Originally posted by bug77
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Apple Designs New File-System To Succeed HFS+
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
ZFS actually has a permissive licence. Linux does not. That's why everything except Linux already has it. - An this is REALLY a problem. I highly doubt the GNU's goal was to create barriers for software the way it has. Open source won and now we are squabbling over technicalities that few lawyers even understand. I really think that weak copyleft is the right approach, strong copyleft does nothing but bite Linux in the ass and deny it from progressing.
As for Linux, it is no surprise that they have stuck with GPL 2. Going GPL 3 would have killed Linux in the corporate world. GPL 3 just takes to many rights away from both the users and the authors.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
Actually it is well known in the Mac community that Apples graphics drivers suck! For the majority of users it doesn't matter as they aren't gaming.
Comment
-
smitty3268 pal666 starshipeleven Thaodan bug77
One, we don't know how long they've been working on this project. Given that it's apple, it could've been in the works for years, with a team of hundreds working around the clock
Two, F2FS might work except for that 16TB volume limitation. However, I'd imagine that'll get fixed before long.
Three, how would working on a linux fs help osx? Yeah, they could port it, and they'd be less work than designing something from scratch, but that's still a pretty significant amount of work for something that isn't "done" yet.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostGPL is hard to even accept as an open source license, mainly because you aren't free to use the software as you please.
Jeeze, your argument is like saying the Constitution infringes upon my rights to do whatever I want to people. Fuck the Constitution, I want to enslave others!!! Get real.Last edited by fuzz; 15 June 2016, 11:47 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
Sure it is, it isn't open source "code" but it is open source "documentation". Besides that statement was very carefully worded we really don't know what will happen a year or two from now with the code. Given that if the documentation is good, a compatible Linux interface could be written.
There are plenty of products which are "openly documented" but that the creators will happily sue you for if you dare re-implement them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostZFS actually has a permissive licence. Linux does not. That's why everything except Linux already has it. - An this is REALLY a problem. I highly doubt the GNU's goal was to create barriers for software the way it has. Open source won and now we are squabbling over technicalities that few lawyers even understand. I really think that weak copyleft is the right approach, strong copyleft does nothing but bite Linux in the ass and deny it from progressing.
ZFS runs only on Unix.
Linux has an unofficial port of ZFS, Windows has jackshit even if it would be legal to make a ZFS driver for windows.
Comment
-
Originally posted by liam View PostOne, we don't know how long they've been working on this project. Given that it's apple, it could've been in the works for years, with a team of hundreds working around the clock
That said, Apple isn't a charity, and making THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVAR isn't going to boost their sales by any amount, since they target the a userbase that does not kow shit about IT.
Rational approach is simply hack some new features in their current filesystem, or take soemthing off-the-shelf and expand on it like they did for everything.
A modern filesystem is not something you can develop from scratch in a pinch over a weekend in a garage, that large development cost has to be justified.
Two, F2FS might work except for that 16TB volume limitation. However, I'd imagine that'll get fixed before long.
Three, how would working on a linux fs help osx?
Yeah, they could port it, and they'd be less work than designing something from scratch, but that's still a pretty significant amount of work for something that isn't "done" yet.
Which is why "apple develops a new modern filesystem from scratch" is imho ruled out
That's why it's 99% likely they chose the easiest way, respinning their own HFS+ by adding some features around.
Comment
-
Originally posted by liam View Postsmitty3268 pal666 starshipeleven Thaodan bug77
One, we don't know how long they've been working on this project. Given that it's apple, it could've been in the works for years, with a team of hundreds working around the clock
...
Comment
-
starshipeleven bug77
Originally posted by bug77 View Post
I think it's unlikely they started work behind close door and at some point they decided to announce it even if it's not complete. It just doesn't make sense to change strategies. My money's on a project that just recently started.
It also seems unlikely that they would announce a product that wasn't very close to completion.
Given that this is their first fs in...however long ago hfs got it's + ago, I think they are trying to hew close to their preferred announcement/release cadence while still providing themselves, and their customers, with a bit of protection via the development release status.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostOriginally posted by liamOne, we don't know how long they've been working on this project. Given that it's apple, it could've been in the works for years, with a team of hundreds working around the clock
That said, Apple isn't a charity, and making THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVAR isn't going to boost their sales by any amount, since they target the a userbase that does not kow shit about IT.
Rational approach is simply hack some new features in their current filesystem, or take soemthing off-the-shelf and expand on it like they did for everything.
A modern filesystem is not something you can develop from scratch in a pinch over a weekend in a garage, that large development cost has to be justified.
I think your interpretation is based on a cost/benefit analysis, which is fine, but unless you are making the same judgments of those values (and the actual value of those values) as apple, you can't really replicate their reasoning.
They aren't focusing on the it crowd (though, from my experience, a very large percentage of developers/engineers use apple hardware/software---they may not be it, but they are a highly technical audience), but that doesn't matter. What apple cares about is customer satisfaction (perhaps indirectly, but that is the effect we see). They are aware of the limitations of hfs+ and have been looking to replace it for years. Do you recall the rumors, from a number of years ago, about apple adopting zfs? My guess is that they've had people looking at this, and working on it, for the better part of a decade, and, being apple, you just don't here about it until they release it.
The cost of development wouldn't necessarily be that large. Sun managed to develop, and deploy, ZFS in about 5 five years.
And Apple has hugely more resources than sun even had.
Originally posted by starshipelevenOriginally posted by liamTwo, F2FS might work except for that 16TB volume limitation. However, I'd imagine that'll get fixed before long.
If it's a big operation, they are using a san, and then the fs doesn't matter, but the majority of av folks aren't working at those places, and they get by with local arrays attached through thunderbolt.
Originally posted by starshipelevenOriginally posted by liamThree, how would working on a linux fs help osx?
Originally posted by starshipelevenOriginally posted by liamYeah, they could port it, and they'd be less work than designing something from scratch, but that's still a pretty significant amount of work for something that isn't "done" yet.
Which is why "apple develops a new modern filesystem from scratch" is imho ruled out
That's why it's 99% likely they chose the easiest way, respinning their own HFS+ by adding some features around.
Whatever the case, I'd expect we'll know the answer in the next few months.
Comment
Comment