Re: [OFF] NeXT stupidity (was Re: Finding folder from its id)
Re: [OFF] NeXT stupidity (was Re: Finding folder from its id)
- Subject: Re: [OFF] NeXT stupidity (was Re: Finding folder from its id)
- From: JollyRoger <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:36:37 -0600
On 3/23/2002 7:43 PM, "John W Baxter" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
At 17:45 -0600 3/23/2002, JollyRoger wrote:
>
> Sorry, but this irritates me to no end! Just how many of us are using Mac
>
> OS X on UFS volumes? My guess would be a mere handful out of every Mac user
>
> on the planet. I personally know about 350 or so people who use Mac OS in
>
> both professional and home environments, and not ONE is using UFS!
>
>
The future.
>
>
Classic will eventually go away. The big knock against UFS is that Classic
>
apps can't access such volumes. Once Classic isn't an issue, UFS will
>
become more popular.
That's laughable. Classic isn't going away any time in the near future,
regardless of how bad you may want it to. The majority of Mac OS developers
(and certainly the developers that have an influence on the future of
Macintosh) want to program in C++, not Objective C. The professional
Macintosh developers have time and money invested in Carbon and won't
rewrite all of their code just because Apple wants them to. Many
professional Macintosh developers are writing products that are
multi-platform. They rely on the portability of C++. You won't see them
moving to Cocoa any time soon. Cocoa is not portable. Wish all you want,
Carbon is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with why people prefer HFS over UFS. HFS
has significant advantages over UFS. That's why Apple themselves (up until
NeXT took over) preferred HFS and that's why people like me prefer HFS.
If you want to learn more, do a search on the net and you are bound to find
comparisons of the two file systems.
>
And yes, I too do not have a UFS volume (because of Classic).
No, UFS is a simply crappy file system compared to HFS. It's got nothing at
all to do with whether Classic supports it.
>
Also, note that I'm GUESSING. I don't KNOW that UFS has anything to do
>
with no ID property for items in Mac OS X Finder. As I said, the inode
>
number is available in UFS, and is nearly as unique as the file system file
>
ID in Mac OS 9. But the inode does get reused when needed sometime after
>
the file goes away, so its number is not AS unique.
I'm not guessing. UFS does not support file ID's.
UFS also does not support multiple data streams. UFS also has no support
for arbitrary named file attributes. There are other shortcomings... The
bottom line is UFS stinks when compared to HFS.
Think about it: Apple is pushing a more limited file system. Meanwhile,
everyone else (including Microsuck!) is pushing new file systems that have
the things UFS is missing! Stupid move, Apple!
>
You won't like my response to the file meta data issue, either.
Your response wouldn't sway me anyway; so save your breath.
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.