Beta
×

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!

FUSE Port Brings NTFS Support To OS X

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the circuit-breaker dept.

OS X 150

sciurus0 writes "In his session at Macworld on OS X filesytems, Google's Amit Singh announced that he has ported Linux's FUSE module to OS X. The port is called MacFUSE and it is available in source form and as a pre-compiled kernel extension with associated tools. Many FUSE filesystems such as sshfs and ntfs-3g are reported to work."

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wow what (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17643582)

FR0ST PS1T lololol

gnaa4life

Excellent (0)

Compaq_Hater (911468) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643598)

I am gonna have to try this out when i get the chance.

ch

GmailFS also (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17643608)

GmailFS [jones.name] should also now be easily supported on Mac OS X using MacFuse.

FUSE for Windows (4, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643614)

I'm writing FUSE for Windows at my spare time (not much of it, unfortunately). Is there anybody who's doing the same?

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643672)

Is this going to use the same modules as FUSE for linux? This sounds interesting. I'm willing to test when you feel reasonable it won't make my machine particularly unstable for windows.

Re:FUSE for Windows (4, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643692)

Yes, if they don't use any Linux/Unix-specific features. User-space part of FUSE, however, will have be modified (because there's no fork() in Windows).

Release is FAAAAAAAAR away now, I expect to get something working in 3-4 months.

Re:FUSE for Windows (3, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643984)

Filesystems in Windows are a different animal to what they are in other OS's.. *way* harder. If you ever checkout the ntfsd list you'll see how many odd cases you have to handle because people make this mistake almost daily (oddly enough most of them are trying to do encryption).

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644172)

Yes, I found that the hard way. Kernel-level interface for filesystems in Windows is %$#%$TY$@$&*^.

I'm not going to cover all possible cases (particularly, I don't even want to try to replicate Unix behavior with deletion of open files). My current aim is to port sshfs and zipfs.

Re:FUSE for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644532)

Please add davfs2 [sourceforge.net] to your goal. It would be so nice to have a DAV implementation on Windows that doesn't suck. W2k was fine, but I've had nothing but problems with XP when any authentication is enabled. It also fails to work when using TLS/SSL (W2K also).

Thanks and good luck.

Re:FUSE for Windows (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644002)

(because there's no fork() in Windows)

If there's no fork, then how do you eat your meat (and consequently get the pudding)?

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

WindowsIsForArseWipe (990338) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644052)

in that case you're forked

Re:FUSE for Windows (2, Funny)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644238)

Windows developers have to use threads and fibers:)

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647792)

If there's no fork, then how do you eat your meat (and consequently get the pudding)?


Obviously fingers won't work...

Re:FUSE for Windows (3, Funny)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649828)

I only dream of a world with No Fork-in Windows

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650316)

YOU THERE! Behind the curtain...

Stay away from the Windows.

Re:FUSE for Windows (5, Funny)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645788)

there's no fork() in Windows

You don't need to stick a fork() in. It's easy to see that Windows is done.

Re:FUSE for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17643732)

I'm willing to test when you feel reasonable it won't make my machine particularly unstable for windows.

Your jokes suck!

Re:FUSE for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17643688)

I'm writing FUSE for Windows at my spare time (not much of it, unfortunately). Is there anybody who's doing the same?

No.

Re:FUSE for Windows (-1)

WindowsIsForArseWipe (990338) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643996)

surely you jest?

1) There is no difference between userspace and kernal space on windows*
2) windows already has NTFS in kernel space
3) see  1 and 2 windows has NTFS in user space
4) why reinvent the wheel?

* see gaping security holes and history of including kitchen sink in the kernel.

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644180)


surely you jest?

1) There is no difference between userspace and kernal space on windows*
2) windows already has NTFS in kernel space
3) see 1 and 2 windows has NTFS in user space
4) why reinvent the wheel?


The subject said "FUSE for Windows". Check out FUSE, do the math.

Re:FUSE for Windows (4, Informative)

odie_q (130040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644198)

FUSE is a general Filesystem-in-userspace driver, supporting a long list [sourceforge.net] of filesystems.

So with FUSE ported, Windows users can also enjoy in-filesystem versioning, seamless ssh integration, RAR files as folders and so on.

Re:FUSE for Windows (4, Interesting)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649244)

So with FUSE ported, Windows users can also enjoy in-filesystem versioning, seamless ssh integration, RAR files as folders and so on.

Why is this such a great goal, when FS developers have been trying to meet the basic features of NTFS already...

NTFS already does journalling, has file versioning (far beyond what any *nix FS does), encyrption, compression, and with Win32, zip and rar integration.

The trick in writing a FS for Windows isn't so much a NT issue, but how Win32 see the FS and what it expects to be there. This can best be demonstrated with the Unix subsystem on Windows, or how NFS is handled.

BTW, this is kind of a baited post to see how well people really do understand NTFS and also what they are trying to accomplish.

For developers interested there are some good resources and help on writing FS for NT, like at: http://www.osronline.com/cf.cfm?PageURL=showlists. CFM?list=NTFSD [osronline.com]

Take Care...

Re:FUSE for Windows (5, Informative)

raynet (51803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644236)

Well, FUSE is not NTFS. FUSE allows you to write userspace filesystem modules via stable and fairly simple API. Thus if you had FUSE for Windows, you could add new filesystems to Windows with relative ease. Also you could port the same modules to Mac, Linux and BSD or vice versa.

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644314)

Yes there is a difference, the kernel runs on ring 0, and some drivers like the graphics drivers do, some dont, they run on different protection levels, and some run on real userspace some run on a space between user and kernel. The main problem will come with limited user accounts being the default installation, then something like fuse will be heavens sent!

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

thaig (415462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644832)

Intriguing idea. Have you got a website for this effort?

I have been thinking about making a FUSE filesystem for Linux and having it on Windows as well would be a great advantage.

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645082)

Not yet, I'm slowly rewriting parts of ext2 driver for Windows. It's in my private SVN repository and I can't figure out how to upload it to Google.Code or SF.net without losing history.

I hope to have my very own Slashdot story when I finish porting :)

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Azarael (896715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648720)

Maybe a sript like cvstosvn could be modified to do a full project(starting from ci #1) co and ci into the target repo? It might put a lot of traffic on target server, but I can't see why it couldn't work.

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648970)

A fellow ./er told me that it's possible to use SVK to push changes from one repository to another. I'll try to do it during my next weekend.

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Azarael (896715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649252)

Yeah, that looks like a handy tool as well. I'll have to bookmark that site for later.

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

Azarael (896715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648858)

Correction, I meant cvs2svn
Here's the project page http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/ [tigris.org]

Re:FUSE for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17647538)

http://www.sftpdrive.com/ [sftpdrive.com]

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647576)

This would be great, as then Windows would be able to read (and presumably write) to HFS+ file systems. I could finally use my Mac-formatted iPod on a windows machine!

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

elfurbe (759480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648400)

Or you could use XPlay [mediafour.com] from MediaFour (the folks that brought you MacDrive forever and three days ago) to do the same thing three years ago when the 2G was hot shit. Seriously, did you ever even bother to look? Did you know MacDrive [mediafour.com] or MacOpener [dataviz.com] existed? I kid you not, sir, you can read and write Mac formatted disks on your PC TODAY, right this very instant in fact. I have done these magiks myself. This would not be new technology, just a possibly free incarnation of it.

Re:FUSE for Windows (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648562)

Yes, I was aware they existed and I have used MacOpener in the past. It worked well and I was always happy with it; I was excited about a free alternative.

Re:FUSE for Windows (2, Interesting)

Foolhardy (664051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649058)

I have thought about porting FUSE in the past, since it'd be a great way to enable lots of filesystems in Windows but haven't gotten out of the planning stage. I'd be very interested in helping to make that happen. I have some experience [dyndns.org] in writing Windows NT filesystem drivers.

I don't know how you've planned the userspace, but I'd suggest that you make it NOT dependent on Win32. It'd be much easier to implement features like fork (which Win32 doesn't support, but native processes do). Also, native process programming follows a lot of the same conventions that kernel programming does; the code would be more consistent and lightweight. Besides, it seems unlikely that FUSE would require Win32-specific features.

Please let me know if you get a source repository up.

FUSE? (1, Redundant)

true_hacker (969330) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643644)

Can anone point out what 'FUSE' is? --- I know i am lazy, no need to state the obvious.

Re:FUSE? (4, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643662)

Can anone point out what 'FUSE' is?
Runs filesystems in userspace.

Re:FUSE? (4, Informative)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645620)

I saw that definition when I first heard about FUSE and thought "Okay, so what's userspace?" For those who don't know: Userspace is the thing you're using right now. Rather than having the filesystem buried down deep in the bowels of the system, FUSE puts it above most of the stuff the OS does. That way, you can tell the OS things like "See those collection of Gmail messages to myself or RAR files or tarballs? That's a filesystem. You can move stuff onto and off of it just like another disk." FUSE is an easy, open source way of writing things that use unconventional storage methods for files.

Re:FUSE? (4, Informative)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643696)

Can anone point out what 'FUSE' is?---I know i am lazy, no need to state the obvious.


Try http://fuse.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] - basically, when I hear of an Open Source project I've not heard of before, I just go to "nameofprojectgoeshere.sourceforge.net", and (more often than not) there it is. And there it was. :)

Re:FUSE? (2, Informative)

mehemiah (971799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646460)

that's just the linux version. The Mac version is hosted by googleCode [slashdot.org] and its probibly going to be on the first page for a while, otherwise just search for macFuse.

Re:FUSE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17643910)

Lazy? You're doing it the hard way. It would have taken you less time to type it into your Firefox Wikipedia Lookup Extension [mozilla.org] or your Google home page/Wikipedia widget [google.com] than it did to post that comment.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspa ce [wikipedia.org] :

Filesystem in Userspace (FUSE) is a Free (GPL and LGPL'ed) Unix kernel module that allows non-privileged users to create their own file systems without the need to write any kernel code. This is achieved by running the file system code in user space, while the FUSE module only provides a "bridge" to the actual kernel interfaces. FUSE was officially merged into the mainstream Linux kernel tree in kernel version 2.6.14.

FUSE is not limited to, but particularly useful for writing virtual file systems. As opposed to traditional filesystems which essentially save data to and retrieve data from disk, virtual filesystems do not actually store data themselves. They act as a view or translation of an existing filesystem or storage device. In principle, any resource available to FUSE implementation can be exported as a file system. See Examples for some of the possible applications.

The FUSE system was originally part of the A Virtual Filesystem (AVFS) project, but has since split off into its own project on SourceForge.

FUSE is also available on FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, and Mac OS X.

And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs-3g [wikipedia.org]

NTFS-3G is an open source, freely available NTFS driver for Linux. Unlike the NTFS driver included in the Linux kernel, its support for writing files has very little limitations: files of any size can be created, renamed or deleted on NTFS partitions, with the exception of compressed and encrypted files. ntfs-3g cannot yet modify Access control lists and permissions. NTFS partitions are mounted using the "FUSE" userland file system framework.

NTFS-3G is free software licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.


There you go.

Re:FUSE? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646222)

In layman's terms, FUSE is an operating system driver that allows you to use a regular application as a file system driver. i.e. Instead of installing a special kernel module or DLL file, you simply run an application. Since you can pass parameters to that application, it becomes ideal for tasks like mounting ZIP files or SMB shares. Basically, stuff that's very transient and could otherwise crash your system. In the case of FUSE, your system is protected against a crash in the same way it's protected against any application crash.

Re:FUSE? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17647696)

Additionally: if you link it into your application's address space, filesystem operations become zero-copy "for free". Multithreaded drivers are also a snap, and don't cause priority inversion problems for everything else, only consumers of the filesystem.

Hmm, maybe there is something to that whole microkernel thing, eh Linus?

The creator of FUSE... (4, Informative)

little1973 (467075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643750)

...Miklos Szeredi was offered a job by SUSE Labs, Prague, which he accepted. His job will be kernel developement for SUSE (all GPL, of course). IIRC, he can work on FUSE in 10% of his work time.

Re:The creator of FUSE... (3, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644642)

So, FUSE will now fuse with SUSE?-)

But seriously, I wonder how this relates to the SUSE-Novell-Microsoft connections... That's a nice implementation of NTFS you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

Re:The creator of FUSE... (1)

hachete (473378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646414)

so will SUSE abuse FUSE and loose it's users?

Thankyou, thankyou. Try the chicken, I'll be here all week.

Re:The creator of FUSE... (2, Informative)

kobaz (107760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647390)

You did great up until you misspelled lose :(

Re:The creator of FUSE... (1)

kb (43460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647722)

It's "loosen". Though they should take care at SUSE that they don't loosen their FUSE users too much because there's the danger they could lose them ;)

Precompiled read/write NTFS packages (5, Informative)

irgu (673471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643812)

The original NTFS-3G [ntfs-3g.org] source code doesn't compile on Mac OS X without some changes but the MacFUSE and NTFS-3G precompiled packages [iusethis.com] are available from IUseThis.

Re:Precompiled read/write NTFS packages (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17643920)

Great for dual booting? (2, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643862)

Boot camp users, care to comment on the implications?

Re:Great for dual booting? (2, Informative)

LEgregius (550408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646102)

I have bootcamp installed. I can already READ my ntfs partition from OS X. No write support. FUSE does have some write support, so that's handy. I may use it.

Re:Great for dual booting? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647154)

I was curious about this as well. I couldn't get the article to open at work, so I can only surmise what it said from the comments thus far. My question is, will this allow me to read and write to my XP partition (can only read now), or will it allow me to access the XP partition over the network, without being booted up in XP mode?

Great News! (2, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643964)

This is great news! Finally, there's an easy way to develop filesystems for multiple operating systems. Maybe I'll pick up my netfs project again now. Anyone working on porting FUSE to *BSD?

Re:Great News! (3, Informative)

jack_csk (644290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644494)

I'm not sure about NetBSD and OpenBSD, but then fusefs support is already in FreeBSD.

By the way, I have decided not to upgrade my OS X until Apple includes out-of-the-box sshfs (that's the one I used the most among those built on top of fuse) support into new version of the OS.

Doh. mount_ntfs is already there (2, Informative)

Tetard (202140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643994)

I use it everyday...

# which mount_ntfs /sbin/mount_ntfs

Re:Doh. mount_ntfs is already there (5, Informative)

irgu (673471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644166)

Mount_ntfs doesn't have full read/write possibility. NTFS-3G [ntfs-3g.org] has and it's commonly used on Linux.

nt3gfs has no ACLs, so its virtually worthless (1)

hildi (868839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646888)

unless you are just storing data.

Re:Doh. mount_ntfs is already there (2, Informative)

slamb (119285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644210)

From the manpage, mount_ntfs(8) has significant limitations:
There is limited writing ability. Limitations: file must be nonresident and must not contain any sparces (uninitialized areas); compressed files are also not supported.

I can't seem to find a straight definition of "nonresident files" in the context of NTFS, but my best guess from glancing over google results is that "resident" files are ones which have their contents in a small block embedded in the inode itself. That'd be an optimization to minimize internal fragmentation on small files. If I'm right, a Windows-produced NTFS is likely to have a lot of these files. Not sure if OS X can't write to them at all, or if it will just make them non-resident when it does so.

good (0, Flamebait)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644188)

If there is one thing Ive had trouble with its getting Windows and Mac to talk to each other. External hard drives wont work from one to the other(last I checked), networking isnt possible(last I checked). Ive been forced to use CD-Rs in the past. Hopefully now I can use that external hard drive.

Re:good (1)

dasmoo (1052358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644252)

Uh, I dunno if you've used a Mac before, but I'm pretty sure that since OSX they've understood NTFS drives. Sure, no writing, but that's why you convert all your drives to HFS+. It reads Internal, External or Anal, whichever I chuck at it. Also, my windows machine seems to be able to handle the mac drives. As long as I'm using MacDrive (the application, not the drive itself)

That's the problem. (3, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646178)

Sure, no writing, but that's why you convert all your drives to HFS+

That's kind of a huge limitation. There are lots of times when you might want to share a drive back and forth between a Windows and Mac machine, and it's not possible or desirable to run MacDrive on the Windows side (and having for format the drive with FAT32 sucks mightily).

Letting the Mac understand NTFS is a good thing, because it provides for more interoperability. The only downside to it, is that it might cause people to think of NTFS as a good inter-operable standard, rather than the disgusting, proprietary, Redmond Albatross that it is.

Plus, being able to use SSH as a filesystem is pretty slick, and will probably get more use than the NTFS part. KDE's implementation of SSH-as-filesystem (called fish:// [kde.org] ) is darned slick, and I've always thought that Apple was missing out by not having something like it.

Re:That's the problem. (0)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647484)

The only downside to it, is that it might cause people to think of NTFS as a good inter-operable standard, rather than the disgusting, proprietary, Redmond Albatross that it is.

Wow. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

Re:That's the problem. (1)

hawaiian717 (559933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647932)

KDE's implementation of SSH-as-filesystem (called fish:// [kde.org]) is darned slick

Interesting, hadn't heard of this before and just tried it. Is there any advantage to using fish:// instead of sftp:// in Konqueror (aside from it might work with servers that have the SFTP subsystem disabled)?

Re:That's the problem. (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651764)

I think "works when SFTP won't" is the only other big advantage.

I did some quick Googling on the subject of Fish versus SFTP, and apparently: "The fish kio...relies [only] on the ssh [server] providing a unix shell, then it uploads a simple server program written in perl. A beautiful hack and handy if sftp is not available on your ssh server, but nowhere near the performance or reliability of sftp." From here [ubuntu.com] .

So if the server you're connecting to supports SFTP, and you're only going to be doing file transfers, you might as well use it. But FISH will work even in situation were SFTP isn't supported, and your only way in is via SSH.

Re:That's the problem. (2, Informative)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650908)

KDE's implementation of SSH-as-filesystem (called fish://) is darned slick, and I've always thought that Apple was missing out by not having something like it.

FUSE isn't like it - in at least some ways, it's better. FUSE makes it work at the UN*X API level, which means that even non-KDE applications, such as grep, can use it.

Re:good (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646304)

Sure, no writing, but that's why you convert all your drives to HFS+.

Good point! I'm converting all my NTFS drives as we speak. I assume that Windows will still be able to read from them afterwards or you would have mentioned it? I sure hope so!

It reads Internal, External or Anal, whichever I chuck at it.

I know that Apple tends to be associated with homosexuality, but I think you're taking things a bit too far.

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644264)

Err. I can sort of go along with the external HDD thing. As long as you don't want to use fat32, which both systems handle fine.

Not sure how you can't get a win and mac machine to talk to each other on the network. I use samba/smb to transfer to all of my systems. That seems to work fine. Could also use ftp if you really had to.

Unless you're talking os 9. I don't have the experience to comment on that.

Re:good (2, Funny)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644282)

Um... maybe by "last I checked" you mean the 1990s?

Re:good (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644318)

Just go to sharing in system preferences and click for enable windows sharing.

Job done. It even tells you where to point your windows pc to.

Re:good (1)

CapnOats.com (805246) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644352)

Troll? What year is this?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/windows/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/websharing/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jun/23server. html [apple.com]

That last one is a press release from June 2003 where they talk about Samba 3 in Mac OS X.

Plus you could always format the ext. drive with FAT32 and pretty much every modern OS could access it.

Hell, if you were that determined you could simply pipe dd through netcat and be done with it.

Re:good (1)

Undertaker43017 (586306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644648)

I use MacDrive6 on my Windows boxes and format all of my external drives as HFS drives. Now I have fully read/write capability on OSX, Linux and Windows, without the limitations of FAT32. It isn't free, but it certainly makes life easier when moving external drives between different OS's.

Re: Macs Do Speak Windows (3, Informative)

Telephone Sanitizer (989116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644842)

Macs running OS X have built-in Windows file sharing -- you can share files from the Mac and you can connect to Windows network-shares. Windows Active Directory and VPN might complicate things a bit, but offer no more problems from a Mac than they do from the average Windows PC.

As for sharing an external hard drive, while Macs only read NTFS volumes, they can both read and write to FAT32 volumes which are compatible with Windows as well. There are, however, limitations to FAT32 such as the 2GB maximum file-size which might make that a less-than-optimum solution.

Another alternative is to purchase a commercial product such as MacDrive, which allows Windows PC's to access hard drives that have been initialized with the Mac (HFS+) file system.

Re: Macs Do Speak Windows (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645180)

Actually, the maximum file size on FAT32 is 4GB, but that's still pretty small.

Re:good (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645122)

The two worst-connected computers I currently use are my Mac Plus and my TRS-80. It seems like neither one will connect to Windows 3.0. I'm not even sure where I'm supposed to stick the ethernet thingy.

Next time I'm buying the Commodore 128 or something else that can run GEOS!

Re:good (2, Informative)

CityZen (464761) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650752)

For the Mac Plus, there was a SCSIethernet box you could get. Pretty straightforward installation.

For the TRS-80, your best bet may be running SLIP or PPP over a serial or parallel interface. Of course, viewing web pages in 128x64 block graphics might be something of a challenge.

Fortunately, Commodore 64/128's have an ethernet solution available. See http://www.dunkels.com/adam/tfe/ [dunkels.com]

Great! (3, Informative)

jack_csk (644290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644334)

I was waiting for the sshfs support on Mac OS X for a long time.
Thanks Google, you did us OS X users a great favorite!

Stability: SSHFS or MacFUSE at fault? (2, Interesting)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650980)

It's a great tool and one I have practical use for, but testing it out for work I've stumbled across what I consider to be an important issue. I've only tried SSHFS so far, and I haven't done any digging to see where the fault lies, but a dropped connection (either a dropped internet connection or an SSH session the server drops) really confuses the system. Messing about, I killed my internet connection during a read, and Finder hung until my the connection was restored. Another time, my session was killed for idleness by our server; when I tried to perform a read through Terminal, both Terminal and Finder crashed and took all of OS X with them.

The Man is King! (1)

KaeloDest (220375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644356)

Sounds less stupid than Sing is King!... But if you have been to his site in the last three years he really has more Raw understanding of the Mac, and incidentally just about every other OS that you have never heard of. Undoubtably he is the pulse of a new mac future.

          macFuse... Now that I will reserve judgement on. I am sure that it works at least a little, in the same way that HFS and NTFS were based on OS 2\Warp's HPFS, but having R\W support means I can now fix any ailing NTFS drive in my shop-- Typically I will get a drive in and the dell or HP that it was on will report the drive as dead, and it wont boot for a variety of reasons, I will plug it into a Mac an recover all of the data... Definately gonna use it.

Re:The Man is King! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17645554)

OS/2 Warp's HPFS is the basis for Mac OS's HFS+? What parallel universe do you live in?

Re:The Man is King! (1)

jdp816 (895616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646298)

What? HPFS [wikipedia.org] came out in 1989. HFS came out in 1985. [wikipedia.org] NTFS [wikipedia.org] came out in 1993. Both HPFS and NTFS were projects that MS was involved in. HFS predates both by at least 4 years. Who copied what?

Super, I'm running to install it! (1)

Optali (809880) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644702)

That's exactly the feature I expected This has always been a great concern for me, as I have no available Linux box at work. But now I am finally empowered to completely fuck up my NFTS partition and ruin gygabytes fo data and months of work from both, work and home. I love it! The perfect complement to NTFS' own native goodness!

How about ext3? (4, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644848)

How about ext3 support on Intel macs? I tried the sourceforge project about a year ago and it didn't work.

Yet more Linux - OSX leeching (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17645026)

Quick, name a single major peice of OSS that originated on OS X and was ported to Linux.

Apple/OSX == leech

Re:Yet more Linux - OSX leeching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649044)

I love it how stating a FACT (that OS X users/developers are leeches on the open source community, porting everything to OS X but giving nothing back) is moderated down as flamebait.

Here's a clue, mods, if you want to win an argument, you need to present counter arguments, not just silence those you disagree with.

Re:Yet more Linux - OSX leeching (0, Redundant)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649430)

Yeah, WTF is going on with the mods these days? For the last few weeks everything has been whacked. I've never seen anything as weird as (Score:0 Insightful) until recently. Things that are barely useful are +3 and anyone stating a fact might get -1 slapped on them. So, WTF? Over...

Re:Yet more Linux - OSX leeching (1)

sveinungkv (793083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650896)

They have given something back. For example the first Free software RTP/RTSP streaming server [wikipedia.org] was released by Apple.

Re:Yet more Linux - OSX leeching (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17652158)

Bonjour comes to mind :)

Now let's talk about Linux, and how it stole most of its OSS from HURD. Talk about a leech!

FIRhST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17645400)

There's 8o no matter how the most. Look Eat As possible? How

genneral problem with FUSE (2, Interesting)

hswerdfe (569925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17646028)

I love fuse it makes so many things so much easier.
mainly I use "sshfs". but the biggest problem I have is the same problem I have with KDE-IOSlaves.
is that you can't really chain them

It makes it easy to Open a Zip/Rar file as a folder, and it makes it easy to treat an FTP server as a folder. but what about a Zip File on an FTP server?

I just wish there was some easy way to allow the FTP/SSH file systems to recognize that a Zip File as folder.

or chain to Zip with Encryption.
or Encryption with Subversion.
all at the file system level.
any way thats my rant, but the FUSE effort is brilliant in general.

Re:genneral problem with FUSE (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651136)

It makes it easy to Open a Zip/Rar file as a folder, and it makes it easy to treat an FTP server as a folder. but what about a Zip File on an FTP server?

Mount the FTP server as a file system. Once you've done that, you now have, in your file system name space, a Zip file. Mount that Zip file. References to it, or the files in it, will be passed to the user-space zipfs, which will do I/O to the Zip file. That I/O will be passed to the user-space ftpfs, which will do FTP operations to get the file's contents.

Cocoa Fuse GUI (5, Interesting)

mgorbach228 (938559) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648348)

I'm working on a Cocoa GUI for FUSE (currently called MacFusion). The idea is that it loads plugins for supported filesystems (working right now on SSHFS, NTFS-3G and FTPFS at first). The plugins provide a configuration interface and code to mount/unmount. I'm hoping that this GUI will make FUSE goodness easily accessible to non-technical non-console people. In the future, it should be simple to support encfs, gmailfs, etc. This will be a FOSS project once a first build is ready. Anyone who wants to help is welcome, as are suggestions of any kind on the features/interface.

Google beat you to it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17651114)

Just out of curiosity: any idea how the dev team created those iconic click-to-mount file systems shown off in the tech talk?

Tried it and comments (3, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649204)

On reading about this I decided to install it on my Mac and see what it gives. While a great advancement, this is still a work in progress and still very much something for people familiar with the command line. The aspect that would change all this the ability to use FUSE based FS URLs in the Finder ( known issue [google.com] ), though this seems to be a limitation based on some private APIs needing to be made public, which I hope Apple resolves.

Re:Tried it and comments (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651050)

...though this seems to be a limitation based on some private APIs needing to be made public, which I hope Apple resolves.

To be precise, it's a limitation on a private plugin interface needing to be made public. Making an interface public means committing to the interface, making it harder to make changes if a design decision made at time T turns out not to have been the right thing to do at time T plus delta T. (That particular interface might well change very significantly in future releases. It might be "done" at some point in the future, at which point Apple might decide to make it public.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>