»

[Piru]

Filesysbox allows easy porting of filesystems using the FUSE interface:

http://blubbedev.net/filesysbox/

NTFS-3G has been ported. Further filesystem ports should be relatively easy now, some interesting candidates include ZFS, GmailFS and SSHFS. More filesystems are listed in the FUSE wikipedia article.

[XDelusion]

And it is this sort of stuff that makes me a content MorphOS user.

[buzz]

Good that most/all the fuse filesystems are open source so you can benefit from them. An interesting project, but why not open source the amiga library too?

[billt]

Originally Posted by buzz

Good that most/all the fuse filesystems are open source so you can benefit from them. An interesting project, but why not open source the amiga library too?

Not everyone wants to release their stuff as open-source. Not all OS4 things are open-source for easy porting to MOS either. I think it'd be disappointing for MOS, OS4, AROS to all be nothing more than open-source ports of each other, and thus really nothing more than all being a port of Linux. It's nice to see something unique in each, and having the others see something interesting to do their own spin on.

Now, Fuse itself is part GPL and part LGPL, I'm not sure which part the amiga library of Filesysbox would be modeled after. I'm not sure how "clean" he did his implementation. If it's only hium, someone could perhaps harass him about licensing. If there's a spec doc or someone else created one, and he did not need to look at (L)GPL code at all, then he should have no licensing problems from anyone.

Now, I think this is a cool idea. I've also pondered wrappers to Linux network and other driver APIs, but have no time to actually do anything. I'd like to see an equivalent of this FUSE thing for OS4 etc.

[buzz]

Originally Posted by billt

Now, Fuse itself is part GPL and part LGPL, I'm not sure which part the amiga library of Filesysbox would be modeled after. I'm not sure how "clean" he did his implementation. If it's only hium, someone could perhaps harass him about licensing. If there's a spec doc or someone else created one, and he did not need to look at (L)GPL code at all, then he should have no licensing problems from anyone.

I'm not saying that there is a license issue though. it's just that without all the free and open source fuse filesystems, there wouldn't have been much point in making the amiga implementation. it would just seem in good spirit to license the code in a similar fashion. It just seems that Amiga software just "takes" from the open source world, and never gives back.

Not a legal issue, just something I seem to observe a lot with amiga software in general, and I think it is a shame. If this was open for example, then AROS or amigaos4 could benefit from it.

[magnetic]

This is great news. R/w for NTSC is important imo...


I love when a programmer spends alot of energy and time to create something and everyone here cries for them to open source it. Clearly they are users not programmers. (an insight into the term "user")

[CodePoet]

Originally Posted by magnetic

I love when a programmer spends alot of energy and time to create something and everyone here cries for them to open source it. Clearly they are users not programmers. (an insight into the term "user")

I hear you, man. I've released PCB artwork and binary firmware (.hex) for some of my designs, pretty much everything you need to build and own - yet I still get criticized for only "half-releasing" the design and not open-sourcing. Makes you think twice about releasing anything at all

Kudos to the FileSysBox developers!

[buzz]

Originally Posted by magnetic

Clearly they are users not programmers. (an insight into the term "user")

well, not true, I am a developer (although I don't think you have to be to have an opinion on this, or for it to be more or less valid), and obviously an open source advocate too, but even the earlier poster said it would be nice to have it on amigaos4. well, being open would enable the os4 devs to do so. there is far too much in the way of each camp doing their own thing, working over the same code, rather than sharing their efforts for the better.

the fuse filesystem coders (I run a variety of open fuse filesystems, including sshfs, ntfs3g and mhddfs) spent time and energy on their code too, and decided to make it so it could be used by lots of people. They maybe never thought it could be used on amiga, but they licensed the code in a way it could. Why can't amiga developers do the same, so all "flavours" of amiga users can use the code. The only thing I can think of, is the fact there is this "we have it you don't and we don't want you to have it as you didn't buy into our platform" mentality between amiga users, which is the kind of thinking that advances nothing.

[billt]

Originally Posted by buzz

Why can't amiga developers do the same, so all "flavours" of amiga users can use the code. The only thing I can think of, is the fact there is this "we have it you don't and we don't want you to have it as you didn't buy into our platform" mentality between amiga users, which is the kind of thinking that advances nothing.

Some do. But why should we be OBLIGATED to give anything and everything to every other Amiga-alike OS?

I do think that if you looked at source code of a certain license in order to create your own thing, that certain license is involved, even if you did not "include their code". If you didn't read it from a non-code spec document, you may be "tainted", and so may "your own code".

But you seem to want every Amiga-related thing to be open-sourced so that every Amiga-related thing runs on every Amiga-alike OS, regardless of origin of said Amiga-related thing. That no one should be allowed to make a closed-source Amiga-related thing, and choose not have it available on all Amiga-alike OSes. I disagree with that.

It's nice to see people releasing things as open-source, even when it's completely their own invention and not a port. It's nice to see people making stuff for more than one single Amiga-alike OS. But I don't believe that either should be any kind of requirement do make any Amiga-related thing.

[buzz]

Originally Posted by billt

But you seem to want every Amiga-related thing to be open-sourced so that every Amiga-related thing runs on every Amiga-alike OS, regardless of origin of said Amiga-related thing. That no one should be allowed to make a closed-source Amiga-related thing, and choose not have it available on all Amiga-alike OSes. I disagree with that.

It's nice to see people releasing things as open-source, even when it's completely their own invention and not a port. It's nice to see people making stuff for more than one single Amiga-alike OS. But I don't believe that either should be any kind of requirement do make any Amiga-related thing.

Not really, but whats the point with such a small user base repeating the same work all the time and sharing nothing. It's not that they should be obligated, it's that its just a sensible thing to do, and it seems to be the norm that stuff is closed, which is really strange, when there are bugger all devs left on the platforms anyway.

Fred Fish had it right.. and we still benefit from the work he did.