×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Plethora of New User Space Filesystems For Mac OS X

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the because-you-can dept.

OS X 225

DaringDan writes "As part of the recent MacFUSE 2.0 release Amit Singh has added support for an insane number of filesystems on the Mac. This video from Google and this blog post pretty much explain everything in detail but to sum-up Singh has written a new filesystem called AncientFS which lets you mount a ton of UNIX file formats starting from the very first version of UNIX. Even more interesting is that they have also taken Linux kernel implementations of filesystems like ufs, sysv-fs, minix-fs and made them work in user-space on the Mac, which means its now possible to read disks from OSes like FreeBSD, Solaris and NeXT on OS X. ext2/ext3 don't seem to be on the list but apparently the source for everything is provided, so hopefully some enterprising soul can apply the same techniques to ext2. One of their demos even has the old UNIX kernel compiled directly on the Mac through the original PDP C compiler by somehow executing the PDP binaries on OS X!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

225 comments

Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147045)

Dylan lainhart 1st post leet haxor

new name (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147057)

They should rename the project to MacFAG ( Macintosh Filesystem Appending Globule).

It would better reflect the Apple computing philosophy. By the way, Steve Jobs: AIDS or cancer? Takin' all bets!

1st post. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147071)

woot.

News? (-1, Troll)

Facetious (710885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147093)

How is this news while the Mac Blue Screen problem upon upgrade thing isn't mentioned anywhere on the front page? (It was news on other sites yesterday.)

Re:News? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147285)

Because you love sucking cock. Why isn't that news?

Re:News? (1, Interesting)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147343)

I'm curious why this was modded troll, I think the above poster has a valid point - why did slashdot miss out on a pretty important article that could potentially affect all Mac users, while they posted an article that's not really going to apply to more than 1% or 2% of Mac users?

Re:News? (-1, Troll)

buswolley (591500) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147425)

I'm only going to say this once. I will never say this ever again in my entire lifetime of Slashdot postings. But here goes..

.

.

.

.

.

.

Macs are gay.

Re:News? (5, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147429)

Because slashdot isn't a public service announcement system and macfuse is more interesting?

Re:News? (3, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147587)

I'd say that what's interesting and what's not interesting is all a matter of opinion, but it stands to reason that if you own a Mac and would be interested in this software, you would also be interested in knowing that a recently released update from Apple is causing major system trouble.

Re:News? (4, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148685)

you mean BARELY causing? I am sorry but a hundred or so postings when there are over a million OS 10.5 users out there is NOT in my mind major trouble.

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148843)

"but it stands to reason that if you own a Mac and would be interested in this software, you would also be interested in knowing that a recently released update from Apple is causing major system trouble."

          And yet, this isn't a Mac news site. If you as a Mac owner are interested in Mac news, go to Macrumors or something. This is interesting because it's a new and unusual use of fuse, not because it increases the filesystems on the Mac.

Re:News? (2, Insightful)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149035)

This isn't a Windows news site either, yet we get tons of stories about Windows Update failures and Windows exploits.

Your argument is weak, grasshopper.

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26149193)

I'm guessing because if there are problems with the last apple update not that many people are impacted is probably why it isn't making the news. I know we upgraded all of our systems in our company and didn't have any issues, just installed rebooted and was back. That is probably the experience most people had which is why you aren't seeing headlines about a handful of people that might have had trouble updating.

Re:News? (1, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147569)

FUSE is interesting and nerdy. Scaremongering about how an operating system update may not work as advertised isn't particularly interesting, even if it is indicative of a QA failure on the part of the vendor.

Because... (3, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147625)

Some users installing third party apps that modify their system files, and then apply updates over them have issues is hardly newsworthy.

Re:Because... (5, Funny)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147859)

Some users installing third party apps that modify their system files, and then apply updates over them have issues is hardly newsworthy.

Riiiiiight... Because a Linux-heavy audience would never even consider violating the sanctity of those spoooooky "system files" of which you speak...

Sure (5, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148007)

You most certainly can if you want to. But if you have system files A and B and you modify B and later system update modifies A to call something in B that you changed the behavior of, then don't blame the system update.

That's all I'm saying.

Re:Because... (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148229)

Try that with Ubuntu, upgrade, and then see what happens... similar :) I know, I've been there...

Re:Because... (1)

acvh (120205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148847)

much of that problem is a holdover from pre-OS X days. many Mac users got so used to using little hacks from garage developers that they keep using them with OS X rather than finding a better way to do it. I've been a productive Mac users since 10.0 and haven't seen the need for "haxies" or other Rube Goldberg type programs.

Re:News? (2)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147713)

I think it's more luck. You can bitch about luck if you want, but there is not much you can do about it. I know I haven't heard anything about the blue screen problem yet. Did you try submitting it? The other thing is that MacFuse is an interesting open source project that makes Linux heads' eyes turn round like plates and mouths start dueling. Given that many times when a linux related article is shown, slashdot usually ends up ending the alticle with a disclaimer stating that they are owned by linux.com (or was it linux.org ?), I don't think that an article like this making it through first is all that strange. The article would more likely catch the eyes of the editors. Well that's my guess anywho. :-)

Re:News? (-1, Flamebait)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147787)

why did slashdot miss out on a pretty important article that could potentially affect all Mac users, while they posted an article that's not really going to apply to more than 1% or 2% of Mac users?

Because the former said something bad about Apple, while the latter says something good (if irrelevant to most people). Duh?

You seem to have forgotten that OSDN counts as a wholly pwned subsidiary of SteveCo.

Re:News? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147825)

could potentially affect all Mac users

Well for one, it's not so you've lost a lot of the shock you're attempting to drum up.

Re:News? (2, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148197)

From a geek standpoint, one is a cool project and the other a mundane bit of troubleshooting.

Re:News? (2, Insightful)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147583)

I searched on that phrase and found a note on Apple's site with a Last Modified date of October 30, 2008: http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1545 [apple.com]

Heck, here's one that makes reference to Mac OS 9 and OS X 10.2.4: http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1411 [apple.com]

Doesn't sound like it's even remotely new, yet alone being new news.

Re:News? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147869)

Yes, I'm sure this is a conspiracy! Everyone gather up your torches and pitchforks so we can go after CmdrTaco!

I think I actually had the "blue screen" problem that you're referring to. I say "I think" because I'm not sure what you're referring to. The only upgrade problem I've heard about is the one I had, which was very minor and nothing like a "blue screen of death". During the upgrade process, the upgrade stopped working and just sat there. It didn't crash, but it just sat there. If you did a hard reset, the system returned to the state it was in before you attempted the upgrade.

Now you might ask, "what about the data you lost during the hard reset?" That might be a concern, except that the upgrade process froze at a point when you were essentially in the middle of rebooting anyhow.

The whole thing was solved by downloading the installer for the update rather than using Apple's "Software Update" tool.

Is that what you're referring to? Because I don't think anyone is too concerned.

Re:News? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147917)

How is this news while the Mac Blue Screen problem upon upgrade thing isn't mentioned anywhere on the front page? (It was news on other sites yesterday.)

Maybe because it is not widespread? Because it might be caused by hardware failures or installed third-party software that most people do not have installed?

I did not have any problems with the 10.5.6 update other than having to reinstall my Cepstral Voices.

Re:News? (2, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147939)

Slashdot reports on useful software for OS X: "What the hell? Why aren't you paying attention to $RANDOM_BUG_AFFECTING_1%_OF_MAC_USERS."

Slashdot reports on a random bug in the Linux kernel: "What the hell? Why aren't you reporting on all the great free software for Linux? Are you trying to give people the wrong idea?"

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148183)

OK, so Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (and UDF 2.5) is a "bag of hurt" but AncientFS makes it to the Mac?

Irony.

Can we at least have stuff like this on either an open OS, or at least on a closed one that doesn't issue fatwas against filesystem types, like Windows?

Re:News? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149237)

OK, so Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (and UDF 2.5) is a "bag of hurt"

I know what you're referring to, but starting with Leopard, UDF 2.5 is built-in. Also, Apple's DVD Player will play HD DVDs if they're mastered with DVD Studio Pro (i.e. not encrypted).

Don't buy ReadDVD! by Software Architects to get UDF 2.5, 2.6 support for Tiger. It does not work.

Re:News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148689)

How is this news while the Mac Blue Screen problem upon upgrade thing isn't mentioned anywhere on the front page? (It was news on other sites yesterday.)

Because no one submitted an article about the Mac Blue Screen issue that was interesting enough to make it to the main page. That's really all there is to it.

There isn't really any sort of why is this newsworthy and another issue isn't. Nothing that people were interested in was submitted, so it is not on the front page.

Re:News? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148797)

fuck you

Re:News? (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149059)

Completely agree. No matter what anyone else says on this thread you know that if Vista was bluescreening on an upgrade it would have made SlashDot.

Re:News? (1)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149075)

How is this news while the Mac Blue Screen problem upon upgrade thing isn't mentioned anywhere on the front page? (It was news on other sites yesterday.)

It will be on Slashdot - you're just a few months early.

Re:News? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149309)

I hadn't heard of it, but reading the story elsewhere I can say I have had no problem with the latest update on my 4-core Mac Pro.

I'm not seeing it on the Firehose. Perhaps you'd like to submit it?

I have had a different problem where the system wouldn't take me to the login screen, sticking on the blue background. Pulling the iPod Shuffle from its USB dock immediately resolves that problem. It just doesn't like having it connected at startup.

Looking forward to this! (3, Interesting)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147099)

I still have the old Intel Rhapsody DR2 disks lying around, and would love to see if this can read the filesystem. It's kind of fun playing around it what was NeXT with a MacOS interface, and at times I almost would rather have it than what OS X became, if only to eliminate the stupid gimmicks.

Sounds great. (4, Interesting)

solios (53048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147115)

Especially if I ever need to recover one of my linux box's drives from a Mac.

But really, all I want for christmas is NTFS write support.

Re:Sounds great. (5, Informative)

DarthStrydre (685032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147193)

NTFS-3G which works with MacFUSE has full NTFS write support. It is, however, much slower at reading than the native NTFS read-only driver.

Re:Sounds great. (2, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 4 years ago | (#26148895)

So why can't you use the native NTFS read-only driver for reads and the NTFS-3G driver for writes?

Re:Sounds great. (1)

j-cloth (862412) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149459)

And it has a nasty tendency to corrupt the volume when the power goes out. I haven't had to do so many disk repairs since FAT16.

Re:Sounds great. (2, Informative)

JonLatane (750195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147391)

Merry Christmas [blogspot.com]. NTFS-3G is more than fast enough to read documents from your Windows partitions. The only time its slower speeds will really be a noticeable problem, in my experience, is if you run OS X applications from your NTFS disk. But why would you keep your OS X applications on an NTFS volume?

Re:Sounds great. (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147839)

Or you keep Steam on your windows parition and don't feel like rebooting to get your TF2 fix, so you load it up via crossover. And let me tell you, it is NOT fast enough for that. Load times are considerably longer than in Windows - Garry's Mod is nearly unplayable due to it taking around 30 minutes to load a map.

Re:Sounds great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148501)

From my own experiences, that's attributed to Crossover, and not the fact that the content is residing on an NTFS partition.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the same boat you are - but Steam and it's counterparts (mostly anything done with the Source engine) is going to chug, hard, when you throw Crossover at it, regardless of the filesystem that it resides within.

Geek (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147135)

The practical value of all this may not be that great for 99% of the users out there, but I really understand the geek value of this all. It's like when I experimented calling a Volume Shadow Copy provider I wrote in C# from my Delphi application. Just for fun. I could have done this easier using only Delphi or C# only, but my point was just to see if it was possible. And it was cool, for me anyway.

Re:Geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147467)

"The practical value of all this may not be that great for 99% of the users out there..."

Ah, but there is also SSHFS for MacFUSE. Now I'd say that being able to GUI browse any box that is running SSH just increased the audience somewhat. It has done wonders for my mixed environment.

Re:Geek (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147603)

They aren't providing a GUI for sshfs on macfuse anymore

Re:Geek (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147889)

Apple dropped the Finder?

Re:Geek (1)

koehn (575405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148125)

There used to be a GUI app which sort of helped you mount SSHFS volumes, but it was very unsupported and I could never get it to work at all.

I built sshfs for MacFUSE 1, and the binaries still work under MacFuse 2, which is handy. However, it was an PITA to build, as MacFuse had to generate the makefiles for sshfs, gettext, et al. If you followed the directions it did work, but it took a long time to get running.

A GUI sshfs that was supported and worked would be a great addition. A protocol helper would be even better, so that I could tell somebody to hit command K from the Finder, enter "sshfs:user@host:/path" and hit return and have the volume show up on their desktop.

Sadly I don't have the time to put it together.

Re:Geek (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148757)

Oh, I see. I just put a call to mount my share in a launchd config file and let the Finder deal with the details of using it. OS X sees the ssh file system as a mount in /Volumes, and treats it like any other disk (image).

Re:Geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26149235)

http://www.macfusionapp.org/ [macfusionapp.org]

"Macfusion is an open source Mac application that allows you to work with files on servers across the internet, as if they were sitting on your computer. Macfusion presents a Volume in Finder, letting you use your favorite Mac applications to work with them."

http://www.macfusionapp.org/about.html [macfusionapp.org]

Re:Geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148579)

Uhm... wtf? What about Finder?

MacFusion (1)

drewness (85694) | more than 4 years ago | (#26148935)

They aren't providing a GUI for sshfs on macfuse anymore

I was disappointed about that too until I discovered MacFusion [macfusionapp.org], which is like the sshfs GUI app, but does any FS that MacFUSE supports.

crap (1)

drewness (85694) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149033)

It actually just supports sshfs and ftpfs at the moment, but people could write plugins for it to support other FUSE plugins.

ext3 (5, Insightful)

fracai (796392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147323)

What is needed is an ext3 implementation. There've been projects to bring ext2/3 to the Mac, but so far they've been incomplete and abandoned.

I'm actually pretty surprised that this hasn't been properly implemented already.

Other file systems to port... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147365)

...might include DEC's AdvFS, whose framework was recently released by HP. Yes, it would need some tidying up and porting, but couple that with an Alpha emulator and someone could run Tru64 UNIX apps and their data on a Mac...

Read disks from OSs like FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147483)

> which means its now possible to read disks from
> OS's like FreeBSD,

I'm reasonably certain that you can read ufs/ffs file systems, and have been since 10.0.

Hm. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147491)

A plethora of new user space filesystems for OS X and they didn't include the most common Linux filesystems? That seems odd.

ext2 on Mac (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147495)

A couple years old, but ext2fsx [sourceforge.net] still works.

Re:ext2 on Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26147673)

Not very well. Wouldn't work for me on Leopard 10.5.5. It would kind of work.

Re:ext2 on Mac (3, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147705)

If by "works" you mean "i have a 10.3 panther PPC machine and need non-journaling access to an ext3 partition", or "i have a tiger/leopard Intel machine and don't care if my machine suddenly panics". Those are the choices at the moment.

It's curious really, this is a filesystem for which the spec is very well known, implementations are available fully open source, and yet here we are with unmaintained and unstable projects that are alpha quality for both OS X and Windows. The drivers for Windows ext2/3 support cause bluescreens under various conditions, so yea those are alpha too.

Re:ext2 on Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148715)

I think by "works" they mean, it works.

I haven't had any issues accessing ext3 on Leopard. Sure, it can't do journaling, but reading is plenty. Just plug the drive back into my Linux box and do a fsck for safety's sake.

So what? (-1, Troll)

Brad_McBad (1423863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147655)

Ummm... Why bother? If the functionality is really *that* important, why not just install Linux, which already has support for these filesystems? I mean, if you've got a hard on for a proprietary OS that crashes just as much as modern versions of windows do (albeit with less bloat) then I get it. But only then.

Re:So what? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147831)

Yes, if you need support for a filesystem, changing the entire operating system around that need makes much more sense.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

inKubus (199753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147837)

External hard drives, for one. I have some external drives I use on Linux boxes for various things. All of these boxes are up in an air conditioned server room. On occasion I need to get one file off onto my workstation, which is a Mac. Currently I have to walk it up to server room, connect it up, go back down, shell into the machine and mount it (if it's not an automounted drive), then somehow get the file out of the linux box to my Mac (scp or something). If I could just mount it on my workstation, it would save a lot of time.

Additionally, there are occasions where a recovery process needs to be run on a bad drive. The same procedure applies. It's mainly a convenience thing, but it would make the Mac into a much more useful tool for admins. I can definitely see the usefulness for FAT/NTFS in a desktop support environment.

Naturally you can always comment "Why use a Mac in the first place when you could have a linux desktop?" but I would reply that I don't have a choice, the CEO only buys Macs for workstations. So I have to use what I've got. This would make my life easier.

Re:So what? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149041)

Naturally you can always comment "Why use a Mac in the first place when you could have a linux desktop?"

Why not both at the same time?

Re:So what? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148141)

Ummm... Why bother?

Do you ever run a virtualization program (VMWare, VirtualPC, QEmu, VirtualBox, etc.) on your Mac? Ever had a situation where you wish you could move files from the host to the client? Tired of creating ISOs just to move files back and forth?

Well, have we go a solution for you!!!! ;-)

(Call now! Operators are standing by!)

Re:So what? (1)

Piranhaa (672441) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149365)

VMWare and Parallels have drag+drop support from host to VM (unsure about the others). If others don't have that, they at least have a shared folder support. This is what drag+drop is essentially, except it moves the copied files to the location at which you dragged the file into.

But back to the OP... Some people DO migrate data from one OS to another. People DO move from Windows to Mac, Mac to Linux, Linux to Mac, etc. Using your philosophy, we should all just stick to ONE OS, with ONE filesystem, essentially eliminating any innovation. Wait, I think that's already been tried before ...

Re:So what? (1, Flamebait)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148221)

Spoken like a person who knows nothing about the joys of coding and having fun seeing what you can do with your computer system. Congratulations on working a bit of flamebait in there too - your comment is a double whammy of stupidity.

Every filesystem! Except the ones that matter... (1, Flamebait)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26147843)

So it supports and insane number of filesystems just not the two most popular ones?

Insane's the word...

Re:Every filesystem! Except the ones that matter.. (4, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148271)

No, NTFS has support via NTFS3G. The other popular file system, FAT, is already supported natively.

Re:Every filesystem! Except the ones that matter.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148465)

So it supports and insane number of filesystems just not the two most popular ones?

It's true that FUSE doesn't support the #1 most popular file system, but it doesn't need to. FAT is already supported by every major OS.

For the sake of argument, let's not count 9660 and UDF, which are also built-in to most OSes.

FUSE does support NTFS, which is #2.

HFS is probably in 3rd place, with ext* rather farther down the list.

FUSE for Windows (2, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148067)

Also, it seems to be a good time to plug Dokan and my FUSE4Win project :)

There's a wonderful project named "Dokan" (http://dokan-dev.net/en/), it makes posssible to write user-space filesystem in Windows.

I've adapted FUSE interface for it, so it's possible to use (almost) unmodified FUSE filesystems in Windows: http://hg.sharesource.org/fuse4win [sharesource.org]

Currently, SSHFS works fine. NTFS3g also works :)

cool, now lets make in run on linux (2, Flamebait)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148153)

Too bad it for the mac, lets make it work under Ubuntu so it can be useful to those of us who don't want to overpay for our hardware.

Re:cool, now lets make in run on linux (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148321)

You're supposed to flaimebait anonymously.

Re:cool, now lets make in run on linux (1)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149283)

Or at least not stupidly and non-anonymously - FUSE was around for Linux before it came out for OS X...

You just can't get good flamebait these days...

Re:cool, now lets make in run on linux (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#26148981)

I don't get it... are you genuinely that clueless, or just retarded?

Re:cool, now lets make in run on linux (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#26148999)

Ok. I got it to work. Any way you could forward some of that savings from overpay on to me? me@nigeria.com.

Here are the instructions. I tried to make it simple
sudo apt-get install fuse-utils fusesmb unionfs-fusentfs-3g.

For some additional support I'll try to get other file systems.

A Plethora? (5, Funny)

Ignatius D'Lusional (1010911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148461)

Jefe: I have put many beautiful new user space filesystems in the Mac OS X, each of them filled with little suprises.
El Guapo: Many new user space filesystems?
Jefe: Oh yes, many!
El Guapo: Would you say I have a plethora of new user space filesystems?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, you have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?

3 Mac OS X generations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26148773)

He talks about 3 generation of Mac OS X where one is censored or illegal. Anyone know what he meant? *confused*

Re:3 Mac OS X generations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26149121)

It is: **CENSORED**
Was **CENSORED** by **CENSORED** because of **CENSORED** in **CENSORED**.

ReiserFS (1)

jkirby (97838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148779)

What! No ReiserFS support; sounds like discrimination against a convicted murderer to me.

Jamey

I for one... (1)

Monkey_Genius (669908) | more than 5 years ago | (#26148793)

welcome the ability to compile and run ancient PDP-11 binaries on my shiny new Mac..."values of B will give rise to dom!"

FUSE vs. FST (2, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#26148877)

Apple's GS/OS had FSTs (File System Translators) that allowed that operating system to access HFS, ProDOS, DOS 3.3, and FAT volumes. How does FUSE compare in function to GS/OS's FSTs? You know, apart from working with non-obsolete hardware.

FUSE is open source (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26148949)

As such, this means FUSE is less reliable, poorly documented, MUCH harder to use, and is chock full of bugs.

OS X is proof positive that closed source is superior to open source in every way.

Thank you APPLE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26148909)

Thank you Apple for making all of this possible.

If it weren't for Apple, Unix and open source would be dead and all of this history and cool code would be gone.

So once again, THANK YOU APPLE. For doing what no one else can or could ever do.

Think different. Think better. THINK APPLE.

Re:Thank you APPLE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26149281)

Nobody at apple moved a finger for this. One of the main developers is from google, a lot of work came from the fuse project. So you should thank the open source community.

UFS (1)

AkumaKuruma (879423) | more than 4 years ago | (#26149119)

I find it odd that they used the linux implementation to mount UFS instead of the FreeBSD version which OSX(Darwin) is based upon already
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...