|
|
why???
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:
Annoying and confusing. Mac OS (and Windows) would consider these filenames to be the same.
why???
Some people like it.
why???
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).
why???
"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.
why???
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).
why???
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).
why???
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?
What does case sensitive mean?
Sorry, I think you missed the point.
case-aware != case-sensitive
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.
why???
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. |
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 0.07 seconds |
|