On 09.05.2008, at 18:11, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> FUSE is great, but... >> >> It means interoperability must be an explicit planned-in-advance >> action: >> if a datastore is already on a removable device in your pocket, and >> you >> need to access something on a foreign system, you are stuck unless >> there >> is some minimal level of human interpretability of the file system... >> >> Instead, you have to dig up a system with FUSE/olpcfs installed, and >> then copy the files to a conventional file structure. >> >> This is the use case that's hard to get around. > > Ok, I think I see now where is the misunderstanding. > > In the first post in this thread, I tried to explain that this > proposal would use removable devices in the same way they are used in > other systems and that the DS would have nothing to do with them: > > [...] we get an useful replacement that lacks: > > - Support for mounting removable datastores. We have agreed on moving > to just list the files in removable devices, without the DS having > anything to do. Although extending the DS capacity with SD cards is an > interesting feature, it brings many non-trivial issues that make this > a longer term feature. > > [end of quote] > > Scott has given some hints about how olpcfs would store files in > removable devices, and I think that his proposal is sufficient for > you, right?
I don't think that is what Jim was getting at. I think it's simply that if you copy the raw datastore files to another system for analysis / recovery / whatever, then that task would be greatly helped by readable filenames. A use case would be that Linux does not boot anymore but you type in some magic Forth words to copy the datastore to a USB drive. - Bert - _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
