Re: Guarantee Critical Regions in Portable code. Portable Semaphores?



On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:37:35 +0100, Stefan Reuther
<stefan.news@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

larwe wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:23 pm, "james.walmsley" <ja...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The license here is what I initially read, but reading it again makes me
not so sure. I'm going to do some more research into this, and try to find
a more definitive answer. Why does legal speak have to be so confusing!!

This whole issue of patents sprang up around the time the original
XBox was released.

Most embedded applications do not require LFN support, so it is always
going to be a low priority feature for me.

If your embedded application intends to read memory cards / sticks with
music on them, users will expect to see long file names. At least, my
MP3 archive was the first on my FAT partitions where I left 8.3 land.

However, as far as I understand, MS' patents mostly apply to allow
coexistence of 8.3 and long file names. Most embedded applications don't
need *that*. My FAT implementation never even looks at the 8.3 names if
there is a LFN, and it only generates them to not leave the 8.3 field
blank. In contrast, Windows uses 8.3 names all the time, leading to
major nuisances such as "dir c:\*1*" showing "c:\Program Files" and
"c:\Documents and Settings", which have a "1" in their short name.


Microsoft has/had patents on the FAT implementations too and those
covered the 8.3 naming scheme. I'm not positive, but I think I
remember seeing that they have let the FAT12 and FAT16 patents lapse.

George
.