>> OS X does not see ext2 partitions. The only filesystems it will >> mount are: >> >> HFS+ >> HFS (removable only?) >> UFS (don't use unless you have the hair to spare) >> FAT32
Yes, I should have been more explicit. The only filesystems Mac OS X can _boot_ from are: HFS+ UFS and I should have added UDF (DVD filiesystem) and ISO 9660 to the 'will mount' list. I have not tested if the ISO 9660 support includes Microsoft Joliet Extension support for long file names. (There are also High Sierra and Rock Ridge CD-ROM formats, but I have never seen either of those). >So I think we can say that OSX will *mount* an HFS volume, >but won't *boot* from one. Correct. >As far as ext2 goes, I have to believe that it's difficult >to port the Linux ext2 code to a .kext -- otherwise, given >the number of people wanting ext2 support in OSX, it would >have been done already. The most recent posting I have about ext2 from the Darwin mailing list is quoted below. The response is from Jordan Hubbard, long-time FreeBSD committer and now with Apple shepherding the BSD side of Mac OS X: **Begin Quote** Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:18:55 -0800 Subject: Re: file systems Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jordan Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> With all the other things we have to work on, I doubt that you're going to see ext2fs support in Darwin anytime soon, at least not from Apple. I understand your desire to see both systems grow together, I'm just talking about this from what I feel to be the most practical standpoint. - Jordan On Saturday, November 17, 2001, at 01:12 , Jean-Jacques Levy wrote: > >> Since UFS support has already started, the obvious solution is to have >> Linux finish it's work to support that option. That would then give >> Linux interoperability with *BSD as well as Mac OS X. > > it seems one side of the story. What's about Darwin reading e2fs, and > LinuxPPC reading HFS+? It would look more balanced. I think having > read that MacOS X's advice is not to use UFS, and prefer HFS+. > > -JJ- **End Quote** and a response to that post is again below. **Begin Quote** Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:18:39 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: JFW - Kompositor Software <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: file systems At 11/17/2001 06:28 PM +0100, Jean-Jacques Levy wrote: > > With all the other things we have to work on, I doubt that you're going > > to see ext2fs support in Darwin anytime soon, at least not from Apple. > > I understand your desire to see both systems grow together, I'm just > > talking about this from what I feel to be the most practical standpoint. > >Very sad! Since it does mean some cut with the open software community... First of all, it means differing from the _Linux and GNU community_, which is not the same as the "open software community". *BSD's are "open software", and they seem just fine with UFS. Seeing as ext2 isn't used all that much as a "transport" filesystem, and seeing as even the Linux and GNU community is moving away from it towards ReiserFS and the (excellent) SGI XFS port, I'm just not sure ext2fs is worth all _that_ much effort. If there is any area where Darwin needs to be concentrating it's fs "resources", it seems to me that getting a modern, journalled filesystem would be a FAR more useful effort. If it can be one that meshes well with the "resource fork" issues of HFS+, all the better. I'd actually strongly recommend inquiring with SGI as to whether a *BSD version of XFS could be arranged (using non-GPL licensing of some sort, ideally). XFS does have the multi-stream capability that would make "resource fork" issues easier to manage as well (IIRC, been a while since I was at SGI), and I don't think there's any question as to XFS's scalability and flexibility. Putting more effort into another non-journalled fs, when OS X and Darwin so desperately need a journalled high-perf. scalable/stripe-able/etc. fs, just seems to be putting filesystem priorities in the wrong order. _Everyone_ would benefit from a modern journalled fs for OS X & Darwin, while only a relative few would benefit from ext2fs compatibility. Just my $0.03 (inflation). John Wiederhirn (JFW) **End Quote** I read on a rumor-monger site that Apple might be working on a 'journaled HFS+' for Mac OS 10.3. One recommendation on the Darwin list is to use FAT32 as a filesystem that can be rw by Linux, OS X, maybe Mac OS 9.x, and Windows. I know, ew! but I guess it works. One issue might be support for the disk label format that holds the partition info... -- Charles Dostale System Administrator Silver Oaks Communications http://www.silveroaks.com 824 17th Street Moline IL USA 61265 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 309-797-9898 -- MaX-list is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... / Buy books, CDs, videos, and more from Amazon.com \ / <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/lowendmac> \ Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> MaX-list info: <http://lowendmac.com/linux/max.shtml> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/max-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! <http://www.applelinks.com>
