A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#2It's always good to see open source projects published, especially for tricky and often under-documented stuff like file system kexts.
Not to derail from this fine post, but I wanted to give a shoutout to FUSE for macOS (previously known as OSXFUSE). As an outsider from the project - merely a happy user - it seems to be a well maintained FUSE implementation for macOS, with signed kexts available. https://osxfuse.github.io/
Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#3It's always good to see open source projects published, especially for tricky and often under-documented stuff like file system kexts. Not to derail from this fine post, but I wanted to give a shoutout to FUSE for macOS (previously known as OSXFUSE). As an outsider from the project - merely a happy user - it seems to be a well maintained FUSE implementation for macOS, with signed kexts available. https://osxfuse.gith…
According to Dropbox it has performance & security risks: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/05/going-deeper-with-pro...
Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#4Just yesterday I was thinking how all of the platforms are still using vfat as a go between. There really should be a new FS "for them all"
Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#5It's always good to see open source projects published, especially for tricky and often under-documented stuff like file system kexts. Not to derail from this fine post, but I wanted to give a shoutout to FUSE for macOS (previously known as OSXFUSE). As an outsider from the project - merely a happy user - it seems to be a well maintained FUSE implementation for macOS, with signed kexts available. https://osxfuse.gith…
According to Dropbox it has performance & security risks: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/05/going-deeper-with-pro...
According to Dropbox, it has performance implications and is complicated thereby introducing a large attack surface. For some reason, they believe their own kernel module is less complicated and easier to reason about than FUSE, despite having more in-kernel code and not being open source; I would venture to say their words about security are more about control of the attack surface rather than any actual implications about the quality of the FUSE code.
Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#6Just yesterday I was thinking how all of the platforms are still using vfat as a go between. There really should be a new FS "for them all"
Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#7It's always good to see open source projects published, especially for tricky and often under-documented stuff like file system kexts. Not to derail from this fine post, but I wanted to give a shoutout to FUSE for macOS (previously known as OSXFUSE). As an outsider from the project - merely a happy user - it seems to be a well maintained FUSE implementation for macOS, with signed kexts available. https://osxfuse.gith…
According to Dropbox it has performance & security risks: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/05/going-deeper-with-pro...
According to Dropbox it is okay to circumvent security mechanisms of the operating system (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12463338) unless the media discovers your shady way of tricking the user into granting you full system access.
Their lost a lot of their credibility in my opinion.
Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#8Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#9Re: A Base Filesystem Project for macOS
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty soon, we'll just use XKCD numbers and not bother linking. We'll just call something or other "hey, that's a 927"
We should create a URI standard for that; xkcd://927
Let me propose the xkcd2 scheme, to be used like xkcd2:927, because who really needs those two slashes?!