Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paragon's NTFS Driver For The Linux Kernel Spun Up A 27th Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paragon's NTFS Driver For The Linux Kernel Spun Up A 27th Time

    Phoronix: Paragon's NTFS Driver For The Linux Kernel Spun Up A 27th Time

    Those having to deal with data stored on NTFS partitions from Linux have been eagerly awaiting the "NTFS3" kernel driver that Paragon Software has been working now for a year to upstream into the Linux kernel. No pull request has been sent in yet but the twenty-seventh spin of this driver was published today...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...-For-Linux-v27

  • #2
    In other news the owners of many AMD motherboards are f-ed:

    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204807#c79

    Of course that's relevant only for those who care about their hardware (sensors).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by birdie View Post
      In other news the owners of many AMD motherboards are f-ed:

      https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204807#c79

      Of course that's relevant only for those who care about their hardware (sensors).
      It is not as bad as it seems, they rejected the code because of the use of idef, not on it's merits per se, someone from the dev community could carry on the development of the patches, following the guidelines provided on the review, of course the original author of those patches is probably burnt (burned?) out of it, it is quite mentally taxing to fix something and it being rejected

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by birdie View Post
        In other news the owners of many AMD motherboards are f-ed:

        https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204807#c79

        Of course that's relevant only for those who care about their hardware (sensors).
        Wrong URL? I fail to see the connection...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by estan View Post

          Wrong URL? I fail to see the connection...
          Nevermind, my bad.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andrei_me View Post

            It is not as bad as it seems, they rejected the code because of the use of idef, not on it's merits per se, someone from the dev community could carry on the development of the patches, following the guidelines provided on the review, of course the original author of those patches is probably burnt (burned?) out of it, it is quite mentally taxing to fix something and it being rejected
            "Could" is the key word here. The issue has been known for close to two years now with no one even stepping up to fix it. The good guy wrote a working patch which apparently is not that difficult to fix, yet instead of kernel developers doing the job, they just rejected the work. It's so sad. And it's not just that, AMD's ACPI CPPC patches were proposed over two years ago and they were never merged, so all Ryzen Linux users cannot properly fine tune their CPUs power management.

            And I'm sure there are dozens of other rejected submissions implementing better support for various pieces of hardware under Linux which is not too exciting.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              "Could" is the key word here. The issue has been known for close to two years now with no one even stepping up to fix it.
              Then what you are saying is that no one who actually wants it fixed is willing to either do the work to meet the kernel developers requirements, or is willing to hire someone to do that, and still, after all that, people are still purchasing the hardware sold by the vendor who themselves have decided not to step up?

              The good guy wrote a working patch which apparently is not that difficult to fix, yet instead of kernel developers doing the job, they just rejected the work. It's so sad.
              Kernel developers are not there to do the cleanup work for any person who does not want to meet the requirements of the kernel in order to get a patch accepted. If the submitter decided to abandon the work when the going gets tough, well, that is their choice, too, and I respect their decision to abandon it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Are we talking about NTFS or about sensors?

                Where are you guys?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                  Are we talking about NTFS or about sensors?

                  Where are you guys?
                  Clearly we need NTFS sensors

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm talking about how difficult is to get your code merged despite the proclamations that it's open source and everyone is welcome to contribute. Not only you're not welcome, you have to work your buttocks off to be accepted. It's the 27th revision of the NTFS code - how crazy it is?

                    Never mind, I'm an old geezer and I'm talking BS. Linux is perfect, it perfectly supports everything and it has a ton of perfect software for it.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X