FUSE Port Brings NTFS Support To OS X 150
sciurus0 writes "In his session at Macworld on OS X filesytems, Google's Amit Singh announced that he has ported Linux's FUSE module to OS X. The port is called MacFUSE and it is available in source form and as a pre-compiled kernel extension with associated tools. Many FUSE filesystems such as sshfs and ntfs-3g are reported to work."
GmailFS also (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FUSE? (Score:5, Informative)
Try http://fuse.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] - basically, when I hear of an Open Source project I've not heard of before, I just go to "nameofprojectgoeshere.sourceforge.net", and (more often than not) there it is. And there it was.
The creator of FUSE... (Score:5, Informative)
Precompiled read/write NTFS packages (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Precompiled read/write NTFS packages (Score:1, Informative)
Re:FUSE for Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Doh. mount_ntfs is already there (Score:2, Informative)
# which mount_ntfs
Re:Doh. mount_ntfs is already there (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FUSE for Windows (Score:5, Informative)
So with FUSE ported, Windows users can also enjoy in-filesystem versioning, seamless ssh integration, RAR files as folders and so on.
Re:Doh. mount_ntfs is already there (Score:3, Informative)
I can't seem to find a straight definition of "nonresident files" in the context of NTFS, but my best guess from glancing over google results is that "resident" files are ones which have their contents in a small block embedded in the inode itself. That'd be an optimization to minimize internal fragmentation on small files. If I'm right, a Windows-produced NTFS is likely to have a lot of these files. Not sure if OS X can't write to them at all, or if it will just make them non-resident when it does so.
Re:FUSE for Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good (Score:2, Informative)
Re:good (Score:2, Informative)
Job done. It even tells you where to point your windows pc to.
Great! (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks Google, you did us OS X users a great favorite!
Re:Great News! (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, I have decided not to upgrade my OS X until Apple includes out-of-the-box sshfs (that's the one I used the most among those built on top of fuse) support into new version of the OS.
Re: Macs Do Speak Windows (Score:3, Informative)
As for sharing an external hard drive, while Macs only read NTFS volumes, they can both read and write to FAT32 volumes which are compatible with Windows as well. There are, however, limitations to FAT32 such as the 2GB maximum file-size which might make that a less-than-optimum solution.
Another alternative is to purchase a commercial product such as MacDrive, which allows Windows PC's to access hard drives that have been initialized with the Mac (HFS+) file system.
Re:FUSE? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great for dual booting? (Score:3, Informative)
That's the problem. (Score:4, Informative)
That's kind of a huge limitation. There are lots of times when you might want to share a drive back and forth between a Windows and Mac machine, and it's not possible or desirable to run MacDrive on the Windows side (and having for format the drive with FAT32 sucks mightily).
Letting the Mac understand NTFS is a good thing, because it provides for more interoperability. The only downside to it, is that it might cause people to think of NTFS as a good inter-operable standard, rather than the disgusting, proprietary, Redmond Albatross that it is.
Plus, being able to use SSH as a filesystem is pretty slick, and will probably get more use than the NTFS part. KDE's implementation of SSH-as-filesystem (called fish:// [kde.org]) is darned slick, and I've always thought that Apple was missing out by not having something like it.
Re:FUSE? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The creator of FUSE... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:good (Score:2, Informative)
For the TRS-80, your best bet may be running SLIP or PPP over a serial or parallel interface. Of course, viewing web pages in 128x64 block graphics might be something of a challenge.
Fortunately, Commodore 64/128's have an ethernet solution available. See http://www.dunkels.com/adam/tfe/ [dunkels.com]
Re:That's the problem. (Score:3, Informative)
FUSE isn't like it - in at least some ways, it's better. FUSE makes it work at the UN*X API level, which means that even non-KDE applications, such as grep, can use it.
Re:That's the problem. (Score:3, Informative)
I did some quick Googling on the subject of Fish versus SFTP, and apparently: "The fish kio...relies [only] on the ssh [server] providing a unix shell, then it uploads a simple server program written in perl. A beautiful hack and handy if sftp is not available on your ssh server, but nowhere near the performance or reliability of sftp." From here [ubuntu.com].
So if the server you're connecting to supports SFTP, and you're only going to be doing file transfers, you might as well use it. But FISH will work even in situation were SFTP isn't supported, and your only way in is via SSH.