This would have been a lot more compelling if it basically wasn&#x27;t just somebody stating the existence of resource forks and acting like that&#x27;s a surprise. If someone knows just one thing about HFS+, it&#x27;s that it&#x27;s kludgey wrapper around the ancient Mac OS filesystem which added POSIX behaviors and other more modern niceties that no one at Apple was thinking about in the &#x27;80s. If someone knows just two things about HFS+, the second thing is the existence of resource forks.<p>There are wide, deep, rich, fertile fields of HFS+ criticism to be had- low hanging fruit just dripping with potential for hundreds if not thousands of snarky blog entries about problems with HFS+ for people to post to HN. This is not one of them. The filesystem situation on OS X has such a long, tortured, and widely documented history of technical and human failure that even the Cleveland Browns should feel sorry for it.<p>There is at least one extremely old, legacy font file format supported by OS X in which the entire font is in the resource fork. Other than that, resource forks themselves have been deprecated for the entire existence of OS X. This is like stumbling across some ancient vestige of DOS compatibility in Windows and treating that discovery like a smoking gun gotcha moment that you&#x27;re certain is going to blow everyone&#x27;s minds.