On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:17:12 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would say you have a problem on the netatalk side concerning the proper
> permissions on the resource forks directories.
> Executables usually don't have a data fork but a resource fork, as opposed to
> "plain" files where there should normally be a data fork and little/no
> resource fork.
> My 2 pences.
> HTH
> Thierry Michalowski
This is not always the case...
Most "executables" these days have a considerable data fork, as well as a
resource fork in a file. Since the days of PPC executables ("fat" binaries),
the data fork has most of the executable code. Since most PPC code is
larger in size than the corresponding 68k code, this code portion of the
data fork is quite large. True that most "data" files have little resource
fork (if any), and as such are compatable with windows programs that
don't have the resrouce/data fork distinction. There are exceptions,
such as MPW text files that have things like font information in the
resource fork, but these are few.
To say "executables usually don't have a data fork" isn't true now days.
They "usually" do!!
--
Tom Watson Generic short signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (I'm at home now)
