On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 05:38:33AM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote: > > MS is set to begin charging a license fee for FAT file system > > FAT is used by camera manufacturers and more importantly is > > used on Compact Flash cards used by digital cameras. > > Don't know why. It's utterly shite for flash memory, since FAT keeps > hammering the same sections of the device, and flash has a limited number of > write cycles before it dies. JFFS2 is much nicer, I'm told. > > At any rate, I can see a lot of companies rolling over and paying up. Pity.
What if they used some other internal format (such as JFFS2) but merely presented this as a FAT system in a backwards compatability mode would that not get around the licensing issue? > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03120403microsoftisfat.asp > > Yeah, and they smell too. <grin> It was that part of the URL that made me think I'd time warped to April 1st. -- ---<GRiP>--- Electronic Hobbyist, Former Arcadia BBS nut, Occasional nudist, Linux Guru, SLUG/AUUG/Linux Australia member, Sydney Flashmobber, BMX rider, Walker, Raver & rave music lover, Big kid that refuses to grow up. I'd make a good family pet, take me home today! Do people actually read these things? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
