On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Brian Krent <[email protected]> wrote: > So, there's Fuse4X <http://fuse4x.org/> and OSXFUSE <http:// > osxfuse.github.com/>... > > (1) Are there any other implementations out there for OS X that are > presently being maintained?
None that I know of. > > (2) What are the differences between Fuse4X and OSXFUSE (and any > possible others)? Fuse4X aims to be more compatible with Linux's FUSE implementation. Fuse4X is not a drop in replacement for MacFUSE. Filesystems written for MacFUSE need to be recompiled to support Fuse4X. OSXFUSE aims to be drop in replacement for MacFUSE and is compatible with MacFUSE. MacFUSE filesystems should work directly with OSXFUSE. > > (3) Between Fuse4X and OSXFUSE (and any other implementation), which > do you prefer, and why? The original author of MacFUSE pointed out that Mac OS X's Mach kernel and BSD inspired interface has differences in implementations to Linux. For this reason I feel that the approach of MacFUSE, and by extension OSXFUSE, is the one that makes the most sense in the long run. While a lot of things are the same there are places where the API's slightly differ and there are different behaviours to be expected. Cheers, Sam Moffatt http://pasamio.id.au -- 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.
