interoperability. Since most floppy disks come factory formatted using FAT and most portable disks (USB, SD, MicroSD, CF, etc…) come formatted in FAT either FOSS systems have to reformat the disk *or* be able to read and write using the FAT algorithm. If they choose to refomrat the disks, there is a high likley hood that the consumers other products (camera, GPS, iPod, MP3 player, etc…) will no longer be able to read that dis itself. So if FOSS wants to play nice in the consumer device world, FAT is an unfortunate necessity. There is no desire within the FOSS community to kick Microsoft out of the consumer device world, just a desire to allow FOSS products to play in that space also.
Microsoft is still mostly (software) product oriented, and FOSS attempts to deliver what we feel are better products; to that end yes there is what one could call an undermining effort afoot. But the desire of FOSS is to compete on features, performance and most importantly freedom (ability, not cost), not on legal and technicality terms.
As to your comments that FOSS should innovate, it does. And its primary innovation is absolute freedom for the user. That is not to understate the technical innovation going on in many FOSS projects, but freedom is one innovation that cannot be topped (only equaled). As it is, there are many superior file system algorithms as compared to FAT, but many consumer devices only understand FAT, therefore to inter-operate with those consumer devices, you must speak FAT.
Something to keep in mind the US and European law actually forbid most artificial barriers to competition even if they do not always enforce those laws. So Microsoft has to be careful legally in enforcing FAT licensing for fear of losing any ability to ‘control’ use of the FAT algorithm altogether (loss of patent) or losing any profit (fines and penalties). If Microsoft really felt it had a case it would have pursued said case to the end. As it is they chose to drop the issue. So how critical was FAT to their (and only their) needs anyway? It becomes obvious that there is no case for enforcement of that patent. Either Microsoft realized that they faced having the patent invalidated if challenged in court (said originality of FAT algorithm is obviously in question) or they realized that they faced the potential of losing the patent (government revocation) in the legal system through potential future antitrust enforcement.
Because the legal system (patents, lawsuits, etc…) can be used for less than noble purposes by those with vast resources against those with significantly less resources, groups like the Linux Foundation are necessary to bolster the resources of those trying to find a toehold or maintain a foothold in the software/computing, or even consumer device, industry. FOSS based companies and projects tend to want a fair competitive shake while entrench closed source companies have no financial desire for real competition. Competition means the entrenched company has to expend more financial resources on research and development which cuts into their net profit. This legal maneuver is one of many where Microsoft (insert other entrenched company names) thought that the legal route might be cheaper than the R&D based competitive route.
Enjoy,
Woody
Well well, it’s a small world darryl. Do you still troll on the Linux Today website, or have you moved on?
I just bumped into your bosom buddy omniprovident on the Computer World website. He/She spews exactly the same garbage that you do. Could this be a coincidence?
Linux and Open Source must be doing fine judging by the volume coming from Microsoft and their apologists such as yourself. They always crawl out of the woodwork to defend their corporate masters.
Have a nice day.
Wow, the pro-Microsoft side of the comments has really gotten stuck in 1999, haven’t they?
Fat Free File Systems amused me. Try any of the Linux/Unix file systems like ZFS, ext3 or even ext4. There’s no reason they couldn’t be used instead of FAT, although I suspect it was just pure laziness on TomTom’s part. Anyhow, as the author of the article said, the FAT patents are trivial to work around, since alternative file systems have been available for a decade.
As for Linux being unsuccessful, I suggest you check out Microsoft’s latest filings with the SEC. You’d probably enjoy seeing who they list as their biggest threat. (Hint: it isn’t apple.)
@darryl
go read the FAT patent, FAT is almost the simplest file system possible, created in an era that already had many file systems. If you were new to computing and thinking of creative a file system it would be highly likely you would end up with something like FAT.
In addition, patents on these type of things do not “further science” nor “the useful arts”, rather they hold it back.
[…] ha obligado a TomTom a firmar un acuerdo por las demandas sobre patentes. Jim Zemlin escribió una entrada en su blog el martes, comentando el resultado del […]
[…] Filed under: Uncategorized — ctrambler @ 11:49 pm PJ’s take on Jim Zemlin post on TomTom is the advise to industry to ditch FAT system because it is patent-incumbered. I have news for them […]
“They always crawl out of the woodwork to defend their corporate masters.”
There is only one thing MS is concerned about and is to keep the status quo. They see they’re loosing ground due to its inability to delivery high quality products that this is the way they “compete” by suing everybody who supposedly “violate” its patents. In the FAT case there is plenty of evidence sugesting previous art that would invalidate those patents. Thus they wanted to avoid to get those patents tested in court. From the begining they wanted to settle. Yeah, MS won’t change so Apache fellows and others like the ‘mono’ lovers should be aware of this. At any moment they will rise again trying to tax Linux users.
It’s also funny to see MS defenders (paid bloggers) and apologists of which there is plenty of evidence. They want at any cost that people see the really MS motivations and corrupt actions like the way they corrupted ISO. They thing that they will overturn the tide. Like Himmler “Lie, lie, lie something will remain” MS accions speak louder that is “openess” and “interoperability” It’s time that kernel developers move to GPLv3 to counteract action like this in the future. Jim and all of you, keep up the good work. Hats Off to you!
I agree with trevorl that this is typically the sort of patent that should be worked around, using a different name and slightly different technique for long file name compatibility. This new filesystem type would be 100% compatible with FAT but I suggest calling it SLIM instead of F3FS.
The amazing thing to me about Microsoft shills is that Microsoft actually thinks it works. To me, that is the main indicator of their cluelessness. Does Microsoft actually think that anyone believes anything they say?
The only people who support Microsoft must be paid to do so. Those of us who support Linux do it of our own free will.
Every Microsoft shill I read gives me comfort, because it tells me that Microsoft is still clueless. When the shilling stops, that’s when I’ll start thinking Microsoft is paying more attention to its software than to its propaganda.
[…] may discontinue its use of Microsoft’s legacy FAT filesystem. This indicator came from blog post by Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin in which he comments on the outcome of the […]
microsoft(bill gates and followers) have spent the last 30 years figuring out ways of profiting from the computing masses in any way possible(legal or illegal). It has always been this way. It will always be this way. So next time you are going to spend money on a technology product, vote with your money. If it’s microsoft, then you are contributing to global technological enslavement. And yes it is enslavement when you can no longer do anything about it. Bill gates is the greatest thief mankind has ever seen. And his so called foundation is just a means for him to 1.) Act like he’s no longer the thief in command at microsoft and 2.) launder all the money he stole. And yes he did steal it. Thats why he was convicted. but because he bribed the republicans in charge, he was never punished for it and apparently got away with it, because there is no real justice in america.
There is long time exist ISO OSI layer standarts about network communicating under different operation systems. There is exist long time some technical standarts what need for communicating external devices like USB, COM, eSATA, FIREFIRE and internal devices like PCI-E, PCI, SATA, ATA .
But where is standarts for communicating two OS living at different hard drives? There is not exist. I have 2 absolutely legal OS at my PC. And what next? I can use only very poor and old FAT with full native read/write access with big limitations.
Today you say: get the FAT out of their products.
I say - great! FAT is very old and poor, don’t have support big files for example, but our need file system for devices and communicating between OS. They mast can be easy used in Linux, Mac, Windows - audio player of foto for example. And without problem with builded factory support.
Ok time to change - but our need new file system. What is will be? iso9660? udf? Don’t know. I just want to see it as good technical standart de-facto. Hope big companies understand what today time to change.
Have a nice day.
Well, shouldn’t your buddies on the OIN be forerunners for FOSS filesystems on solid-state drives? What about HP’s cameras still only reading FAT?
Yeah. I have external hard drive - this one http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=391
I have Linux at home, Windows at work and my friend have a Apple Mac. That the hell? I don’t know that file-system i need to transfer files across different machines without troubles/installing stupid drivers of somfind like that. I have big files - this is backups - 2 Gb is very small for me.
I’m surprised more device makers aren’t already using filesystems such as UDF for their removable media. Notwithstanding the fact that Windows just plain won’t recognize a UDF filesystem on anything but a CD or DVD, this is something that could be fixed with a simple filter driver coordinated on by device manufacturers and Microsoft.
Got a camcorder that records to a Mini-DVD? It uses UDF. Why would another camcorder using Flash use a different format? The mind boggles
I really hope the Linux Foundation doesn’t try and settle on some esoteric, fairly undocumented Linux filesystem to prove it’s “openness” - ext2 and ext3 for example. What the world needs is an ISO, IEEE or ANSI standard filesystem format which is by all intents and purposes standardized and ratified by a community of engineers and scientists (let’s ignore the XML Office format horses*** for now) and not just something there is GPL sourecode for. UDF is basically perfect. Works great on my Linux box and FreeBSD box formatted on an SD card..
[…] ha obligado a TomTom a firmar un acuerdo por las demandas sobre patentes. Jim Zemlin escribió una entrada en su blog el martes, comentando el resultado del […]
[…] Linux Foundation vad?t?js, p?c Microsoft un TomTom domstarp?bu iesp?jamo seku izv?rt?šanas aicina izstr?d?t?jus atteikties no FAT failsist?mas izmantošanas savos produktos. Pie tam […]
[…] Sobre a verdadeira face da microsoft Publicado em Abril 2, 2009 por ovigia On the TomTom settlement: Microsoft Rolls Back its “Open” Promises : Jim Zemlin In the last several days Microsoft has shown that despite claims of acquiring a newly found respect […]
There are “multiple technology alternatives”? The requirement is a cross platform file system that works on Linux, MacOS, and Windows. What is it?
I feel foolish. I have been saying positive things to clients about Windows 7.
It is time for Microsoft Koolaid Anonymous.
Maybe I should voice my F. U. D. about Microsoft.
Maybe it is time to point out that the “best and brightest” are not working for them.
Maybe it is time to point out to people that for the most part Microsoft is not innovating, but reselling products that users have bought before (look at notepad)
Sound the Battle cry “Remember Vista, Remember ME!” This is Microsoft.
[…] it here basically Microsoft can’t be trusted to follow up on there promises of openness so we should […]
Darryl, you should check your facts. It is MS who have been tailgating and copy-catting their way into their current stranglehold on the market. The fact that they hold a patent on FAT does not suddenly make them the masters of the universe. They just abused a legal system that has greatly favoured their position. Much as the AIG scum that took 200 million dollars of public money and pocketed it themselves, did so under protection of the law. Or maybe you deem that as a moral action as well?
[…] a TomTom a firmar un acuerdo por las demandassobre patentes. Jim Zemlin escribió una entrada en su blog el martes, comentando el resultado del conflicto.Sostiene que Microsoft, que recientemente ha […]
Please, FAT isn’t going anywhere.
If it was, the linux foundation would have removed it from the Linux kernel, which it has not as far as I know. So, offering to help vendors remove FAT from their product just makes you seem like a hypocrite or an idiot.
Right now, every linux vendor that ships FAT and hasn’t licensed microsoft’s patents could potentially be sued. This isn’t anything new though. Everyone runs the risk because they need a dead simple file system that interops with windows.
Software patents suck, but they are a reality that linux has to deal with, either through licensing like tom tom, or by simply crossing fingers and hoping they don’t get sued, like most other linux vendors.
if anyone wants to know why this is a problem for the user (and nothing to do with freedoms, and ‘riding on Microsofts work’) they just have to think of the consequences. Next time you buy a dvd player that reads encoded PC files you’ll find that the long filename support is missing, simply because the company doesn’t want to pay the fees or be sued.
In the world of computers, the 20 years that FATs been around must surely be long enough to have extracted all monetary value from it - ie the patent should expire. I think FAT should go away and be replaced with something faster and more efficient on flash memory drives, and hopefully this case will make that happen.
Soon we’ll have >64Gb Flash drives, NTFS (with journaling) is dreadful on them (as it writes a lot!) so kills their lifetime, FAT won’t support the size. Its about time we got a new FS for flash drives like JFFS or LogFS.
[…] es FAT? El director ejecutivo de la Linux Foundation, Jim Zemlin, dice que Microsoft se muestra hostil frente a las tecnologías abiertas y que las empresas que […]
I despise M$ but they did have a case, Tom Tom were using FAT file system which is M$’s property. If Tom Tom were more intelligent they would have switched to another file system. FAT is a joke anyway, move on to Ext3/4, it doesn’t fragment like FAT and is more stable with the added benefit of not having to go to court.
[…] Ars, Linux Foundation controbatte dopo la disfatta di […]
> Please, FAT isn’t going anywhere.
> If it was, the linux foundation would have removed it from the Linux kernel, which it has not as far as I know. >So, offering to help vendors remove FAT from their product just makes you seem like a hypocrite or an idiot.
You just make Linux more poor - what will make happy Microsoft. Every OS in this world may mount floppy drive which is FAT formated. Did you forget in old time this called “IBM PC formated diskette”?
Apple/QNX/FreeBSD/every DOS distribution/every commercial UNIX system use FAT.
Most audio players and many devices use FAT.
What about Linux? You are chicken?
> Right now, every linux vendor that ships FAT and hasn’t licensed microsoft’s patents could potentially be sued.
Not really. Whey have patent only at FAT32. All other FAT implementations is FREE as i know.
>This isn’t anything new though. Everyone runs the risk because they need a dead simple file system that interops >with windows.
>Software patents suck, but they are a reality that linux has to deal with, either through licensing like tom tom, or >by simply crossing fingers and hoping they don’t get sued, like most other linux vendors.
Bla bla bla…. so risky…… call to ISO http://www.iso.org/ and ask where is open standart? If Microsoft will have patent on air you don’t be BREATHE anymore ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
Third party support
Other IBM PC operating systems—such as Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS and JNode—have all supported FAT, and most added support for VFAT, FAT32, JFAT shortly after the corresponding Windows versions were released. Early Linux distributions also supported a format known as UMSDOS, which was FAT with Unix file attributes (such as long file name and access permissions) stored in a separate file called “–linux-.—”. UMSDOS fell into disuse after VFAT was released and is not enabled by default in Linux kernels from version 2.5.7 onwards.[21] The Mac OS X operating system also supports the FAT file systems on volumes other than the boot disk. The Amiga supports FAT through the CrossDOS file system.
Ok you don’t want FAT anymore, it’s good, they old and poor. But our need new good ISO - level industry supported standart supported at all vendors. It’s not easy task - but it’s possible.
I would have thought that the most constructive way to address this would be to port drivers for the currently available free filesystems over to Microsoft platforms?
(but I don’t know how feasible this would be in practice)
I think its time open source should join it´s forces. So for example Mozilla with Firefox and Sun with OpenOffice should add ext2 support to their installer´s, so a big percentage of computers would have support for ext2.
Jim, you write:
“The need for reform stems from why common functionality like this (which is neither innovative nor novel) was granted a patent in the first place.”
But you don’t back up your claim at all (ie: the fact that the fat filesystem technology is neither innovative nor novel).
I would like to believe that this is true, but my Grade 8 English teacher taught us to back up all statements with fact (ie: quotes from the book, in that venue) so that one’s statements remain statements rather than expressions of opinion.
Your blog is little more than a kid saying, “Well, you were bad”, “Was not”, “Were too”, “Was not”, “Were too”… Ad infinitum…
I really expect you have a much greater knowledge of the innards of the issues and technologies around linux/microsoft patent & licensing issues, but you really need to work on your communication better.
D.
[…] firmar un acuerdo por las demandas sobre patentes. Jim Zemlin escribió una entrada en su blog el martes, comentando el resultado del conflicto (artículo en […]
I have just one reply to Darryl…..why steal something when it was code that used to be handed around in the first place long before Gates turned up with his little bleating letter decrying the practice.
Nah, much better to just buy innovators out and claim THEIR innovations as your own ones. Talk about riding on previous developers coat tails.
The problem isn’t that FOSS is what you’ve described it as, its that there are extremes of both sides duking it out over absolutely pointless crap when it is actually the market that decides things. If FOSS is so mired in the past why has the server market decided to embrace Linux instead of proprietary options in great numbers??
Its more like your the outmoded one in all this and the TOMTOM/Microsoft settlement is proof of it. The fact it wasn’t a slam dunk open shut case and a clear ‘victory’ should show you something much more is going on here…..
Maintaning market credibility.
Its not FOSS that has to prove its done miles or is a viable solution its that Microsoft needs to justify itself and its tactics in ways it hasn’t had to do so in the past.
Its not about bringing Microsoft ‘down’, its about waking them up to how reality has changed and thinking like yours is the relic that gives dinosaurs like Microsoft more succour and justification to remain so. Instead of what it IS actually doing and coming to terms with FOSS….head on.
So keep your sour grapes to yourself, and let the rest of us move on to better innovation and greater market share.
[…] http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/jzemlin/2009/03/31/on-the-tomtom-settlement-microsoft-rolls-… ———————————— Texas state Senate bans Vista from use in government agencies […]
[…] dell’azienda olandese, il direttore esecutivo di Linux Foundation, Jim Zemlin, ha pubblicato un post sul suo blog in cui auspica un passaggio delle aziende produttrici ad un filesystem che sia libero da brevetti e […]
OIN CEO Keith Bergelt, “a better file naming and file management system that will only accelerate Microsoft’s decline.”
You know, it’s just a matter of time before Linux and FOSS implementation changes undermine Microsoft. The more opposition the Redmond company exudes the deeper the hole.
Furthermore, I have long seen the writing on the wall where a better FOSS file system on portable devices is eminent. A smaller, tighter, cohesive file system that is practically devoid of fragmentation.
Let Microsoft adapt.
[…] que un formato tan profundamente arraigado como FAT pueda ser eliminado del mercado fácilmente, la Linux Foundation está claramente dispuesta a ayudar a coordinar este […]
If Linux (nee, open source) wants to be seen as a leader, it needs to lead. Every time we ‘follow’ Microsoft, we get burned. I’ve heard several good points in this thread:
1) The name - FAT is easy to say, easy to spell, and easy to remember. Commenter ‘jiu’ said we should call the new FS “SLIM”. I’m not saying that’s the answer, but ‘EXT3′ doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
2) Driver distribution - if we are to be successful, the driver must be cross-platform and available everywhere. I don’t know if a ’stealth’ push campaign in Firefox or other OSS is appropriate. I would say no. Maybe a auto-installer on a tiny FAT (w/o long filename support) partition on the device?
3) Device adoption - we must get devices to adopt the FS and promote it. What is the incentive for a company to use the FS? Save $50,000 in licensing fees and get support from the Linux Foundation for free to help implement? No support? Vendor says, “I’ll pay the $50,000 for what I know, thanx…”
4) Compelling features - get ahead of Microsoft with new and innovative features so that manufacturers will WANT to use your stuff. Again, free developer resources and an education campaign may be necessary - MONEY.
5) Fight the bogus patent - I’m very disappointed that TomTom didn’t engage the resources it had willing to back it and take this all the way. If open source wants to be taken seriously, we will have to pony up a defense instead of letting IBM take on the SCOs of the world. You have to pay to play sometimes, and I think this would have been a good place to draw a line in the sand.
6) Marketing - Beat MS at their own game, “You’re still using THAT 30 year old code? This is the latest-greatest!” MS could really only say their stuff was new. They said it was better, too, and got away with it. PROMOTE!
7) Developers, developers, developers! - Ballmer may be evil, but he was right. Get your developers in positions to make positive open source decisions in the workplace. Upend the system from within (notice I didn’t say subvert, because our stuff is better.)
[…] - TomTom Settles down [Bruce Perences’ article ] [Groklaw article […]
[…] - TomTom Settles down [Bruce Perences’ article ] [Groklaw article […]
at what point would tom tom sue any oss developers? go ahead, just try and plagerize one of their prized patents! just like softy, OR ANY IP HOLDER, they will send out a team yale dudes to smack yo ass’up before you even get close to the bank!!….ms should really toss a lot of bits into the public domain, but as the ip holder, it is their call….i bet rightturntom gave em stock…if you do not like ip i think kim jung ill is looking for programmers…hahaha….i like ix but i am sick of all the jealousy, denial, pathetic drivel and faux lenin stances by all but a few members of the open source community…if we want open sorce to WORK we have respect what is not ours….i am hoping the coming robot revolution is powered by open source operating systems…and everyone reading this secretly hopes the ai module is their proprietary ip!!!…well good luck with that,just license fat tech from ms if that is what you need to get the job done!!…meantime, quit coveting what ain’t yours and focus on what is….don’t be like madoff..MAKE DON’T TAKE!!!!…..hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….
[…] Hace poco en la LinuxFoundation explicaron que el sistema de archivos FAT es un paso hacia atras, pero que la mayoría de fabricantes sigue usándolo. Podéis leer el artículo aquí. […]
Microsoft didnt invent FAT, Digital Research invented it. Microsoft just patented it. So,
maybe someone needs to spread the word that, like the song, “Happy Birthday to YOU” was copyrighted by people who didnt write the tune, opportunists exist everywhere and that doesnt make them correct or even the real owners of the property they GRAB!
What about these usb sticks that all have fat on them? If we can’t use fat, then we have to reformat all these sticks AND make sure that any windows computers we use have the software to use the device (like ext2/3)
personal comments can come back to me:
rickgalbraith at gmail (nospamthanks)
(most of you will know how to translate that address)
linux…
Categories Android ARM Camcorders DSLRs E- Ink High Definition Laptops Linux Mobile phones Networking Other p2p Portable Multimedia Press Conferences Processors Projectors RFID Screens/ Projectors Set- top- box Software Storage UMPC Video games Video- …