[HN Gopher] FUSE-T is a kext-less implementation of FUSE for mac... ___________________________________________________________________ FUSE-T is a kext-less implementation of FUSE for macOS that uses NFSv4 Author : nimish Score : 81 points Date : 2023-12-26 20:13 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | PlutoIsAPlanet wrote: | Why is there a GitHub and no source code? | fathyb wrote: | Does not answer your question directly, but related: | https://github.com/macos-fuse-t/fuse-t/issues/1#issuecomment... | | > The project consists of two components: libfuse and fuse-t | server. libfuse is LGPL licensed and can be downloaded from | here: macos-fuse-t/libfuse [1]. You can modify and build it as | you wish, the build instructions are provided in the README | file. The fuse-t server on the other hand is a proprietary | component, it's written in go and doesn't link to or includes | anything GPL related, all respective copyright owners are | mentioned in License.txt file [...] | | [1] https://github.com/macos-fuse-t/libfuse | kelnos wrote: | Weird that early in the issue comments the author claims | they're going to release source for fuse-t, but then later in | the comments changes course and says it's proprietary. Sounds | like they originally wanted to release it as open source, but | under a restrictive non-commercial license (which is fine, I | guess), but then has gone back on that promise. | | I'm not gonna be one of those "proprietary software is | immoral" people, but it just rubs me the wrong way to see | someone take a concept/protocol that was originally developed | in the open and released as open source (the Linux version of | FUSE itself), and then build something proprietary. | PlutoIsAPlanet wrote: | Especially something like FUSE where it's potentially the | middle man of personal data. | | If there's concern about other companies profiteering, | release it under a license that prevents such and those | companies can pay to license under something else. | | This approach could even be useful on Linux where fuse | isn't viable (e.g inside containers) | rgovostes wrote: | There are two FUSE implementations for macOS and neither is | open source, unfortunately. One reason: it's a critical | component of several profitable, commercial products, but the | authors of then-open source FUSE implementations found that | none of those companies were willing to financially support | their work. | | Those authors also haven't seemed interested in crowdfunding | when it has been proposed. | xaerise wrote: | They actually tried with crowdfunding, but it didn't go well. | Mostly because German laws and other things. | krackers wrote: | See https://www.theregister.com/2019/12/16/fuse_macos_closed_ | sou... for more info. I wonder why a dual-licensing approach | was not pursued though, e.g. some viral license (AGPL?) for | the open-source part. This could have the same benefit of | getting companies to negotiate an explicit (paid) license | agreement while still making source available. | nextfx wrote: | I've been using mksquashfs to make full-system backups lately, | but had to resort to using unsquashfs for recovering files. This | combined with squashfuse might come in handy. | EdSchouten wrote: | Previously discussed here: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32726166 | Reason077 wrote: | It's surprising that given Apple's war on kexts, they still | haven't come out with a proper API for implementing local user- | space filesystems. It seems like this exists for remote | filesystems (eg: Google Drive, Dropbox), but not for filesystems | on local storage devices? | | This sounds like a nice workaround, though! | rgovostes wrote: | Yes, an Apple-supported API is likely coming. They've been | gradually providing userspace alternatives for kernel | extensions. Their API isn't likely to be FUSE but hopefully the | community will develop a translation layer. | | I wonder if one of the holdups is that they don't want a | profusion of filesystems and would prefer everyone use ExFAT or | APFS. Data loss/corruption ultimately results in more support | calls and headaches for them, after all. | duped wrote: | > they still haven't come out with a proper API for | implementing local user-space filesystems. | | They have, it's called a File Provider Extension (0). The major | downside is that it's extremely limited in what you can provide | and it's an _extension_ of the interface on top of APFS and not | a proper file system in user space. | | Frankly, I don't think Apple cares about creating features that | would interfere with their own offerings. User space file | systems (to them) are for remote storage. Users should use | iCloud. Apps that can't shim over iCloud should be file | provider extensions. | | If your app doesn't fit in those boxes then Apple doesn't care | about providing the APIs to implement it cleanly on their | platform. You can hack it through NFS. | | (0) https://developer.apple.com/documentation/fileprovider | comex wrote: | I'm not sure "interfere with their own offerings" is quite | the right framing. It's more about "going beyond their | imagined use case". | | iCloud Drive _is_ a File Provider. Third-party services that | want to do the same kind of file syncing as iCloud Drive, and | thus compete it with it, can. And there are several highly- | popular competitors that have recently moved to File | Provider, like Dropbox and Google Drive. But when they did so | they had to lose some functionality, like the ability to | store data on an external drive [1]. And for the less popular | use case of third-party filesystems that aren 't just for | syncing, File Provider is completely inapplicable. | | The box covers most of the use cases that most users are | using third-party filesystems for. But it's shrink-wrapped | around those use cases - no room to invent new ones. | | [1] https://talk.tidbits.com/t/dropbox-drops-support-for- | storing... | donatj wrote: | I wish everyone would just standardize on 9p already. It's | solid and has existed for going on thirty years. Microsoft uses | it for WSL, but afaik does provide the ability to access other | 9p servers. | mathiasgredal wrote: | What prevents Apple from just integrating MacFUSE(or a | reimplementation) into the their kernel, and then shipping it | with the next release? | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | I'd be shocked if there was any technical reason they couldn't; | if they haven't, they either don't care or actively don't want | to for some reason. (But yes, I think they could and a lot of | people would be very happy if they did) | pjmlp wrote: | Basically doesn't fit their roadmap. | mynegation wrote: | I upgraded my MBP after keeping MBP 2013 for 10 years and had to | go through the shamanic dance of booting Sonoma into the safe | mode, changing preferences and rebooting again to get macfuse | working and I would still prefer it to dealing with NFS. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-26 23:00 UTC)