At 3:24 PM +0100 2/13/08, Andrea Perotti wrote:
Bill Cole ha scritto:
(one can argue that HFS+ is Bad and Wrong in many ways, but it is in widespread use...)
Widespread? On servers?
I suppose that's a matter of definition, but Apple was one of the top 10 server hardware vendors in the last IDC stats I can find cited (2007Q2) and no one sane buys an Apple XServe if they don't intend to run the bundled MacOS X Server on it.
Beyond those unquestionable servers, there are people putting MacOS X Server on Mac's designed as desktops and people putting "server" tasks on the standard desktop version of MacOS, which isn't really much different from the server version if you know a little about kernel tuning and don't need the user management features. For example, I make my living running Solaris, Tru64, and Linux machines for other people, but my personal server(s) doing small-scale mail, news, web, and DNS work are all MacOS on machines that used to be desktops.
Timo has deemed that audience important enough to support it in the installation scripts and config options that make sense almost nowhere else.
Well maybe would be nice to add a sort of warning to all apple sysadmin out there in a evenctual future faq.
If someone is running a server with filesystem sensitivities on MacOS X and does not understand that HFS+ is fully of quirks, they deserve and probably need the object lesson of running into the weirdness first-hand :)
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com