MacOSX discussion (Was Re: [geeks] Happy Holidays, everyone.)

[D.A. Muran-de Assereto]

> From: Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc at linuxweasel.com>
>> Interestingly enough, Apple recommends that you NOT use UFS with OSX.
>> Something to do with integration, and UFS not supporting all the cool
>> metadata that MacOS applications need. They also say it's slower than HFS+.
>> I tried a ufs-only install, and some of the Carbon-ized apps I use didn't
>> care for it. Went back to HFS+ for the nonce, although it may be foreever if
>> the group of Mac developers on comp.sys.mac.system get their way; they're
>> petitioning Apple to *keep* the resource forks and all that non-UNIX stuff.
> 
> Apple had darn well better keep all that stuff, it's most of what MacOS
> has done perfectly.  File extensions, and even the information that
> programs like file can spit out about files don't hold a candle the
> resource forks on MacOS.  I just wish I could get those on my Linux
> desktop, and have things take advantage of them...

I know relatively little about HFS+ so far, and so I can't make a
well-reasoned argument against keeping the extra stuff. I do believe that
Apple will have to break the case-sensitivity thing, though -- HFS+ works
like NTFS in this regard, preserving but ignoring case in filenames. This
will certainly cause portability problems for some UNIX utilities.

Question about OSX and NFS: I am hard-mounting several shares from a Solaris
server. I never have any problems accessing them from the shell, but
frequently get an error message from the Finder saying it can't find the
original for the alias; sometimes, if I change to that dir using the shell,
it recognizes the directory from the Finder right away.
It looks like automounter behavior to me, but I have no idea how the share
could be mounted for the shell and not mounted for the Finder. Any hints?


Dave MdA