Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov at
Fri Dec 30 09:17:18 PST 2011

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Chris Jones <jonesc at>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

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
down to "Fuse4x + NTFS-3G from MacPorts" section).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the macports-dev mailing list