Steve Campbell wrote: > How would the Linux box see anything different if mounted NFS? I agree > that CIFS is probably just emulating Windows, so I understand that > part. I'll have to research the e3fs stuff as I'm not familiar with > all of that also. This is the kind of problem that really just humbles > me so much. well, my gut feeling is, NFS is likely closer to the NAS boxes' native linux filesystem than CIFS (which is likely Samba based on this NAS box), and would be more likely to make hidden files accessible. while I'm rather unfamiliar with the specifics of macintosh->linux file sharing implementations, I'd guess there's several ways a Linux server could emulate Macintosh 'resource forks'... 1) store the fork data in a seperate file in hte same directory with a hidden filename like .MACFORK.originalfilename 2) store the fork data in a hidden parallel directory, like ./.MACFORK/originalfilename ahhhh. NetATalk uses ./.AppleDouble to store the RK's and other metadata for the files in each directory. so, if you have a file ./MyMacFile, presumably, there's something in ./AppleDouble that correlates to this and contains the RK for MyMacFile see http://netatalk.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/SpecialFilesFolders?PHPSESSID=d1e30c8c843bc6a23af5ed39bc3a09a1 chances are pretty good that if your NAS box supports appletalk stuff, this is what its using.