Linux RIP?

FAT is just a tiny, pretty much insignificant part of Linux. Why would Linux RIP?

Just a tiny, rather essential bit that MS can now charge royalties for.

Essential? For what?

Essential for being able to directly read a Windows FAT formatted disk from a linux kernel. I wouldn't call this insignificant, but I would expect it to a major problem either. Any profitable Linux company these days (e.g. Red Hat) charges per seat for the operating system these days. It's a few pennies added to the cost of each seat.

But, this could hurt (but not kill) some of the more community driven efforts like CENT.

Other than the fact that the "free"/"open" linux systems may not be able to include FAT (depending on the specifics of packaging due to GPL issues and on what Microsoft does), I'm not sure what else this will impact.

Do any of the other linux file systems (ext2, ext3, etc.) infringe on the patent as well?

Since most modern windows systems use NTFS, does NTFS include FAT patented technology?

If the answers to these questions are "no", then it doesn't seem that this will make any difference.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:25:31 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@whocares.com (Dave Houston) used recycled pixels to say:

You'll have to rip it out of my cold dead hard drive! Hell with Micro$oft!

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:25:31 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@whocares.com (Dave Houston) used recycled pixels to say:

on second thought, who cares?! Who uses FAT anymore?

Most removable media.

IANAL, but here's the rub, the patents aren't for the FAT as much as they are for the long file names and a few other features of the new fat systems. The old FAT system isn't part of the patents mentioned. So while the long names will probably need to be removed the use of the FAT won't need to be.