Am 21.06.2011 um 22:36 schrieb Joe Auty: >> Benjamin Fleischer >> June 21, 2011 4:18 PM >> >> >> Am 21.06.2011 um 21:59 schrieb Joe Auty: >> >>>> Benjamin Fleischer >>>> June 21, 2011 3:37 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fuse4X is owned and maintained by Anatol. Like MacFUSE it has just a >>>> single owner. Though Anatol's project is based on MacFUSE he changed quite >>>> a lot. The result is a MacFUSE successor which is binary incompatible with >>>> most existing MacFUSE filesystems. The filesystems would need to be >>>> specifically recompiled against Fuse4X for things to work. How likely is >>>> that? Keep in mind that Fuse4X is only compatible with Mac OS X 10.6. For >>>> open source projects this would be an easy task but for commercial or in >>>> general closed source projects this won't be as easy. That's why there >>>> could not have been extensive testing regarding compatibility of his >>>> MacFUSE fork with existing filesystems. From a developer's point of view >>>> this and dropping support for 10.5 is bad. >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, Anatol has some great ideas and I agree with him that >>>> it is important to bring MacFUSE (or whatever it is called) up to speed >>>> and restore compatibility with its Linux origin. But we should not rush >>>> things. In my opinion it is important to first release a stable and >>>> well-tested version of MacFUSE/OSXFUSE that does not change too much >>>> code-wise, is binary compatible with MacFUSE and supports Snow Leopard's >>>> 64 bit kernel. This way there is no need to recompile existing >>>> filesystems. The transition from MacFUSE to its successor will be a lot >>>> smoother this way. The second release should fully support Lion. This >>>> would be a basis we could build on and adopt some more extensive code >>>> changes. >>>> >>>> Code-wise Anatol's fork is based on Erik's kernel code to support 64 bit >>>> kernels and my port of Linux FUSE 2.8.5 to Mac OS X. On top of that he >>>> applied his own patches. >>>> >>>> Erik and I are the "owners" of the OSXFUSE project. Once we get some >>>> things worked out I'm all for adding contributors. I would like OSXFUSE to >>>> be community based to prevent the situation we now have with MacFUSE and >>>> Amit abandoning the project. >>> >>> Man, this is confusing! >>> >>> Anatol, if you are reading this, I'm enjoying using Fuse4x, it works well >>> for me so far, but I was under the impression that it was to be the single >>> successor to MacFUSE. >> >> Which filesystems do you use? > > Right now just sshfs, but I can see myself using an S3 based filesystem > (other than Dropbox), or perhaps the NTFS filesystem. Therefore, I can see > how Anatol's approach of requiring specific app support is problematic if > that is why you ask. I just figured that all app developers would just > eventually compile against Fuse4x thinking it was the official, absolute > MacFUSE successor™.
One problem I see is the support for Leopard. It has been a lengthy discussion here if it is acceptable to drop Power PC support. Dropping support for 10.5 entirely might be too radical for some people, but this is just my opinion. >> >>> Is there any way I can convince you to combine efforts with these other >>> guys? I ask as a completely politically neutral guy on the basis that >>> having multiple forks of MacFUSE will be *very* confusing for end users. >>> Heck, just transitioning from MacFUSE to any successor will be confusing >>> enough in and of itself since it appears that the original MacFUSE project >>> will not assist in directing from the old to new. >>> >>> On the other hand, for me Anatol's version works well, so kudos to him for >>> being the first to get 64 bit kernels and Linux FUSE 2.8.5 working together. >> >> He was not the first one to get this working. But the first one to publicly >> release his build. He took the code of others without giving credit where >> credit is due. >> > I can understand how this would be frustrating, but can I humbly ask on > behalf of us end users to not hold us hostage because of this? I'm not > suggesting that you or anybody in particular intends to, but hopefully this > can be overlooked and you guys can find a way to work together somehow? It has never been my intention to hold anyone hostage. I have been waiting for a truly 64 bit capable version of MacFUSE like the rest and am very thankful for Erik's patch. Everyone who wants to should test/use Anatol's fork. > I ask this because I'm sure we've seen all too often what happens with open > source projects when there are axes to grind and the politics get > out-of-hand. This project is too useful to deteriorate in this fashion. Agreed, but I will not join his project for the reasons I explained earlier. Basically I think we need a more conservative approach. This should be in the best interest of any end user. Just think about TrueCrypt for example. Using an "unstable" version of MacFUSE/Fuse4X/OSXFUSE might lead to loosing important files. >>> With Lion right around the corner I hope that OSXFUSE is made available >>> ASAP, because end users might also grow tired of waiting around for >>> something they can use particularly once they have upgraded to Lion. >> >> Agreed. But come on what do you expect? Working on something like this takes >> a lot of time. Time, I for example do not get paid for. Many people just >> expect that someone else does the work for them. There are quite some >> commercial applications around that use MacFUSE but have you seen any of >> then actively continuing development on MacFUSE? Erik, of course, is an >> exception to this. > > I expect nothing and am grateful for what exists and will exist, I'm just > trying to play devil's advocate to provide the perspective of end users, > perhaps unnecessarily so... I understand your point. I use MacFUSE based filesystems myself and will be upgrading to Lion once it is released. >>> A lot of users are going to go for what works today, should application >>> developers focus on what works today, or what might work tomorrow? >> >> It is up to you which path you choose. >> >>> All I'm saying is that from an end user perspective it will truly suck to >>> have fragmentation and infighting resulting in the state of a FUSE solution >>> for the Mac becoming a giant cluster***. >>> >>> Just my two cents... -- 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.
<<inline: compose-unknown-contact.jpg>>
