site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com On 14-May-07, at 12:56 , Dan Shoop wrote: Filipe Cabecinhas On 14 May, 2007, at 07:55, Dan Shoop wrote: If you are interested, there is an interview with Amit Singh here: http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail1804.html Andre _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... At 9:51 AM +0100 5/14/07, Filipe Cabecinhas wrote: No... Including MacFUSE in Darwin would allow everyone to distribute their filesystems without worrying about having the client install MacFUSE... MacFUSE isn't a filesystem. It's an API to allow people to implement userspace filesystems. Since the goal of FUSE is to be a user space filesystem, as evidenced in it's name, wouldn't including it as a systems filesystem be rather conflicting? It quite arguably is a filesystem. It's just not *a* filesystem but a hook for arbitrary filesystems. Moreover since it affects the stability of the OS, and isn't anywhere ready for prime time nor is it likely to ever be ready for production, again in part b/c by nature it's a userspace "thingie", this would still be anathema.
From what I understand the idea is to remove all the potentially unstable stuff out
of kernal space. The kernel driver could then concentrate on being more fault tolerant. If a user space driver crashes, then like an application that's all that goes down. where he discusses MacFuse and why he started the project. Part of the reason he cites is that this approach vastly simplifies the work of writing a reliable file system driver. I mean it's a nice thought, but given that it's supposed to be userspace, that the kernel and core OS are quite clearly kernel- and system-space, that it's not prime time ready, currently and probably always unstable by nature, and always going to be more appropriately implemented at a user level that it doesn't belong as part of the systems. If it did would it not then be MacSUSE? And my, oh my, wouldn't that they get confusing with something else by that name ;) In many ways USB isn't that much different. There are kernel components, but there is also much that is done in user-space. When I asked the question it wasn't so much a question of whether it was ready for prime time. I am more interested, in finding out whether it could have a reasonable place as part of the system architecture, if it got the necessary focus. The development of the MacFuse also shows ways in which Darwin/MacOS X needs improvement. One minor area is in the way that URL handlers are registered with the Finder - they are currently in a form which does not permit extension (see /System/Library/URLMount), so only the standard Apple file systems can benefit from this. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com