On 10 Sep 2009, at 08:27, Erik Larsson wrote: > … and a lot of users are running the 64-bit version of the kernel
Beyond the bounds of what's officially supported by Apple? (This is interesting. I always expect a minority to push the boundaries but if people are pushing the 64-bit kernel boundary en masse, then there are implications beyond MacFUSE.) > They don't consider MacFUSE and associated file systems to > completely support Snow Leopard if it can only run on one kernel > flavor out of two. I get these complaints daily for NTFS-3G. Unfortunate that people voice their wishes as complaints ;) but if the wishes are frequent/many then yes: let's have (at least) a clear roadmap so that people who are waiting can have an idea of what's ahead. > there doesn't seem to be many issues when running the 32-bit kernel, > afaik. This is very good. I have the same impression. > I think this is more than a single issue that needs to be fixed. The > real issue is that a lot of projects have come to depend completely > on MacFUSE, which inself seems to depend more or less on one person, > Amit. It seems that today the entire MacFUSE based ecosystem sort of > rests on his shoulders, which makes it all very vulnerable. I don't sense vulnerability based on anyone's shoulders. Instead, I might describe the past few months as: * a natural lull (with happily few issues for users of the 32-bit kernel) * coinciding with broadened expectations of MacFUSE capabilities in supported and (now) unsupported environments. > While this approach works for experimental software in a development > phase, MacFUSE has matured to the point where it's in use by many > independent projects, some commerical and some not, many striving to > deliver quality software that works on the latest platforms. > > If the main MacFUSE project isn't progressing, then each project > using MacFUSE could of course try to fix any issues that exist, but > a coordinated community effort would in that case be preferable, +1 to co-ordinated community effort. My main concern is that the infrastructure for issues etc. (currently Google Groups) is far from ideal. Much of what's in this Group can not be found. More on this in a separate topic. > … my opinion is that the group involved in developing/maintaining > MacFUSE should be broadened +1 but before actively broadening things, let's have (at least) a top- knotch and communities-friendly way of receiving and resolving/ rejecting issues. > A public statement or announcement regarding future plans for the > project would be much appreciated. +1 as above. > I'd like to thank Amit for all the amazing effort he has put into > this. +100 > He really opened a whole new horizon of possibilities for Mac file > systems. I could easily understand if he's not willing to continue > working in his spare time just to satisfy grumpy file system > developers. :) Grumpy? I don't think so. All you developers (I'm watching from the sidelines) seem to be a very civil bunch, certainly more so in/around MacFUSE than in other areas in which I dabble :) Cheers Graham --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacFUSE" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macfuse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
