I think you misunderstood me.
I didn't mean it shouldn't be the case, I meant that in practice, if you install OS X on UFS and not HFS+ your ability to do UNIX things is just fine but your ability to run Mac OS software is ... yeah, leaves a lot to be desired.
Sincerely,
David M. Ensteness
I do know that right now you can't really expect to use it on a Mac OS X system because of a sorts of compatibility problems.
I absolutely would expect to use it on OS X. There's absolutely no reason they can't perform the same name mapping they use to handle other file systems that don't support multiple forks (FAT*, NFS, CIFS). They simply choose not to do so. Which is really surprising, given that they imported a LOT of improvements to UFS from FreeBSD for Panther.
-- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; 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/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
iPod Accessories for Less at 1-800-iPOD.COM Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal www.1800ipod.com
