On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 14:31 -0800, ron minnich wrote: > FUSE won. It's easy, it works, and it has cross-platform support > (macos/linux).
It certainly looks that way. It also certainly looks like I have to study it. Do you guys have any good pointers and/or wisdom in that department? I'd be happy to take answers off the list, btw. > 9p is not going to replace fuse now, if ever, on these systems. > > That's not to say that 9p goes away. But it's not worth worrying about > whether FUSE will have more users -- it already has and it probably > always will. Fair enough. But that begs the next question: realistically speaking, what is the right area for 9P to be used these days? Where would it be the perfect fit in cases where Plan9/Inferno are not there to leverage it? > That said, what's the "resource sharing protocol" for fuse? Are you talking about this: http://fuse.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/FuseProtocolSketch It is riddled with POSIX inspired quirks as far as I can tell but given enough thrust this particular pig surely can be made airborne. Or so it appears after an hour or so of cursory read ;-) > None of those file systems has a common wire protocol AFAICT. Those servers > are hooks from kernel to user to "something". FUSE is not for resource > sharing, is it? It's for making it easy to write file systems for > Linux users. That depends on the point of view: very few things talk 9P natively, most of the resource sharing is done via a hoge-podge of protocols that, unfortunately, already exist. I wish I had control over the server *and* the client in which case 9P would be a perfect fit. But I don't. I have to hook up with what's already there. And FUSE, as I realize now, seems to fit the bill quite nicely. It is available on quite a few OSes and the list of resource sharing protocols for which adapters are already available seems to be quite large. Thanks, Roman.
