I can't find any technical information that backs up his claims ~ which leads me to believe he is just talking out his ass.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...stems#MetadataHFS+ only journals meta-data. Journaling support was retrofitted into HFS+ via a simple VFS journaling layer in XNU thatís actually filesystem independent. The journal files on an HFS+ volume are called .journal and .journal_info_block (type jrnl and creator code hfs+). HFS+, although not a cutting-edge filesystem, supports some unique features and has worked well for Apple.
Just compare this crap to ext4. And about case sensitivity:
Although often believed to be case sensitive, HFS Plus normally is not. The typical default installation is case-preserving only. From Mac OS 10.3 on the command newfs_hfs -s will create a case-sensitive new file system. HFS Plus version 5 optionally supports case-sensitivity. However, since case-sensitivity is fundamentally different from case-insensitivity, a new signature was required so existing HFS Plus utilities would not see case-sensitivity as a file system error that needed to be corrected. Since the new signature is 'HX', it is often believed this is a new filesystem instead of a simply an upgraded version of HFS Plus.
It's funny how you keep posting these, when we've already been over this shit. The user decides on installation of MacOSX what their partitions will be and if they are case-insensitive or case-sensitive. It's that simple.
What don't you understand? You keeping citing users who don't seem to realize they made the choice in having a case-insenstive HFS+ partition. That is called 'human-error'. The problem is the person, not the technology.Originally Posted by Apple
Again, you can assert that Apple hires 'no one good', but you have nothing to back that up with, at all. Intel and Apple do have a partnership, it isn't a matter of me trying to boost their reputation - Intel is the only platform supported by MacOSX and they have a profitable working relationship and will continue too, for the foreseeable future.
Last edited by ninez; 06-05-2012 at 08:36 AM.
Forgot to address this. there are lots, and don't you find it interesting that Digikam was the only real option you could come up with (and i agree digikam is decent). But I have far more (potentially better) options with MacOSX. Some obvious ones;Originally Posted by Kraftman
Aperture, adobe stuff (lightroom, photoshop), Pixelmator, etc. There's also many freebies (you can google all this shit yourself, though) and obviously you can easily build Digikam, gimp, cinepaint, etc on a Mac via fink/macports and i think there may actually be a version of gimp that uses cocoa, although i've never used it, personally.
The fact that i can run most of the software i would be running in Linux, on my Mac Desktop is nice, as well. So even if you were to sit here and argue by comparison, it is a moot point because on a Mac you can run most *nix apps, anyway. But putting that aside, Digikam isn't as good, and is not at feature parity nor usability to some software available for Mac. It's not like i haven't looked at this myself, being as i have both sitting in front of me.
So when selecting between "hard to disable" (Linux) and "hard to enable" (most BSDs) it's logical that I would choose Linux. And it's well known that it's easier to break (unwanted) things than construct something new :P
Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 06-06-2012 at 07:54 AM.