Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
So?

I was talking about the File system and not the operating system.

This is why OS X supplied UFS. UFS is indeed a POSIX file system and is provided for compatibility reasons.

The reason why HFS+ is used by default is becuase the GUI, the non-UNIX stuff, needs to have it's resource forks for them to work properly and you'd run into problems on UFS.
Errr, wrong, UFS was dropped as an installable option in 10.5. Not needed anymore.





Beleive me. I know this because I was trying to deal with managing ~90 Mac OS X workstations when that was new and was getting really tired of having to rescue their file systems and repair permissions.
Wow a whole 90 systems, that would cover the employee lounge systems on the size of OS X networks I've worked on. The OS X networks I've managed range from 400-700 seats and users were given full admin privileges as they were to needed to fully replicate issues of Mac users. Their workstations were their test machines.

No.

HFS+ uses : as a path deliminator and all paths must be full paths.

Like I said before the BSD-VFS layer is used to trick the Unix half of the operating system into thinking it's on a POSIX-like file system.

I ran into these issues quite often when I was trying to combine my Unix scripting skills with Apple's GUI stuff to automate things for students. If you think that openning up a terminal gives you access to what is happenning 'underneath' that pretty GUI that OS X uses... your going to be dissappointed.
You really haven't used OS X in a while, scripting in OS X is no different then any other unix when it comes to syntax. The path delimiters are all handled at a kernel level, transparent to the end user completely.

Ya... a server system with a reliable, UPS-backed. power supply is not a situation were you would tend to run into problems.

I helped administrate the Macs used in the electronic imaging and graphics classrooms of 2 college campuses. Total number of Macs were about 200+. Which is going to be about the largest concentration of Macs that your likely to see anywere around were I live.

At the time they ranged from beige tower G3s to the dual proccessor G5 machines. The most common being the PowerMac G4s.
The networks I managed were far greater in size and in a hostile environment. Workstations had no UPS back up and still data loss was not an issue on those at all either. Those ranged from the very first iMacs running 9 and 10.0 all the way up to 10.5 and on the latest hardware. People would do a hardshut downs and power would go out all the time. Still data loss was not present. If there was data loss it was because of hardware failure.

If Apple was to move to ZFS (as the default for everything) then that would be very very very good move and very impressive.
Sure ZFS would be nice, it would be nice on all OS's.

However I am convinced that Apple doesn't give a flying fart about the server market or anything to do with the 'enterprise' weither it was in desktops or server deployments. Home users couldn't give a shit less about the file system and there really isn't any good reason for them to do so.. just as long as they use Time Machine with external media effectively, which is exactly why Apple can get away with having a lousy file system.
lol Time machine was not intended to make up for filesytems, it's there for when users have a brain fart and delete something they wanted back later. Your right though, Apple concentrates on it's desktops market but to say they don't give a shit about their enterprise users is completely false. They wouldn't go through the bother of writing custom formware for their xserve's ADMs if that was the case. They would do like so many other venders and use plain jane consumer drives that have firmware that is optimized for windows use. You can read more about this and the other testing practises here http://db.tidbits.com/article/10166.