HFS+

[Christopher Murtagh]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Natalia Portillo wrote:
>Did you compared HFS+ with, ext3, UFS, etc? Sure Apple did.

 Yes, and that's why they tried to move to a different file system with OS
X.

> highly GUI-optimized, as it stores icon-positions, associations of 
> documents with apps, and each file has an unique-id that help programs 
> finding a file, even when it is moved or renamed. Things that no other
>file system have.

 Yes, it is very 'user friendly':

 http://www.cnam.fr/Jargon/jargon.html?1893

>So, please, before talking bad about some thing, have something to probe
>that.

 Having worked with Macs for more than 10 years, I can honestly say that I
have seen more corrupted HFS[+] file systems than anything else. The
journaling took a pretty serious performance hit (from Apple's own specs,
which oftem means much worse in the real world). It also is a 'case
insensitive, case preserving' (read 'worst of both worlds')  file system,
and as you said 'things that no other file system have' (read:
'incompatible with everything') such as resource/data forks. IMO,
resource/data forks, icon positioning, application association, etc. are
things that should be handled at the application or operating system level
and not the file system. For example, icon position is useless on a
machine that is only used in console mode. Apple seems to agree with this
as well, which is somewhat obvious in their .DS_Store, ._SomeFileName
files and with the .app extension really being a folder (with data and
resource items separated). I think that this is really a better move.

 So, there you have it. This is why I think HFS+ should have died with 
Classic.

Cheers,

Chris

-- 

Christopher Murtagh
Webmaster / Sysadmin
Web Communications Group
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
Canada

Tel.: (514) 398-3122
Fax:  (514) 398-2017