|
|
UFS v HFS+
If you want the true unix experience I recommend using UFS instead of HFS+, okay so there is no journalling option and mozilla won't run (needs resource forks.....) but chimera does. You also have the benefit that UFS is case sensitive. To do this you will need to reinstall OS X and reformat the drives with disk utility.
UFS v HFS+ - breaks os9
i thought about this too at first but found out that os 9 will NOT run on ufs.. it requires hfs (or hfs+)
UFS v HFS+
Then again, if like me, you are a unix user you probably have no need for OS9.
UFS v HFS+ caution
While UFS has its uses I feel its probably not a good general recommendation for users switching to mac. In my view the primary needs UFS occur in two situations, one is if the mac is working as a disk server to Linux/sun/unix computers. There OS independent transparency to the external world may have priority. (indeed my xserves export their UFS partitions for this reason) The other is the rare case where the users are porting unix packages in such a wholsale fashion that they cannot anticiapte or correct name capitalization problems. In most circumstances, correcting filename capitalization is just one of many porting issues one needs to address, but not a good reason to abandon HFS+.
UFS v HFS+ caution
While UFS has its uses I feel its probably not a good general recommendation for users switching to mac. In my view the primary needs UFS occur in two situations, one is if the mac is working as a disk server to Linux/sun/unix computers. There OS independent transparency to the external world may have priority. (indeed my xserves export their UFS partitions for this reason) The other is the rare case where the users are porting unix packages in such a wholsale fashion that they cannot anticiapte or correct name capitalization problems. In most circumstances, correcting filename capitalization is just one of many porting issues one needs to address, but not a good reason to abandon HFS+.
UFS v HFS+
This is rubbish, sorry. Apple's implementation of UFS is very old and has nothing to do with the UFS FreeBSD uses nowadays (e.g. soft updates are not implemented). UFS on the Mac is extremely slow, it is not supported by Apple, and a number of apps refuse to run on it. I would therefore not recommend it to _anyone_ using Mac OS X as a desktop OS. The server side is certainly different altho anyone with brains should get an Intel box (using Linux or *BSD with it) for that matter. |
SearchFrom our Sponsor...Latest Mountain Lion HintsWhat's New:HintsNo new hintsComments last 2 daysLinks last 2 weeksNo recent new linksWhat's New in the Forums?
Hints by TopicNews from Macworld
From Our Sponsors |
|
Copyright © 2014 IDG Consumer & SMB (Privacy Policy) Contact Us All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. |
Visit other IDG sites: |
|
|
|
Created this page in 0.15 seconds |
|