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... -f -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
