On the HFS+ side, you should probably not be using HFS+ anymore. Not supporting encrypted file systems is one way to reduce the maintenance cost of keeping a file system before phasing it out definitely. It’s nice they do that in phases at least.
For more or less similar reasons you are not supposed to use ext2 or ReiserFS on Linux (you can, with enough determination), and I think both of these are much newer than HFS+.
Is asking a question implying? The author also suggests it could be legit tech debt at the end. The Apple/HFS thing is reaching, but the Nightmare Eclipse (BitLocker)/TrueCrypt stuff is weird.
Was the VeraCrypt/Wireguard situation simply a "paperwork" issue? Even if it is, doesn't that mean the bar is now crazy difficult for any other open source developers to get encrypted filesystem or new VPN drivers into Windows?
Comments
On the HFS+ side, you should probably not be using HFS+ anymore. Not supporting encrypted file systems is one way to reduce the maintenance cost of keeping a file system before phasing it out definitely. It’s nice they do that in phases at least.
For more or less similar reasons you are not supposed to use ext2 or ReiserFS on Linux (you can, with enough determination), and I think both of these are much newer than HFS+.
This statement seems to imply that APFS encryption is less secure than HFS+ encryption and no further evidence is given.
Is asking a question implying? The author also suggests it could be legit tech debt at the end. The Apple/HFS thing is reaching, but the Nightmare Eclipse (BitLocker)/TrueCrypt stuff is weird.
Was the VeraCrypt/Wireguard situation simply a "paperwork" issue? Even if it is, doesn't that mean the bar is now crazy difficult for any other open source developers to get encrypted filesystem or new VPN drivers into Windows?