[tahoe-dev] barriers to using tahoe

[Zooko O'Whielacronx]

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jody Harris <imhavoc at gmail.com> wrote:

>> There are at least a couple of other strategies that might have even
>> better results than a FUSE plugin for you. What file manager do you
>> use? Perhaps Tahoe-LAFS could be integrated directly into that
>> filemanager. Or perhaps the existing read-write ftp plugin would
>> satisfy.
>
> It think it has to be transparent to the desktop. I use Gnome as my desktop
> now, but I still greatly prefer and use KDE's Dolphin file manger. FTP can
> be easily attached to the standard set of file managers, after which, it can
> be used _mostly_ like a local FS. Something that depended on Nautilus would
> be a huge disappointment to me because I don't care for Nautilus. (Not that
> that would keep me from using it.)
> Supporting each file manager would seem to be a lot more work than a more
> generic interface... but I understand that there are many trade-offs to be
> made.

Yeah it might turn out that $FILE_MANAGER <-> Tahoe-LAFS is much
better performing and has nicer behaviour and better features and is
easier to implement than $FILE_MANAGER <-> $FS_INTERFACE <->
Tahoe-LAFS. (Where FS_INTERFACE is something like FUSE, FTP, SFTP,
WebDAV, ...)

Or maybe it won't turn out like that, I don't know for sure. I just
hope that someone steps up and implements at least one of these. Any
of them would be better than nothing. Whichever one you love the most
and would find it the easiest to implement -- that's the one. (And, if
you actually care about making it into something that lots of people
can rely on and getting it accepted into Tahoe-LAFS codebase, then
choose the one that is easiest to write automated tests for.)

Hm... one of the FS_INTERFACEs that I named already exists: FTP. Maybe
you just need to point your file manager at the Tahoe-LAFS gateway's
ftp port?

Regards,

Zooko