Re: Disassembling an FST...

[sbehrens@bigfoot.com (S�nke Behrens)]

mikew50@aol.com (MikeW50) wrote:

>Any software that accesses directory files would also have to change. That
>encompasses a lot more software than you might think. (Or maybe it doesn't, but
>that software isn't imporatant to you.)

Well, yes. Basically, anything that makes assumptions about how the
filesystem works. However, we have that situation now with HFS, don't
we?

>I'm really not convinced this would work with enough software to make is
>useful, but what the heck, even if it was worthless for practical reasons, it
>would be an impressive hack. :)

Well, same as with HFS. IMHO, a "ProDos+" or whatever you will call it
file system would not be useful to get rid of ProDos entire ... it'd
be useful to have an alternative to HFS. My experience with HFS is
that it is a) slow and b) a tad error-prone. I have had my HFS disk
corrupted several times by simply copying a large amount of files
around ... luckily, Mac machines can fix that :)
 
>I really don't think it's as easy as some folks here let on, though.

Easy? Hell, no. Getting to know the structure of an FST alone is
likely quite a task. But we can dream, can't we? :)

S�nke