FUSE for Windows: Status update

QualityDev on rentacoder.com has completed his work on FUSE for Windows, and delevered it to ValerySh. ValerySh has encouraged QualityDev to release his work under GPL/LGPL, but hasn’t done so. Therefore I have posted a private bid request at rentacoder.com asking QualityDev to release the code in the WinFUSE project, so far he has looked at the proposal 3 times since I posted it July 22th.

The deadline for QualityDev to answer my bid request is August 19th, which is also my return date from Cuba.

I would also like to get in touch with ValerySh from Cyprus.

BTW: I will attend IT bachelor at University of Aarhus for the next 3 years.

11 Responses to “FUSE for Windows: Status update”

  • Was there any response from QualityDev regarding the Windows FUSE implementation? I’m interested in undertaking a similar project, but don’t want to duplicate the effort if they are ever going to release it to the public.

  • I am also interested in getting this moving along. Have you guys had any progress?

  • A small update on the rent-a-coder project: I’ve contacted the developer, and he told me the fuse-win32 code cannot be published under the extended contract with the software buyer, at least not for the coming four months. Another interesting note is that the API is Fuse inspired, but not 100% Fuse compatible.

  • Hi,

    do you have any news for the opensourcing
    of this project?


  • No, not apart from that Walco writes above.

  • asbjornit/Walco:

    Does that mean that in Feb 2008 it can be released?


  • According to Walco’s message – it should be possible to release the source by now, do you know anything?


  • Matthäus Banach

    I am eaegerly waiting for the release of fuse-win32 as well…
    There is a project called WinFUSE as well, but that one consist of a loopback CIFS Server and is not FUSE compatible :-(

  • For all I am concerned with, if this guy doesn’t want to release his source code to such a simple implementation of a basic file system on which one can build their own, then let him be. I mean hell, if the public/open source community wishes to see and use a library for implementation of a file system, then there must a underlying problem at hand here. Aside from that, why do you wish to seek to use a file system library that will help you write your own file system. As far as I’m concerned, unless you are an experienced programmer in C or C in developing large scale applications (were talking approx. 100 of thousands to millions of code) then I don’t see any reason to implement a ‘file system’ into your application. However, if you are that C or C programmer and need an easy tool for simplistic implementation of a file system then I honestly believe that one could design their own without the help of some basic library for doing so. Some may argue, ‘well, that’s the point of using well designed tools/libraries…for simplistic implementation of our own application(s),’ or ‘reinventing the wheel is never a good practice.’ Well, whatever your standpoint may be, I believe that as a programmer of C and C , designing your own set of tools that you can call your own and not only help you to understand the underlying work of easily accessible and well written tools helps you to appreciate these easy accessible tools more but also you gain a better lack of knowledge about how to implement what, when, where, and how.

    Wayne Olive, II

  • oh on a side note, if anyone wants to get a ‘file system’ library for implementing their own I did some quick research and ran across this website: http://www.suchwerk.net/sodcms_FUSE_for_WINDOWS.htm

    I hope this helps anyone or inspires someone to do some research on what a file system is, and what are the well known file systems that already exist.

    Here are a few other links for those wishing to implement their own file system from ‘scratch:’


    Kind regards,
    Wayne Olive, II

    P.S. use google ;)

  • Wayne:
    By having a simple cross platform API for userspace file systems, you can develop a file system once and run it on linux, freebsd, mac and others.
    The advantage of having file systems outside the kernel speeds up development, and minimizes the effects of bugs.

    For a list of existing FUSE file systems check the list at the FUSE homepage

    sshfs, gmailfs, s3fs, gdatafs, flickrfs, youtubefs, ntfs-3g, … just to mention a few file systems based on FUSE, and because of that only require a FUSE capable kernel, and don’t require to be build against your current kernel.

    But while I don’t have time before about a month, I don’t se why we should we re-implement the wheel, we might be able to get a starting point before we are able to re-implement it. We might just as well give this guy a chance to help us out, as far as I’m concerned he hasn’t been allowed to-do this earlier because of a private agremment with the buyer. He didn’t told Walco that he wasn’t interested.

    BTW: I am closing this post for comments, further comments are well come at the new post.

Comments are currently closed.