This <i>isn&#x27;t</i> about what the author does&#x2F;doesn&#x27;t know.  The author managed to figure out that this was about resource forks, meaning that clearly they&#x27;d done some footwork and had found the right thread of information to follow.<p>But GP&#x27;s point gets to how the author handled that new knowledge: post an essay of cranky, self-assured tone to their website instead of following that thread to understand how and why OS X resource forks came to be.  I.e. they followed the path of &quot;anything I don&#x27;t already know must be wrong&quot;:<p><i>I&#x27;m sure there&#x27;s an Apple-y reason for the existence of this feature, but I can&#x27;t imagine what it might be.</i><p>It&#x27;s hard not to bash this kind of rhetorical mess.  &quot;I took the time to research everything up to here, then <i>EPIC FLOUNCE!</i>&quot;<p>If you&#x27;re going to write an article critical of HFS+, perhaps making an argument for a successor, <i>great!</i>  It&#x27;s a topic I&#x27;ll get wholeheartedly behind.  But this article is just lazy bitching on the internet, which certainly doesn&#x27;t deserve to be voted up.