On Jan 19, 2018, at 15:42, Jan Stary wrote: > On Jan 19 14:18:00, Chris Jones wrote: >> The point is third party applications (and perhaps even some Apple stuff) is >> not well tested on anything other than the defaults. So its far from >> impossible for there to be applications that internally are not consistent >> with their naming. So part of the applications refers to /path/file and >> another part /path/FILE, and expect these to be the same. > > That can hardly be considered somethng else > than a blatant error in such software, right? > Let it fail. > >> On the default mac install they are the same, >> but if you convert your system to respect the >> case, they aren't, and the application might stop working correctly... > > ... as it should: designed to fail if "FILE" is not "file". > >> Its up you to decide which inconvenience annoys you more... > > "FILE" rewriting "file", that's _very_ inconvenient. > What's the opposite "inconvenience"?
An application that you need to run (e.g. a commercial software package that you purchased and need to use for your job) failing to launch because it contains the aforementioned blatant error. > Anyway, I'm beating a dead horse here. > This is the way Apple chose; I'll try to make me > a normal, sane, reasonable, case-sensitive UNIX fs.