• Hucklebee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Can someone explain why MacOS always seems to create _MACOSX folders in zips that we Linux/Windows users always delete anyway?

    • FIST_FILLET@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 years ago

      this is a complete uneducated guess from a relatively tech-illiterate guy, but could it contain mac-specific information about weird non-essential stuff like folder backgrounds and item placement on the no-grid view?

    • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      They’re Metadata specific for Macs.
      If you download a third party compression tool they’ll probably have an option somewhere to exclude these from the zips but the default tool doesn’t Afaik.

      • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Thanks! Hmm, never thought of looking at 7zip’s settings to see if it can autodelete/not unpack that stuff. I’ll see if I can find such a setting!

        • ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          You can definitely check, but I would expect the option to exist when the archive is created rather than when it’s extracted

    • Hawk@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      HFS+ has a different features set than NTFS or ext4, Apple elect to store metadata that way.

      I would imagine modern FS like ZFS or btrfs could benefit from doing something similar but nobody has chosen to implement something like that in that way.

        • Hawk@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I gotcha:

          • Btrfs
            • BTree File System
              • A Copy on White file system that supports snapshots, supported mostly by
          • ZFS
            • Zetabyte File System
              • Copy on Write File System. Less flexible than BTRFS but generally more robust and stable. Better compression in my experience than BTRFS. Out of Kernel Linux support and native FreeBSD.
          • HFS+
            • what Mac uses, I have no clue about this. some Copy on Write stuff.
          • NTFS
            • Windows File System
            • From what I know, no compression or COW
            • In my experience less stable than ext4/ZFS but maybe it’s better nowadays.
          • TCB13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Great summary, but I’ve to add that NTFS is WAY more stable than ext4 when it comes to hardware glitches and/or power failures. ZFS is obviously superior to both but overkill for most people, BTRFS should be a nice middle ground and now even NAS manufacturers like Synology are migrating ext4 into BTRFS.

            • Hawk@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Well that’s good to know because I had some terrible luck with it about a decade ago. Although I don’t think I would go back to windows, I just don’t need it for work anymore and it’s become far too complex.

              I’ve also had pretty bad luck with BTRFS though, although it seems to have improved a lot in the past 3 years that I’ve been using it.

              ZFS would be good but having to rebuild the kernel module is a pain in the ass because when it fails to build you’re unbootable (on root). I also don’t like how clones are dependant on parents, requires a lot of forethought when you’re trying to create a reproducible build on eg Gentoo.