Subject: Re: Thank you.
From: Matthew Geier (matthew@arts.usyd.edu.au)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 19:42:20 EDT
Alistair Riddell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ryan McBeth wrote:
>
> > IMHO, there *won't* be much use for netatalk after a few
> > years. Not next year, but probably by 2003. Yes, some schools will
> > still be running old Macs and they will run Netatalk, heck, some
> > schools are probably still running Apple ][e's.
>
> What about folks that will want to serve files to Macs (running Mac OS X
> or whatever) from a non-Apple server? I would hope that Netatalk will
> offer a free alternative to MacOS X Server....
Well if the MacOSX 10.1 SMB client is good enough, use Samba instead.
Samba is highly configurable and fast. Much to the digust of Mac
purists, MacOSX uses file name extensions to associate applications,
Apple citing problems moving mac files around the Internet as the
reason.
The lack of 'resource fork' support may be a moot point then. OSX
applications are actually a folder full of seperate files containing the
various components, not a 'forked' file. With application bundles really
being folders full of files and data files associated by extension, its
looking like you could live with out resource fork support in the file
system.
(OSX will run on a Unix/BSD UFS file system instead of HFS+, so I guess
thats one reason as well why they when the way they did)
-- Matthew Geier matthew@arts.usyd.edu.au Arts IT Unit +61 2 9351 4713 Sydney University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:52 EDT