> What is the overhead on a FUSE filesystem compared to being implemented in the kernel?
The overhead is quite high, because of the additional context switching and copying of data between user and kernel space.
> Could something like eBPF be used to make a faster FUSE-like filesystem driver?
eBPF can't really change any of the problems I noted above. To improve performance one would need to change how the interface between kernel and user space part of FUSE filesystem works to make it more efficient.
That said FUSE support for io_uring, which got merged recently in Linux 6.14, has a potential there, see:
> Isn't it time to update the law and catch up with tech?
In case of Telegram groups you mention, local authorities can use existing laws regulating public social networks (Telegram really works similar to Facebook in these use cases, these telegram groups are neither private nor end to end encrypted). The fact that Telegram doesn't cooperate is not because of lack of regulation, but lack of leverage against it (which seems to be one of the reasons why authorities in France detained Telegram CEO recently).
Yes, the first web browser/editor was a GUI application from the start, so was the original Tim's idea. But the first browser/editor was working on NeXT machines only, which were very expensive and rare. Only few people actually had the opportunity to experience the web this way and most people seen this software in action as a demonstration only.
The first browser most people used when introduced to the web was a "dumb" command line client https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Mode_Browser. It was as simple as possible, so that it could be compiled on any platform and used over telnet, it wasn't even using curses library.
So the early web users were experiencing the web via text browsers only until the rise of gui browsers later.
Also most people could telnet to a host that already had the line mode browser installed. I believe that’s how a lot of non-NeXT users at CERN would be using it.
I wonder whether there are some new developments in digital archeology here which makes the source complete enough for one to be able to compile it (assuming one has access to a NeXT machine with its app builder from early 1990s).
One way to look at this code is as a quick prototype to get the idea into real thing to play with. And to appreciate that, one have to realize that the original idea included both reading and editing of web pages easily in the same client in WYSIWYG fashion.
I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already. There was an application builder to make all the menus as quickly as you could dream them up. there were all the software parts to make a wysiwyg (what you see is what you get - in other words direct manipulation of text on screen as on the printed - or browsed page) word processor. I just had to add hypertext, (by subclassing the Text object)
This is likely url of XFIND gateway[1,2] which was basically a first web service making information from XFIND information system available via web. It was already in operational/demo-able state along with WorldWideWeb browser/editor (NeXT), Line mode browser (dumb command line client) in early stage of the web in the end of 1990. This is because gateways like these were crucial for the web to take of in the particle physics scientific community in the first years of the project.
This may seem obvious and boring now, but back then, it made a real difference (copy pasting a section from my old post [3]):
... a physicist from German particle physics lab DESY who get used to look up information via XFIND at CERN, but using it from DESY was bit clumsy. First of all he had to telnet to CERN, then login to IBM CERNVM machine, then start XFIND there and then finally place his query to XFIND. Moreover as the connection was slow an unstable, one have to repeat this procedure again in case of a network failure. Compared to this using Line Mode Browser from DESY to directly access XFIND Gateway at CERN was a big improvement, which helped the web to spread to DESY.
> As some cars gain more autonomy, it's probably helpful if they have a way to signal their intentions to other road users.
My first though was exactly that, this looks useful. That said, as I'm thinking about it bit more, it's not easy for me to come up with nice examples of situations when this signal is actionable, clear and useful. I doubt most people understand what level 3 autonomous driving means nor what to expect from a car driving in this mode in a particular situation, esp. when there will be differences across car manufacturers.
