Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 12th Jan 2004 05:21 UTC, submitted by Simon Strandgaard
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



I thing these guys are a bit off course saying that Mac resource forks were a good idea. They had some good features, but ultimately they sucked because noone else used them, thus making Mac files incompatible with other machines. Now the extended Metadata that the Mac OS used was a very good idea - even MS is starting to include some extra metadata into NTFS (If only apps actually used them) but the metadata features of Mac OS should not be confused with the resource fork. Most features of the resource fork can easily be replicated by Apple's bundle system of XML files and a special hidden directory structure.