HFS+ on Tiger?

On 3/7/2004 4:32 AM, "Wilcox, Curtis" <cwilcoxesm.rochester.edu> spake
thus:

> Also, in many significant ways, OS X is a form of Unix and it's rather
> arrogant to expect the rest of the Unix world to re-write everything
> developed over the past 3 decades just for "us."

It wouldn't be the first time Apple has done that sort of thing :)
Thankfully saner heads are prevailing there these days.

I seem to remember that A/UX was quite non-standard compared to other
Unices. (Then again, so is AIX, so it's not just Apple...)

--
=Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
mailto:nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz

On 3/7/2004 4:32 AM, "Jolin M Warren" <JolinWarrenOakandApple.org> spake
thus:

> Similar to Windows's annoying habit of listing all folders
> before listing files -- I can see how this is useful in certain
> cases, but it's very frustrating in others.

Oddly enough, I like this behaviour, and I don't think I've yet come across
a situation in which I want it sorted the "normal" way. I don't use Windows,
but I do use Path Finder, which has this as a feature (they call it "smart
sorting"). You can configure the order in which items appear (the default is
applications, packages, folders, files), and of course, turn it off if you
don't like it. Once again, a Mac application implements a Windows idea
correctly ;)

--
=Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
mailto:nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz

I too was startled when I first encountered "mic" for "microphone"
after decades of reading "mike." After all, there are no other words
in English ending in "ic" in which the syllable is sounded with a
long I.

I think the shift began with sound technicians who used the limited
space on their soundboards to label input jacks "mic" and it spread
from there. There's now a generational shift, with older people
clinging to "mike" and younger people and techies using "mic" as in
"open mic." It still looks bizarre to me, but I've given up trying to
fight the new spelling.
--
Paul Brians
Professor of English
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-2050
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/

--On Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:10 PM -0700 Nigel Stanger
<nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz> wrote:

> Oddly enough, I like this behaviour, and I don't think I've yet come
> across a situation in which I want it sorted the "normal" way.

If you are in a window with a LOT of files, the quick way to jump to the
range of files you want is to start typing the first couple of letters of
the filename. In windows, it invariably jumps to the folder first, if
you're looking for a file with a similar name you must either keep typing
or start scrolling through the huge list. When they are sorted next to
each other it doesn't really matter, the first couple of letters are enough
to bring the folder and file into view.

When graphically moving through a file system, where you click on a lot of
folders to dig your way down to a particular folder, having all the folders
listed first is usually a benefit.

I prefer the Mac way, but I usually have long lists of files & folders to
get through and prefer using the keyboard over the mouse.

Kevin

One case of a problem caused by case-insensitivity that no one else
touched upon:

I assisted a client a few years ago with a migration from an old Linux
box to OS X Server. The Linux box had a few gigs of files on it; the
OS X Server box, obviously, had about 20 times as much storage. So we figured
we'd dump the entire contents of the first onto the second and sort it
out.

You can see where this is going.... Aside from a thousand problems we
had with weird permissions and the fact that the networking tools on
the Linux side were seven years out of date, whenever we had
case-sensitive files at the origin, we'd lose a file at the
destination. So instead of just dumping a few tens of thousands of
files, we had to AUDIT those files as we moved them to prevent this.
(Add a comedy of errors where afpd on the Linux side gave us inaccurate
information when we made the mistake of browsing Linux from the Mac.)

Long story short, this took WEEKS. If my clients weren't already using
Macs on the desktop, there's no question that they would have dumped
the Mac server idea and just upgraded to a newer version of Linux. As
it was, since they were mostly OS 9 desktops, they still toyed with the
idea.

The option of case-sensitivity makes for easier migration, which makes
for more people using Macs. So far as I'm concerned, we're all much
better off inviting those people into our tent, and all other
considerations are secondary.

Best,
Jeff

On 7/4/04 at 6:10 PM, nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz (Nigel Stanger)
wrote:

> On 3/7/2004 4:32 AM, "Wilcox, Curtis" <cwilcoxesm.rochester.edu>
> spake thus:
>
> > Also, in many significant ways, OS X is a form of Unix and it's
> > rather arrogant to expect the rest of the Unix world to re-write
> > everything developed over the past 3 decades just for "us."
>
> It wouldn't be the first time Apple has done that sort of thing :)
> Thankfully saner heads are prevailing there these days.

I don't know, I'd say it's rather arrogant to expect the vast majority
of Mac users to have to adapt to a naming convention that makes little
sense for the real world, to satisfy a comparitively small number of OS
X Unix users.

It's admittedly cool for OS X to get the amount of 'geekcred' it has,
from places like O'Reilly. But when it comes down to it, I'd give all of
that up - along with all the utilities that are just Cocoa wrappers to
Unix commands (though I haven't seen any that have had problems with
case-insensitivity), instead of forcing ordinary Mac users to deal with
another Unix-ism. I *still* get very annoyed by the loss of slashes in
file names. (Yes, I know you can still use them in the Finder, but most
Save dialogs won't let you put them in; they're difficult enough to use
now that it's less bother to stop using them.)

Travis Butler
tbutlermac.com

On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:32, Jolin M Warren wrote:

> I've never understood the point of case-sensitivity. I realise it
> might be 'pure' from a software engineering perspective, but there's
> nothing it enables that couldn't be accomplished at least as easily
> some other way, and it introduces so much hassle! I imagine it was
> introduced in Unix long ago because it's easier to program an OS to be
> case-insensitive and has been accepted ever since.

Case insensitivity isn't too hard if you assume that all filenames are
in English -- but the upper case of "imbiß.rtf" is "IMBISS.RTF". Going
the other way is even more difficult, as "SS" maps to either "ss" or
"ß".

That's the easy case mapping problem. What about Japanese? At a
minimum, hiragana and katakana should be folded -- "ヒラメ" should be
considered the same as "�ら�". (HFS+ considers them distinct, as with
all of these examples.) But what about "鮃", and "hirame"? They're all
the same word.

This is why XML is case-sensitive.

--
Brad Ackerman N1MNB
bsa3cornell.edu

At 12:20 on 11-7-04, Jeff Porten wrote:
> The option of case-sensitivity makes for easier migration, which
> makes for more people using Macs. So far as I'm concerned, we're
> all much better off inviting those people into our tent, and all
> other considerations are secondary.

Hmm. I don't think that ease of use for existing users should be a
secondary consideration. While I think it's good to make it as easy
as possible for people to migrate, I don't agree that existing Mac
users should be expected to make a sacrifice just to make it easier
for the few people who are considering switching. The problem with
just providing case-sensitivity as an option on the client is that it
creates a much bigger issue: you run into the same problem that your
client did (copying files from a case-sensitive volume to a
case-insensitive volume), but it can now happen at any time to any
home user. I think that consistency is the best in this case (with
the client; I can see how case-sensitivity it is useful as an option
on the server for migration purposes).

Cheers,
Jolin

_________________
=> Jolin Warren, Edinburgh, Scotland

On Jul 11, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Jolin M Warren wrote:

> The problem with just providing case-sensitivity as an option on the
> client is that it creates a much bigger issue: you run into the same
> problem that your client did (copying files from a case-sensitive
> volume to a case-insensitive volume), but it can now happen at any
> time to any home user. I think that consistency is the best in this
> case (with the client; I can see how case-sensitivity it is useful as
> an option on the server for migration purposes).

Right, I agree that Mom and Pop Mac users shouldn't have to deal with
this. So leave it out of the GUI, but make it an option in Darwin.
Working theory here is that anyone who can open a Terminal and type
"defaults write CaseSensitivity true" has entered the realm where they
have enough rope to hang themselves and now have to watch out for
future conflicts.

(Note: made up that defaults command, it's fictitious.)

My reasoning for why this should be in OS X client as well as OS X
Server is because the high cost of OSXS is losing us some market share.
  It's one thing if you want to charge $1,000 for the GUI administration
tools, that strikes me as reasonable. It's another if you're presented
with a Unix system which is less capable than a free Linux distro. I
don't see the argument for why case-sensitivity should be allowed in
OSXS and skipped in OS X.

Best,
Jeff

On 7/13/04 at 8:35 PM, civitanjeffporten.com (Jeff Porten) wrote:
>Right, I agree that Mom and Pop Mac users shouldn't have to deal with
>this. So leave it out of the GUI, but make it an option in Darwin.

It's already there.

>It's one thing if you want to charge $1,000 for the GUI administration
>tools, that strikes me as reasonable. It's another if you're presented
>with a Unix system which is less capable than a free Linux distro. I
>don't see the argument for why case-sensitivity should be allowed in
>OSXS and skipped in OS X.

% man newfs_hfs

NAME
     newfs_hfs - construct a new HFS Plus file system
...
     -s Creates a case-sensitive HFS Plus filesystem. By default a
           case-insensitive filesystem is created. Case-sensitive HFS
           Plus file systems require a Mac OS X version of 10.3 (Darwin
           7.0) or later.

I have a case-sensitive HFS+ disk image on which I store my files from
work (a Solaris system).

So it's not a big deal.

Alternatively, UNIX users (or those setting up a file system for use as a
UNIX server) can choose to use UFS on Darwin instead, though it will be
slower (older file layout) and less reliable (no journaling).

-- Anton

See Daring Fireball for John Gruber's defense of HFS+ and a
discussion of how Spotlight ties into it.

<http://daringfireball.net/>

Best,

Ken Prager

On 14-07-2004 05:35:38, Jolin M Warren wrote:

> I can see how case-sensitivity it is useful as an option
>on the server for migration purposes.

Maybe all that's needed is a check to make sure you don't overwrite a file
with one that has the same name but different case.

Harro de Jong

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jolin M Warren wrote:
>I don't see the argument for why case-sensitivity should be allowed
>in OSXS and skipped in OS X.

Maybe I'm missing something, but there already is a case-sensitive
version of HFS+ which can be enabled in Mac OS X as well as Mac OS X
Server.

There are several web pages explaining how to do it, for example this
one:
<http://www.codepoetry.net/archives/2003/10/26/
casesensitive_hfs_for_the_masses.php>

As always, more information can be found using Google. Please note that
doing this will obviously erase your disk.

lucas

At 8:35 PM -0700 7/13/04, Jeff Porten wrote:
>On Jul 11, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Jolin M Warren wrote:
>
>> The problem with just providing case-sensitivity as an option on
>>the client is that it creates a much bigger issue: you run into the
>>same problem that your client did (copying files from a
>>case-sensitive volume to a case-insensitive volume), but it can now
>>happen at any time to any home user. I think that consistency is
>>the best in this case (with the client; I can see how
>>case-sensitivity it is useful as an option on the server for
>>migration purposes).
>
>Right, I agree that Mom and Pop Mac users shouldn't have to deal
>with this.

I don't understand why everyone thinks Mom and Pop are so incapable
of dealing with case sensitivity. They deal with it in all sorts of
other venues. If the change happens, I'm sure people will get used
to it rather quickly.

>So leave it out of the GUI, but make it an option in
>Darwin. Working theory here is that anyone who can open a Terminal
>and type "defaults write CaseSensitivity true" has entered the realm
>where they have enough rope to hang themselves and now have to watch
>out for future conflicts.
>
>(Note: made up that defaults command, it's fictitious.)
>
>My reasoning for why this should be in OS X client as well as OS X
>Server is because the high cost of OSXS is losing us some market
>share. It's one thing if you want to charge $1,000 for the GUI
>administration tools, that strikes me as reasonable. It's another
>if you're presented with a Unix system which is less capable than a
>free Linux distro. I don't see the argument for why
>case-sensitivity should be allowed in OSXS and skipped in OS X.

Personally, I don't particularly want 1) the hit in performance
(can't be much, but why waste cycles on it) of the code that
continually has to case fold the filenames, and 2) the hit in
security of the reduced number of possible filenames for a given
length of name. There are attacks on the filesystem that consist of
trying to guess the name of a (usually temporary) file, and on HFS+
with case folding, guessing is easier than on a case sensitive file
system because the possible number of names is reduced. It'd also
make Mac OS X the same as the other OS's I use, and there'd be no
worries about installing the various Open Source and other packages I
use. (The qmail sources INSTALL vs. install is one example, perl's
LWP's HEAD vs. head is another.)

--
Paul Schinder
schinderpobox.com

At 21:36 -0700 14/07/2004, Paul Schinder wrote in Re: HFS+ on Tiger?:
>>Right, I agree that Mom and Pop Mac users shouldn't have to deal
>>with this.
>
>I don't understand why everyone thinks Mom and Pop are so incapable
>of dealing with case sensitivity.

Perhaps because some us work daily with many regular users who do and
will find it too hard. I work a lot with people who don't take easily
to that kind of subtlety.

> They deal with it in all sorts of other venues. If the change
>happens, I'm sure people will get used to it rather quickly.

Maybe, maybe not. Amongst my client base I have plenty of users
who've been using Macs for *years* and still have trouble finding and
deleting files, making folders and doing things you and I not only
take for granted but learn in 60 seconds.

Cheers,

Miraz
--
Writer Trainer Web-Designer Learner
Blog: [http://mactips.info]
RSS: http://mactips.info/blog/wp-rdf.php

At 9:36 PM -0700 7/14/04, Lucas K. Mathis wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Jolin M Warren wrote:
>>I don't see the argument for why case-sensitivity should be allowed
>>in OSXS and skipped in OS X.
>
>Maybe I'm missing something, but there already is a case-sensitive
>version of HFS+ which can be enabled in Mac OS X as well as Mac OS X
>Server.
>
>There are several web pages explaining how to do it, for example this
>one:
><http://www.codepoetry.net/archives/2003/10/26/
>casesensitive_hfs_for_the_masses.php>
>
>As always, more information can be found using Google. Please note that
>doing this will obviously erase your disk.

It's the "obviously" that's the problem. Since the case sensitivity
is already there (since HFS+ is case preserving, it's not
automatically upcasing or downcasing names before storing them),
Apple should find a way to make the transition easy, not data
destroying. If it means there's detritus from the old case folding
days lying around in the file system, so be it.

--
Paul Schinder
schinderpobox.com

[OK, I'm really shutting this thread down to all but technical comments now. -Adam]

Paul Schinder wrote:
>>There already is a case-sensitive version of HFS+ which can be
>>enabled in Mac OS X as well as Mac OS X Server.
>>(...)
>>Please note that doing this will obviously erase your disk.
>It's the "obviously" that's the problem. Since the case sensitivity
>is already there (since HFS+ is case preserving, it's not
>automatically upcasing or downcasing names before storing them),
>Apple should find a way to make the transition easy, not data
>destroying.

I think we should best leave the implementation details to Apple.

It's quite clear that for most people, case insensitivity is more
intuitive, so Apple kept it the default way of doing things. They've
also added the option of using a case sensitive FS for those who need
it, so everyone should be pleased. There is no platform-wide transition
from case-preserving to case-sensitive.

It's not like you would want to change case sensitivity on a daily
basis, anyway. Apple hopefully has better uses for their developer
resources than adding features that hardly anyone will ever use.

I think that while your complaints may be valid for your personal
situation, they hardly represent even a small minority of all Mac users.

lucas

On 7/16/04 12:01 AM, "Paul Schinder" <schinderpobox.com> wrote:

>> As always, more information can be found using Google. Please note that
>> doing this will obviously erase your disk.
>
> It's the "obviously" that's the problem. Since the case sensitivity
> is already there (since HFS+ is case preserving, it's not
> automatically upcasing or downcasing names before storing them),
> Apple should find a way to make the transition easy, not data
> destroying. If it means there's detritus from the old case folding
> days lying around in the file system, so be it.

Considering that case sensitivity is there for a very specific need for a
rather small number of OS X users, who are presumably technical enough to
grok a backup, where's the problem?

john

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Jul 15, 2004, at 10:01 PM, Paul Schinder wrote:

> Since the case sensitivity is already there (since HFS+ is case
> preserving, it's not automatically upcasing or downcasing names before
> storing them), Apple should find a way to make the transition easy,
> not data destroying. If it means there's detritus from the old case
> folding days lying around in the file system, so be it.

I'm not sure why this is a necessary utility, nor why it would even be
possible (barring the use of a tool like Partition Magic -- sadly
PC-only -- which images/partitions/reformats/reimages/reformats/merges
partitions all via a "simple" GUI). You're talking about moving from
one filesystem to another, and that's a destructive process in any
operating system.

The people who need/want this feature are *nix-heads and power users,
who are quite familiar with disk imaging, reformatting, and system
installations. (And for the more tentative users, they can always
install a new drive and format it as case-sensitive for their *nix
work.)

While it's a good point that case-sensitivity is useful to many people,
it's not particularly useful to many, many, more computer users, and
it's not what they are accustomed to. To change things universally to
support a minority of users doesn't make good sense, although it shows
some prescience that Apple chose to include a hidden case-sensitive
filesystem for those who really need it.

--Nik

[Adam, I don't know if this counts as a 'technical' comment or not,
but I am copying the TB-Talk list in case it is useful.]

At 18:39 on 17-7-04, Nik wrote:
> (barring the use of a tool like Partition Magic -- sadly PC-only --
> which images/partitions/reformats/reimages/reformats/merges
> partitions all via a "simple" GUI)

A utility named iPartition was recently released for Mac OS X. From
what I understand, it is able to re-partition a drive without losing
data. However, I have not tried iPartition so can't comment on it (I
simply made a note of the utility and its link in case I need it in
the future). Maybe switching to a case-sensitive filesystem is
something that could be added to iPartition in the future (again, I
have absolutely no knowledge of any of this, just speculation)?

<http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iPartition.html>

Cheers,
Jolin

_________________
=> Jolin Warren, Edinburgh, Scotland