besides any philosophical argument, doesn't it still crap up your whole system whenever the network flakes out? (unlike, i imagine, any FUSE driver)
What exactly do you want the client to do, when it relies on remote resources and the network isn't reliable? This fortunately is these days much less a problem than in the days of cheapernet (10BASE2).
FUSE drivers aren't exempt from hanging syscalls, I've experienced them even with local mounts let alone network ones. I don't know why people keep repeating this.
FTP and NFS are good, I'd also want ckermit / tip / tar in my toolbag...
Probably not an issue these decades, though.
A fuse implementation would be good enough today though. You're not doing actual production work on htfs today no matter how special the circumstances.
...and did anyone ever automate parsing the divvy partition table?
I confess I have never productively used either but have destructively used fsck.
Someone is, apparently. Some shop called Xinuos apparently bought part of the corpse (the not lawsuit obsessed, not fraud committing part, presumably) and is still selling SCO OpenServer and Unixware. That's some serious dead-ender computing. But hey...people still run OS/2 in production.
Divvy...haven't thought about that in not long enough.
In the (far) future, just use a past distro to see them. Removal now wipes functionality from the market very, very slowly.