|
|
|
|
|
by egypturnash
849 days ago
|
|
Back in 2000, it was what everything on the Mac was compressed in, because it understood the Mac’s uniquely complex executable file format and was a much more reliable way to transfer executables than compressors designed on simpler file systems. Then in 2001 OSX came out, with a new executable file format of “a specially named and structured directory in a boring UNIX file system”, and Stuffit’s reason for existing began to vanish. I’m honestly very surprised someone is still updating it now. |
|
Unlike many people, I think the resource fork was a good idea. It structured files in a consistent way, and they were easy to examine if you had the right tools. The shortcoming is that there was not standard way (or maybe too many standard ways) to transfer files between systems intact. There was too much risk of important data being lost because the system you were transferring the data to (or a system you were transferring data through, or the software you were using was configured to ignore the resource fork) didn't recognize the resource fork or its encoding.
(It is also worth noting that a lot of file formats tend use something similar to resource forks these days. Resource forks are a bit like using zip files as a wrapper in, say, ODT and ePub files.)