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

Re: reading linux from MacOs

Hi all,

I'll add some noise too ;-)

About accessing partitions cross-platform, there really isn't much that
works in an easy, reliable way. I could think of these:

- HFS or HFS+ partitions: native under MacOS; directing mounting under
  Linux only possible for HFS (but _dangerous_!! for writing); useable
  with hfsutils or hfsplus;

- ext2 partitions: native under Linux; mountable with MountX under MacOS
  (no idea however about useability, stability and compatibility);

- I could think about an MSDOS-formatted exchange partition; although
  you'd standardize on the worst standard ;-). Also, I don't know
  whether it will actually work; never tried. Should be mountable under
  both MacOS and Linux.

- Fileserver partitions, like AFP (Appleshare or netatalk), NFS (no idea
  about MacOS support), SMB (idem about Apple support).

Now about various off-topic ranting ;-)

On   5 Jul, this message from Steven Hanley echoed through cyberspace:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:06:15AM -0500, Phil Fraering wrote:
> well the powerpc architecture is less braindead etc, the hardware apple sell
> is damn good hardware, IMO always has been superior to most x86 stuff

Err... you'll find lots of people that disagree. Current Apple hardware
tends to have a rather clean design and relatively few hardware bugs.
However most of the 68k designs were a complete mess of various legacy
things patched around a 'current' processor. They refused modern designs
like DMA for ages. Talk about braindead here... You could argue that
some of their 68k designs contain more braindamage than any PC hardware.

> (well
> put together good quality components etc) for a similar quality x86 box you
> will generally have to select individual components and build a box (and end
> up spending lots more than bog standard namebrand pcs sell for) etc.

Some of their 'high quality' was bought by staying away from
top-performance hardware. You can argue whether that was a good or a bad

> In general I use ppc stuff (and alwys use only linux on the boxen) as it is
> good hardware, and means I dont have to use x86 stuff (maybe irrational but
> hey)

The PowerPC architecture is, IMO, a much better design than what's
currently available for i386 (less legacy). But the comparison is
unfair, PPC is a new design and much younger than i386. What can be said
against Intel is that they should have gotten rid of lots of legacy
stuff (at the price of compatibility) a long time ago.

Ah well, such is life ;-)


Michel Lanners                 |  " Read Philosophy.  Study Art.
23, Rue Paul Henkes            |    Ask Questions.  Make Mistakes.
L-1710 Luxembourg              |
email   mlan@cpu.lu            |
http://www.cpu.lu/~mlan        |                     Learn Always. "

Reply to: