On Sat August 25 2007 10:31:54 am John Ogness wrote:
> At first I wasn't very excited about this idea, but have since seen
> many advantages to FUSE. The biggest one being that it provides a
> common API for filesystems across different platforms (such as Linux,
> FreeBSD, NetBSD, MacOSX).
A big YES to FUSE, and a common api for unix-like OSs.
> Although initially exciting, [ClamFS's] performance was quite disappointing.
I use the Fuse based ntfs-3g to access my Windows partition. It is a little
bit slower than nfs, but acceptable. Maybe ClamFS is not optimized.
> (I have yet to test if it would work
> correctly for "advanced" features such as SElinux, Capabilities, or
> more exotic filesystems such as the stackable ecryptfs.)
This will be important.
> I am also debating posting to the Linux Kernel mailing list to ask
> their opinions. Would they prefer that DazukoFS is a kernel module or
> FUSE-based?
Opening a dialog couldn't hurt. SuSE has a dazuko-kmp-${flavour} .rpm, but
fedora/livna doesn't. I suspect it would be easier to get distros to include
your software if it is not a kernel module.
_______________________________________________
Dazuko-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dazuko-devel
