macfuse

[Anatol Pomozov]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Chris Jones <jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the info. It's clear you have a better understanding than i do,
> I was just following things on the lists, as a user of MacFuse, and yes I
> did get the feeling somehow that osxfuse was better supported/advanced than
> osxfuse, but maybe that was just because I followed things mostly from the
> MacFuse / OSXfuse mailing lists ….
>
> If fuse4x is aiming to be more compatible (i.e. 100%) with upstream fuse,
> unlike osxfuse, then I agree this is probably worth giving up ABI
> compatibility with macfuse for. Cleaning up crude from code is always a
> good idea as well …
>
> I just throw the idea in to see why fuse4x was being discussed, and now I
> know why...
>

I see that this question "Fuse4x vs MacFuse vs Tuxera vs OsxFuse" produces
a lot of confusion. I added some information to the project front-page
fuse4x.org

BTW you mentioned that you use stand-alone macfuse/osxfuse. Do you use it
for tuxera ntfs? If so I highly recommend to look at "ntfs-3g" port. Here
you can find detailed description how to set it up
http://fernandoff.posterous.com/ntfs-write-support-on-osx-lion-with-ntfs-3g-f(scroll
down to "Fuse4x + NTFS-3G from MacPorts" section).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20111230/af104b38/attachment.html>