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. It should be fine for something like updating a
kernel once in a while.
The code is now heavily shared between HFS and HFS+, so the quality
should be very similar. If you look at the files close enough, you'll
see that several of them are just copies of each other with no more
than minor changes. The layouts are very similar. Apple just has a
single driver for both in OSX.
Brad Boyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
