Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concerns Raised Over The "New" NTFS Linux Driver That Merged Last Year

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

  • ermo
    replied
    Konstantin Komarov is a slavic name. While Paragon's Head Office is situated in Germany, Paragon also has offices in the US, Russia and Japan.

    There could be a very obvious reason that Mr. Komarov isn't responsive right now. This reason can incidentally also be quite orthogonal to the legitimate concerns of the kernel developers.

    Leave a comment:


  • CommunityMember
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    If anything, this just goes to show us the the kernel might need a long term maintainer agreement that committers have to sign if they want to go mainline.
    And Linux mostly has this (for major new subsystems or features(*)). However, what is clearly being reported as an unusual case here is that the company that promised ongoing support is not following through as some expected. Until there is a response from paragon we simply do not know the real why (although that has not stopped the FUDders from posting).

    (*) Which, in practice, is also why some interesting drivers/features/subsystems never get mainlined, as there is no corporate support. Linux has gone corporate, no matter what some might fantasize about it being some community based effort.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    "ghosting all of us"? The fuck is wrong with you? Paragon has given us a great working driver which needs minor fixes here and there. OK, Konstantin has stepped away from maintaining it, so fucking what? No one in the fucking community can step up? Just "I vote to remove"?
    So what? Basically means he or Paragon released something relatively substantial and then doesn't respond to comment. That isn't a good precedent or normal that should be established for the kernel of the predominant open source operating system. Here y'all go, buh bye ** cricket noises **

    And what other options are there? Either someone else or Company steps up or it gets removed. That's it.

    For years the whole community asked for a native driver, the one was given with no strings attached, oh, god, no one actually cares or wants to continue developing it.
    You act like there's a giant pool of people knowledgeable and capable to work on NTFS on Linux.

    If anything, this just goes to show us the the kernel might need a long term maintainer agreement that committers have to sign if they want to go mainline. Let them keep rocking with DKMS or whatever TF NVIDIA does if they don't want to accept the legally non-enforceable and done-in-good-faith stewardship agreement where you agree to maintain your code with a clear line of communication and agree to either phase out/depreciate code or find a new steward if you're unable to continue maintaining the code.

    Leave a comment:


  • Terrablit
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    Well, you're right for the most part.
    But there is an official maintainer for this and it has apparently gone silent. These discussions need to happen in order to move things forward, whether that means forking or replacing the driver with something else.
    Agreed. Other valid complaints:

    * Still no NTFS utility source despite claims that it's coming. FS utilities are a very important part of being a supported filesystem in the mainline kernel. How are you supposed to check the filesystem without the utilities?
    * Maintainer (Komarov) doesn't review patches - they either directly apply them or ignore them.
    * The maintainer doesn't send their own patches for review either - they just directly apply them to their tree. They also don't submit PRs for the work they've done. Everyone who writes code in the kernel needs to get someone else to sign off.
    * Basically nothing's made it into the kernel for 6+ months despite other people trying to contribute and submit patches because this person is the official maintainer and isn't following protocol or communicating.
    * Maintainer can't handle things like branching and tagging in git to version and mark stable points.

    Nobody wants to get tossed into the middle of someone else's work and made responsible for it, and that's what Paragon has done. I mean, props for finally contributing the driver and accommodating the kernel dev requests to get it mainlined. It was a milestone. But the job isn't done, and whoever's de-prioritized this at Paragon needs a reality check. Which is hopefully coming, now that there's some attention on their bad communication skills. Nothing like getting your company name in the news for code littering to clean up your act.

    Leave a comment:


  • CommunityMember
    replied
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
    Regardless of the reason why the designated maintainer has basically stopped doing his job (can't be bothered, illness or over-worked) I'd say this does bring forward a very real question: Should there be a process by which the role of maintainer for subsystems could be removed and given to someone else without the previous maintainer's consent?
    There are such processes. For what should be obvious reasons those processes include multiple steps and validations to insure that, indeed, the individual(s) are no longer considered to be good stewards of the subsystem in question. In practice, since no two situation are identical, there is always some elasticity in the details of the process and the time frames for any action(s).

    Leave a comment:


  • CommunityMember
    replied
    Originally posted by Shagga, Son of Dolf View Post

    NTFS and exFAT are both Microsofts file systems. Microsoft is developing them, Microsoft is deciding where to take them, so they should maintain a driver for it.
    So, to follow your logic, others should be able to tell *you* how to spend your revenue (income)?

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by andrebrait View Post

    I think you misread the original poster of the message you quoted.

    He said Microsoft developed the file systems, not the drivers for them. The Linux drivers were contributions by others, as you said.

    The original poster is implying Microsoft, which developed the file systems, should also develop drivers for Linux, since they "love Linux and OSS" as their marketing campaigns claim they do. Instead, 3rd parties are left to implement drivers for those technologies, implying Microsoft's "love" is only when it's convenient for them to say they love Linux while focusing on making Linux useable on their platform in ways that appease developers (mainly those who use Linux as a server or development platform) but not contributing to areas that improve its usability as a desktop operating system (such as drivers for those Microsoft file systems).

    EDIT: all those things make sense for Microsoft as a company. Loving Linux doesn't necessarily mean loving it as a replacement for your main OS product, of course. And no one has the obligation to code stuff, any stuff, including drivers for their own file systems. But I do understand why that feels hypocrite and a dick move, overall.
    First, we should acknowledge that if Microsoft didn't do their part and gave the blessing for exFAT and NTFS, there would still be no drivers installed by default.
    Second, yes, Microsoft "loves" OSS. As long as it brings them more AD or Azure users that is.
    Third, as pointed out above, this is Paragon's mess, Microsoft has little to do with it.
    Fourth, NTFS support is so funny when you realize Windows' fast shutdown leaves the file system where Linux can't safely write it anyways.
    Fifth, having NFTS around in 2022 is a testament to how good DEC's engineers were.

    Leave a comment:


  • ntropy
    replied
    Originally posted by Shagga, Son of Dolf View Post
    This imho shows, why Microsofts apparent support for OSS is only hollow marketing for the masses and for maintaining an image, and has not led for any actions and changes outside some of their unimportant side projects which they don't rely on. At places where they could help Linux, which they claim to love, they rely on 3rd-parties to do their work for them (NTFS, exFAT) instead of contribuiting directly, and their "support" consists of nothing but not suing and not enforcing patents.
    And supporting OSS makes it easier to use OSS for their own software. Otherwise if they'ld ignore it (whats impossible) or be against it (what would be suicide). they had a problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Regardless of the reason why the designated maintainer has basically stopped doing his job (can't be bothered, illness or over-worked) I'd say this does bring forward a very real question: Should there be a process by which the role of maintainer for subsystems could be removed and given to someone else without the previous maintainer's consent?

    IMHO there absolutely should be one and this is basically the perfect first example case for using it. We've got a clear case of a negligent maintainer, work that needs to be carried out and someone both able and willing to take over the role.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Time for a rewrite in rust I guess.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X