A common VFS and a Common conf-system [Part II]

gtg990h at mail.gatech.edu gtg990h at mail.gatech.edu
Tue Mar 8 18:37:07 EET 2005

> They can patch GCC if they don't like any of those solutions.  Nothing
> about D-VFS will make it impossible for non-desktop apps to use.  It's
> just not something that a whole ton of time is being devoted to.

That's not a very good answer. Like it or not, something like an IDE is a
legitimate use-case here. Or something like a MySQL front-end, or a number of
other applications in which 'desktop' and 'CLI' apps have to work together.
We're talking about UNIX desktops here --- CLI apps won't just go away, and its
useful to the user to allow them to work together.

> When FUSE equivalents are in BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, Cygwin, Irix, etc.,
> *then* it's worth taking into consideration.  Until then, FUSE is
> absolutely useless to D-VFS, unless we code some huge and massively
> different version just for Linux, which is both insane and pointless.

That's also not a good answer. Foisting a particular paradigm of file-access on
the user for the sake of portability is allowing implementation issues to affect
interface issues. Maybe a proper remote file access method is just not possible
on BSD, etc, at this time. That's their problem. Their problem should not burden
users on Linux.

> Unfortunately, the "namespace" is already fragmented.  Many apps already
> have their own built-in VFS systems, users are accoustomed to using many
> custom apps to access different kinds of remote shares, GNOME and KDE
> already have their VFS systems, etc.

The fact that it is already that way doesn't make it a good thing. The fact
gnome-vfs and KIO have their own weird view of the filesystem is something that
I've heard people complain about on several occasions. D-VFS is a chance to fix
that problem, instead of just perpetuating it.

> *unify* the VFS landscape by getting rid of the need to have a bazillion
> separate systems that all do essentially the same thing.

If you consider name unification to be a good thing, then D-VFS is broken from
the beginning. By design, it creates a second parallel namespace. From an
interface point of view, two vs four namespaces is no big deal. One vs two is an
enormous deal.

More information about the xdg mailing list