system and desktop VFS merged

Sean Middleditch elanthis at
Thu Mar 31 07:18:32 EEST 2005

On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 03:05 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:

> The right way of implemeting things is to implement it behind all apps. BTW: if you 
> don't like FUSE and want a 100% userspace alternative, the following place to ask
> for such functionality are the libc guys. Creating a secondary VFS which requires
> modifications in _every_ app is not exactly the right way of doing things(Hint: libc guys
> will say "no")

The cool thing is, the entire purpose of FUSE is to let the kernel VFS
sit on top of userland filesystems.  That's why FUSE exists.  I think
depending on FUSE is stupid.  Using FUSE where its useful for backwards
compatibility is not.  D-VFS is a new API that apps can use directly for
enhanced functionality that has no dependencies on any in-kernel code,
while FUSE can be used on top of D-VFS to provide compatibility for apps
using the less functional but widespread POSIX API.

Why do I have to keep repeating that?

> Hell, D-VFS doesn't even exists. FUSE is there, is almost merged, it is real code,
> it's being used in real world scenaries, it works, its design doesn't break the the
> filesystem namespace in two, it's how the rest of the world is doing it and its far more
> clean than D-VFS, and it doesnt need to modify the 69438153 apps that D-VFS requires
> to modify if the user of the apps suddenly want to retrieve a file from a D-VFS
> filesystem.

Rock on.  Let me know when you have your desktop working seamlessly with
remote file systems using FUSE, it'll save me a lot of time and effort.
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at>

More information about the xdg mailing list