On 16 March 2014 at 20:14:41, Gary Martin ([email protected]) wrote:
On 14/03/14 16:08, Olemis Lang wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Antonia Horincar < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> I'm not sure I know which approach would be easier for this project (the >> one you mentioned - dealing with FUSE systems, or creating resource >> instances (e.g. SkyDrive instance) in order to communicate with the cloud >> storage service). That is because I have no experience with FUSE systems, >> so I can't asses the feasibility (or difficulty) of all this. However, as >> you said, having mounts of different storage services on the system would >> lead to inconsistent instructions for Bloodhound users. So my question is: >> is the project useful for Bloodhound then? >> >> > The only thing about handling this with FUSE is that : > > - AFAIK it will not work on Windows > * See platforms in http://goo.gl/#analytics/goo.gl/EMHMvQ/all_time > - It will not be possible to setup such on shared hosting plans > * I'm still investigating whether we can setup this in > blood-hound.netservers. > > [...] > I think that there are meant to be ways of doing FUSE filesystems on windows. Whether they are any good is another matter. Essentially my point was that if the admin is able to mount filesystems either with or without full root privileges then there is probably no programming to be done. Also we don't really need to provide instructions to cover all the possibilities though there is nothing to stop us providing some instructions to help out. So, that leaves the problem of what to do for users who do not have the ability to do this on shared hosting as Olemis points out. Yes.. this does seem to give room for something of use to some installations. There are some similar considerations to be made for the project around remote access to subversion repositories of course. In this case, what should be the scope of the project then? Should I stick on having remote attachments on Amazon S3 and Google Drive (or etc), or should I look further into making deployment easier? Cheers, Gary
