Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


why??? | 19 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'why???' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
why???
Authored by: paulio on Oct 28, '03 03:20:26AM
Why would you want to do this? The one thing I always hated about Unix was the case sensitive file system. I know it might make some ported Unix programs be more compatible but still...

For those of you who don't know, a case sensitive file system makes the following file names completely different files, that is, you can have a folder with both of these files and each would be different:

MyDocument
mydocument

Annoying and confusing.

Mac OS (and Windows) would consider these filenames to be the same.

[ Reply to This | # ]

why???
Authored by: aranor on Oct 28, '03 03:21:43AM

Some people like it.

In fact, I've been considering doing it when I repartition my drive. I probably won't, but it might be interesting...



[ Reply to This | # ]
why???
Authored by: ahknight on Oct 28, '03 03:38:14AM

You would not like it, no, but many of us need it. Because Unix has always had case-sensitivity there are some programs that depend on it (Apache being one) and others that it's just plain required (some source distributions have a "makefile" and a "Makefile" among other things).

It may be unintuitive, but it wasn't designed to be. It was designed for utility and function, not form. Putting this in Mac OS Extended means a lot of us can junk UFS (Unbelievably Farkin Slow!) and move to a more native format.

It's a good thing, just not for you. :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
why???
Authored by: j-beda on Jan 21, '04 09:03:53PM
"It may be unintuitive, but it wasn't designed to be. It was designed for utility and function, not form. Putting this in Mac OS Extended means a lot of us can junk UFS (Unbelievably Farkin Slow!) and move to a more native format."

I think it wasn't designed for "utility and function" but rather "ease of implementation". It is much more challenging to build case awareness and insensitivity than it is to build case sensitivity. Since upper/lower case characters are encoded differently, case sensitivity in the file system is automatic - autually getting case-insensitivity takes some real work.

The arguement that case sensitivity adds "utility and function" I think is a false one. The only reason for having a human readable file system in the first place is so that humans can interact with it, and humans generally do not have very strong "case sensitivity", particularly in spoken language. What case sensitivity does add is "legacy support", making it easier to transfer files and applications from systems that are case sensitive. Of course anyone who is writing software that depends on the use of different cases in filenames (file-a.dat and file-A.dat being different data files perhaps?) has serious issues with creating easy-to-maintain code. The extra "flexibility" of a case-sensitive system in my opinion is offset by one that has much more potential errors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

why???
Authored by: Craigthulu on Oct 28, '03 07:52:56AM
Since Windows 95 it has been case sensitive. And there were extensions from third parties that allowed earlier versions do long file names and case sensitivity.

The one thing I dislike about OSX is that it is case insensitive.

I would also like to know why you think the difference between MyDocument and mydocument is "annoying and confusing"? (Other than a bad naming convention).

[ Reply to This | # ]

why???
Authored by: Alrescha on Oct 28, '03 09:31:20AM

maybe your Windows 95 is case sensitive, but mine is not. Nor is my copy of Windows 2000 ('my documents' and 'My Documents' are the same place).

I'm more annoyed by the fact that it's different from machine to machine. I've started to fix this by getting rid of the non-Mac machines... :-)

A.



[ Reply to This | # ]
why???
Authored by: vladimus on Oct 28, '03 02:53:34PM
mine is not. Nor is my copy of Windows 2000 ('my documents' and 'My Documents' are the same place)

Um, "My Documents" and "my documents" being in the same place would make your copy of Windows case-sensitive. Confusing, huh?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What does case sensitive mean?
Authored by: paulio on Oct 28, '03 03:56:19PM

Sorry, I think you missed the point.

Windows 95 does NOT have a case sensitive file system. Neither does NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Mac OS 9, or Mac OS X 10.1 thru 10.2.

However, all the above allow you to type in uppper and lower case in filenames. The thing is that the filesystem is NOT case sensitive.



[ Reply to This | # ]
case-aware != case-sensitive
Authored by: Anonymous on Dec 08, '03 03:40:13PM

No. FAT and FAT32 filesystems (and NTFS, for that matter) are exactly like default HFS+: case-aware, but not case-sensitive.

You cannot create two files, "FOO" and "Foo", in the same directory on any of these filesystems.

Having a case-sensitive option for HFS+ is an absolute must-have for real OS X servers.

It's also handy for those of us who like to layout CD-Rom images prior to burning. Some CDs I produce have directories like "index" in the same directory as a file named "INDEX". Have to build those on my BSD box.

No, it is not an option to change the names of these files or directories. In this case the underlying system needs to change to support the workflow, not the other way around.

[ Reply to This | # ]

why???
Authored by: msk on Oct 30, '03 08:16:32AM

Lets say you wish to backup some Unix machines using "rsync -b", lets say that you wish to buy an Apple Xserve and Xserve RAID rather go with some expensive brand that you don't trust (or a no name you don't trust), you get the system set up and you discover that some of the files on the Unix systems you are backing up are of the form "Makefile" and "makefile" in the same directory (for example), well HFS+ can't handle that, then you discover that UFS is limited to 963 GB but your Xserve RAIDs are 1.0.1 TB each, then you partition one Xserve RAID into two UFS partitions, now you move 200 GB from the HFS+ RAID to the new UFS RAID, and now the Xserve crashes and continues to crash anytime you do any large data accesses to the UFS RAID. Try explaining to you boss why you need to spend $500 on a new OS for a machine that you just bought (you spend $13K on a machine and two months later Apple won't let you upgrade the OS without paying full price, obviously they haven't looked at the details of the warranties of other companies selling into that price range, i.e. SGI). Of course this would be all theoretical except I'm living it.

Apple is selling a UNIX system, case-sensitivity is part of UNIX. UNIX servers had better be case-sensitive. Apple's UNIX servers had better be case-sensitive if they don't wished to be called toys again and now OS X is.



[ Reply to This | # ]