Shot (Piotr Szotkowski | 2 Mar 09:20 2009
Picon

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

Marc MERLIN:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:11:27AM +0000, Carl van Tonder wrote:

>> Phones are sold almost exclusively by companies that, whatever other 
>> good design decisions they may make, manage to come out with the most 
>> brain-dead ways of restricting what you can do with your piece of 
>> plastic.

> I think the problem is whether you buy a subsidized
> phone from a carrier or a real phone from a phone maker.

[…]

> So yes, the Tmobile G1 is not meant to be open. The ADP1
> is. I'm sure there will be more phones in either category.

The problem with ADP1 is that you can’t really use it as a full-fledged 
Android phone: while you can flash it, you won’t be able to buy any paid 
apps from the Android Market. Once again a jailbroken iPhone wins, and 
while I was almost sold on paying extra for an ADP1, I think I’d rather 
get a G1 from my carrier and jailbreak it. :(

— Shot, who also has to jailbreak his mother’s iPhone to give her MMS…
--

-- 
uoıʇɔnɹʇsuoɔ ɹəpun
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
(Continue reading)

Dave Crossland | 2 Mar 10:32 2009

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

2009/3/2 Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <shot <at> hot.pl>:
>
> The problem with ADP1 is that you can’t really use it as a full-fledged
> Android phone: while you can flash it, you won’t be able to buy any paid
> apps from the Android Market. Once again a jailbroken iPhone wins, and
> while I was almost sold on paying extra for an ADP1, I think I’d rather
> get a G1 from my carrier and jailbreak it. :(

Which is easy enough, and what I did.

http://understandinglimited.com/2009/03/01/font-face-on-android/

I think this beats the iPhone. :-)
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitists <at> zgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
Greg Folkert | 2 Mar 14:02 2009
Picon

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:04 -0800, Don Marti wrote:
> Danger!  MSFT patents!  Larry Augustin writes,
> "FAT32 is not an open and unencumbered technology."
> 
> http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2009/02/linux-microsoft-and-patents-its-time-to-get-the-fat-out.html
> 
> So is it time to start treating FAT support like MP3
> today or GIFs back in the day -- something that can't
> be included with a Free distribution, to be "burned"
> and replaced with a Free alternative?  (some of the
> flash-oriented filesystems might be a good choice for
> the kind of thing people tend to use FAT for these
> days: http://lwn.net/Articles/276025/ )
> 
> Or is FAT more like JPEG -- something that's subject
> to bogus patent claims, but usable?

Real question:
How different is the FAT/VFAT/MSDOS Partition code in TomTom's Kernel,
vs say a Kernel.org kernel or even RedHat's or Gentoo's or Debian's or
any others for that matter?

Speculation:
I think we are seeing the back-door approach, and Microsoft doesn't use
lube. I believe that this is the 236 patents sword rattling they did a
while ago. Mainly to get the embedded companies to fork over the dough
or use Wince^H^HdowsCE.

But does anyone else believe Microsoft just can't play in the park with
others? Even with them proclaiming they are going to tell other kids
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 2 Mar 16:53 2009

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:20:14AM +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:
> Marc MERLIN:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:11:27AM +0000, Carl van Tonder wrote:
> 
> >> Phones are sold almost exclusively by companies that, whatever other 
> >> good design decisions they may make, manage to come out with the most 
> >> brain-dead ways of restricting what you can do with your piece of 
> >> plastic.
> 
> > I think the problem is whether you buy a subsidized
> > phone from a carrier or a real phone from a phone maker.
> 
> […]
> 
> > So yes, the Tmobile G1 is not meant to be open. The ADP1
> > is. I'm sure there will be more phones in either category.
> 
> The problem with ADP1 is that you can’t really use it as a full-fledged 
> Android phone: while you can flash it, you won’t be able to buy any paid 
> apps from the Android Market.

No, that's not true, I just bought an application on my ADP1 phone just
fine.

It's just the applications that the original developer chooses to
distribute in "encrypted" form that do not show up on the ADP1 to be
purchased.  That could be a free or paid application.

thanks,
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 2 Mar 16:53 2009

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:02:50AM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:04 -0800, Don Marti wrote:
> > Danger!  MSFT patents!  Larry Augustin writes,
> > "FAT32 is not an open and unencumbered technology."
> > 
> > http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2009/02/linux-microsoft-and-patents-its-time-to-get-the-fat-out.html
> > 
> > So is it time to start treating FAT support like MP3
> > today or GIFs back in the day -- something that can't
> > be included with a Free distribution, to be "burned"
> > and replaced with a Free alternative?  (some of the
> > flash-oriented filesystems might be a good choice for
> > the kind of thing people tend to use FAT for these
> > days: http://lwn.net/Articles/276025/ )
> > 
> > Or is FAT more like JPEG -- something that's subject
> > to bogus patent claims, but usable?
> 
> Real question:
> How different is the FAT/VFAT/MSDOS Partition code in TomTom's Kernel,
> vs say a Kernel.org kernel or even RedHat's or Gentoo's or Debian's or
> any others for that matter?

It's identical.
Shot (Piotr Szotkowski | 2 Mar 17:06 2009
Picon

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

Greg KH:

> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:20:14AM +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:

>> The problem with ADP1 is that you can’t really use it as 
>> a full-fledged Android phone: while you can flash it, you
>> won’t be able to buy any paid apps from the Android Market.

> No, that's not true, I just bought an
> application on my ADP1 phone just fine.

> It's just the applications that the original developer chooses to 
> distribute in "encrypted" form that do not show up on the ADP1 to
> be purchased. That could be a free or paid application.

Thanks for the clarification, Greg (and apologies for
the misinformation). Do you know whether such ‘encrypted’
applications work with a jailbroken G1/ADP1?

— Shot
--

-- 
uoıʇɔnɹʇsuoɔ ɹəpun
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitists <at> zgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
Greg KH | 2 Mar 17:24 2009

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:06:07PM +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:
> Greg KH:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:20:14AM +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:
> 
> >> The problem with ADP1 is that you can’t really use it as 
> >> a full-fledged Android phone: while you can flash it, you
> >> won’t be able to buy any paid apps from the Android Market.
> 
> > No, that's not true, I just bought an
> > application on my ADP1 phone just fine.
> 
> > It's just the applications that the original developer chooses to 
> > distribute in "encrypted" form that do not show up on the ADP1 to
> > be purchased. That could be a free or paid application.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, Greg (and apologies for
> the misinformation). Do you know whether such ‘encrypted’
> applications work with a jailbroken G1/ADP1?

They should all "work", it's just a matter if the market application
will allow you to purchase them or not.  I don't know if that is the
case, sorry.

And I can understand why this is the case, as on an ADP1, it is trivial
to get access to such applications, making the "encryption" pointless.
I think the bigger issue might just be conveying to the developers
creating such applications that they are decreasing their potential
customer base by doing this.

(Continue reading)

Greg Folkert | 2 Mar 18:02 2009
Picon

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 07:53 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:02:50AM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:04 -0800, Don Marti wrote:
> > > Danger!  MSFT patents!  Larry Augustin writes,
> > > "FAT32 is not an open and unencumbered technology."
> > > 
> > > http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2009/02/linux-microsoft-and-patents-its-time-to-get-the-fat-out.html
> > > 
> > > So is it time to start treating FAT support like MP3
> > > today or GIFs back in the day -- something that can't
> > > be included with a Free distribution, to be "burned"
> > > and replaced with a Free alternative?  (some of the
> > > flash-oriented filesystems might be a good choice for
> > > the kind of thing people tend to use FAT for these
> > > days: http://lwn.net/Articles/276025/ )
> > > 
> > > Or is FAT more like JPEG -- something that's subject
> > > to bogus patent claims, but usable?
> > 
> > Real question:
> > How different is the FAT/VFAT/MSDOS Partition code in TomTom's Kernel,
> > vs say a Kernel.org kernel or even RedHat's or Gentoo's or Debian's or
> > any others for that matter?
> 
> It's identical.

Yikes. So I guess its true that Microsoft *IS* going after Embedded
Linux Vendors and possibly like Debian, Ubuntu, and so on in the long
term.

(Continue reading)

Shot (Piotr Szotkowski | 2 Mar 18:04 2009
Picon

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

Greg KH:

> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:06:07PM +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:

>> Do you know whether such ‘encrypted’
>> applications work with a jailbroken G1/ADP1?

> They should all "work", it's just a matter if the market application
> will allow you to purchase them or not. I don't know if that is the
> case, sorry.

Again, thanks for the clarification. I wonder whether the Android Market 
application will have a list of ‘kosher’ devices (and, if so, whether 
for example Neo FreeRunner will be on the list)…

> And I can understand why this is the case, as on an ADP1, it is 
> trivial to get access to such applications, making the "encryption" 
> pointless. I think the bigger issue might just be conveying to the 
> developers creating such applications that they are decreasing their 
> potential customer base by doing this.

Right. The problem is whether the ADP1-using fraction of the market
will be large enough for the app developers to care; I can see 
developer-targeted apps staying unencrypted, but if the encryption
does carry some real-world advantages for run-of-the-mill apps, the
ADP1 userbase might not be large enough to be convincing. <sigh />

> Oh, and there is no such thing as a "jailbroken" ADP1. By default, the 
> ADP1 has a bootloader that lets you load anything in it, and it comes 
> with an empty root password.
(Continue reading)

Greg KH | 2 Mar 18:15 2009

Re: FAT is the new GIF?

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> Yikes. So I guess its true that Microsoft *IS* going after Embedded
> Linux Vendors and possibly like Debian, Ubuntu, and so on in the long
> term.
> 
> We do really need to get those couple of patents knocked under. Wouldn't
> RockRidge extensions to ISO9660 be prior art for Long File Support?
> (1994 vs 1996 on the MS ones)
> 
> I hope/think there are some other pieces that are prior art in the FAT
> stuff. But I'm obviously not the authority to ask.

See Bruce Perens's article for more details about the validity and
possible reasons why Microsoft is doing this.  I think it should answer
some of your questions:
	http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3807801/Bruce-Perens-Analyzing-Microsofts-Linux-Lawsuit.htm

thanks,

greg k-h

Gmane