why NTFS reports incorrect file sizes

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:01:08PM -0500, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> What were they actually used for?
> 
> As far as I know, there is no strong culture / convention for using
> this capability in Linux.  As far as I'm concerned, all it
> accomplishes is to break the "a file is a bucket of bytes" model of
> UNIX files.  So tar won't work as a backup, cp won't work to copy a
> file, etc -- many utilities are broken or need(ed) revision.
> 
> Extended attributes surely don't matter in Linux since I've been able
> to ignore them up to now.
> 
> The beauty of UNIX compared with its precursors was simplicity.  I
> moved to UNIX from IBM OS/360.  Files there had all kinds of
> attributes that optimized how I/O was performed but actually just made
> file I/O complicated.  Files had "record formats" (how file blocks
> were to be broken into records), block sizes, record sizes, printer
> control types, indices, and more.  UNIX had "just a bucket of bytes"
> (plus, I admit, modest, fixed, simple metadata).
> 
> In MacOS (pre-OSX) the "resource fork" of each file was important and
> there were strong conventions on how it was used.  So much so that Resedit
> (the resource fork editor) was a very powerful tool for customization
> without needing access to source code or being a programmer.
> 
> I don't know how OSX resolved its twin heritages.

In OS X applications are now directories with resource files, icon files,
executables for different CPU architectures and 32/64bit,etc.

So they look like a file in the GUI, but really are a directory.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists