Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

colatkinson.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 407 posts

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#301

Post by microtherion »

nicky0 wrote: post #272
marktangotango wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then fork the last open source version and maintain that. But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. I personally don't blame this fellow and in fact apluad him. To many companies exploit OSS maintainers. I think it's great to see someone turn it around for once.

Then they have to get a new signing cert for the forked project.

Yes, I didn't understand why TFA considered the signing cert issue significant. AFAIK, Apple would not refuse issuing multiple certs for forks of the same code base.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#302

Post by krageon »

DagAgren wrote: post #264
krageon wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't it a great thing for FOSS? It is what FOSS is, and FOSS is in a pretty great place right now.

Is it? Which part of the FOSS ideology or principles says that it's about doing things in your free time that you don't get paid for?

A movement is much larger than just the ideals or principles that have been written down. I was talking about it as it is, not as it claims to be.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#303

Post by CathedralBorrow »

laughinghan wrote: post #299
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "you immediately sorted everyone into heroes and villains and self-righteously took a stand" And when you proclaim that this person "views everything in terms of an ideological battle between the Free Software movement and everyone else", would you say that's a more nuanced and balanced take on the matter?

Would I say what is a more balanced take on what matter? The two quotes you pulled appear to be takes on different matters.

They might seem to be, so let me explain: To me it looked like you were doing exactly what you accused the other poster of -- immediately sorting them into the 'villain' bin and taking a self-righteous stand against them.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#304

Post by [deleted] »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #260
simias wrote: post #201

I agree that any aggressive towards the maintainer is unwarranted, even if I personally disagree with his move. In particular this comment quoted in TFA amused me: >Then drop it and let someone else maintain it. I want to reply to this person: then fork the last open source version and maintain that. That's the whole point really. Besides he apparently made the change two years ago and people only start noticing now,…

I'm a startup tech founder, benefiting massively from FOSS code. I realise there is a debt here, and the plan is definitely to repay that debt once we're cash-positive. Being able to have that plan, and not having to pay for software licences up front, is awesome. But I totally understand TFA's point of view. Maintaining a FOSS library is hard work, and those benefiting from it should contribute. If he's not seeing t…

[deleted]

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#305

Post by pstuart »

jason0597 wrote: post #300
toadkicker wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't count how many times I've submitted a patch only to hear my supervisors complain that I made a contribution to the thing that makes the business profitable.

Why would they complain? Sorry, I don't work in software so I don't understand.

Because they are giving away their work for free. It makes sense only if you don't actually work with software and can only think about money.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#306

Post by dontreact »

tw04 wrote: post #295
marktangotango wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then fork the last open source version and maintain that. But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. I personally don't blame this fellow and in fact apluad him. To many companies exploit OSS maintainers. I think it's great to see someone turn it around for once.

>But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. So apply for a new signing cert? The only thing I'm hearing is "he closed and I don't want him to close it but forking it takes a lot of effort and I don't want to put in that effort". If nobody is willing to put even the basic effort of applying for a new signing cert, color me skeptical that they'll actually ma…

Huge tangent but this is the same thing that bothers me about pro piracy arguments. Some people feel they have a right to get a copy of someone’s music without paying for it and get upset when there are protections to prevent this.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#307

Post by derefr »

tw04 wrote: post #295
marktangotango wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then fork the last open source version and maintain that. But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. I personally don't blame this fellow and in fact apluad him. To many companies exploit OSS maintainers. I think it's great to see someone turn it around for once.

>But the current maintainer has the Apple provided signing cert, that's the whip hand in this whole deal. So apply for a new signing cert? The only thing I'm hearing is "he closed and I don't want him to close it but forking it takes a lot of effort and I don't want to put in that effort". If nobody is willing to put even the basic effort of applying for a new signing cert, color me skeptical that they'll actually ma…

From what I recall, Apple really doesn’t like signing competing forks of the same software. It’s next to impossible to get e.g. your own fork of Firefox into the App Store. They see it as a phishing attempt on the “real” app, I think.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#308

Post by thayne »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #66
thayne wrote: post #45

I'm surprised it doesn't say anything about security concerns with depending on a single individual to develop a kernel module without any ability to audit the code.

Does that even happen with these small projects. Having the ability to audit is pointless if it never happens.

Well, I'd be surprised if companies like Dropbox and Google didn't audit it. And if it is used as much the article says, it would also be a decent target for security researchers, if for no other reason than they could send a bounty request to the big companies that rely on it.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#309

Post by rsync »

So, so many of the use-cases for osxfuse/macfuse involve people using sshfs to mount SFTP-capable logins into the Finder.

All of this could be very simply avoided if Apple just made SFTP a supported protocol under "Connect to Server".

I've asked/wished/pleaded for this since 2005.

It's one of those Apple deficiencies that makes you wonder just how do people at apple get work done if they don't have this feature ? It's like the multi-year failure of OSX to properly or sanely support 2+ monitor setups ... just what were all those apple employees doing during that time ?

How do they not need these things ?

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#310

Post by lonelappde »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #260
simias wrote: post #201

I agree that any aggressive towards the maintainer is unwarranted, even if I personally disagree with his move. In particular this comment quoted in TFA amused me: >Then drop it and let someone else maintain it. I want to reply to this person: then fork the last open source version and maintain that. That's the whole point really. Besides he apparently made the change two years ago and people only start noticing now,…

I'm a startup tech founder, benefiting massively from FOSS code. I realise there is a debt here, and the plan is definitely to repay that debt once we're cash-positive. Being able to have that plan, and not having to pay for software licences up front, is awesome. But I totally understand TFA's point of view. Maintaining a FOSS library is hard work, and those benefiting from it should contribute. If he's not seeing t…

Have you offered equity shares or options to your FOSS providers, as you do for your direct employees? If not, why not?
Post reply on HN