[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: HFS, was EMILE package testers sought

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Brad Boyer wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 02:52:21PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > But I remember using HFS+ for a linux root filesystem (around 2.6.22, 
> > I was dual booting Mac OS X) and it ended up getting corrupted (a 
> > pity, because it was certainly fast enough for the task). I don't know 
> > whether the kernel got fixed and I don't know whether HFS is more 
> > reliable than HFS+. Regardless, for a low traffic partition it should 
> > be fine (certainly worth trying on models without emile support or 
> > without SCSI).
> I don't think I would trust it quite that far, and I wrote some of the 
> code myself.

I needed a POSIX filesystem, read-write on both Linux & Mac OS X. I looked 
at HFSX, NTFS, ext2 for OS X, NTFS-3g/MacFUSE and FAT32 and they all 
missed the mark for various reasons. HFSX would have been the best 
solution. I imagine dual boot mactel users might have similar needs. This 
was an (upgraded) beige G3, so again there's the problem of getting the 
kernel back to HFS for MacOS 9 and BootX...


Reply to: