Username/Email:  Password: 
TwitterFacebookFlickrRSS
Home ›

Resources for “A Unioning Filesystem for Linux”

Issue 128

From Issue #128
December 2004

Dec 01, 2004  By Charles P. Wright
 in

Unionfs Project Page: www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/project-unionfs.html

E. Zadok. “Writing Stackable File Systems”, Linux Journal, May 2003, pages 22–25.

______________________

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Application Level Alternative?

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/25/2004 - 22:11.

Does anyone know of a file manager that does this sort of thing? Read-only is fine, I'd just like some way to browse all my MP3 folders as a single list. You would think that the GNOME VFS stuff would allow it, but I haven't been able to figure out how to set it up if it does.

linux-2.4 only, at present

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/10/2004 - 18:23.

Darn. I don't really want to downgrade, even if it would be for this nice feature. The article might have mentioned that (as well as giving the URL, of course). Presumably a 2.6 version will appear someday.

Missing Feature

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 11/05/2004 - 11:58.

This package looks pretty cool. Bringing together different file systems under a union appears useful. I think bringing the resources together would be useful also. Where do you get this package? Is it just theory? There doesn't appear to be a location where this package can be retieved.

The editors did a pretty poor

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 11/08/2004 - 11:42.

The editors did a pretty poor job of letting this get through. *NOWHERE* in the print article is there a URL that points to code, or homepages of the authors. Instead, there is a single mention of the 'resources' page off the Linux Journal website, which points to a page with the code. I can understand moving code snippets and other potentially long listings off to a webpage, seperate from the printed article, but not including a basic URL is just silly.