Slashdot Mirror


Mac OS X to Get Journaling FS

overunderunderdone writes "According to eWeek, Apple Computer is planning to introduce a new journaling file system code-named 'Elvis' with the 10.2.2 release. Supposedly it will run on top of HFS+ and will be turned off by default. Though it will cost you 10% to 15% performance penalty the article says it is more extensive than NTFS and is on par with BeOS's 64-bit journaling file system. Not surprising since it is being developed by the same person - Dominic Giampaolo." I've been super impressed by OS X having used it as my primary laptop for the last couple weeks. It really is a great unix box- and this is one of the important missing puzzle pieces.

628 comments

  1. You can give me a journaling FS by Faggot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...when you pry HFS+ from my cold, dead hands.

    No, wait. Give me that.

    --

    But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.

  2. Glad to see new features for a change by jbarket · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Seems like lately Apple has been hellbent on increasing performance and reintegrating features from 9. Not that I'm complaining, 10.2.1 runs like a dream on my TiBook. Glad to see things moving forward.

    --

    -----
    jonathan barket
    1. Re:Glad to see new features for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even amigaOs would run like a dream on a 5.000 bucks laptop ...

      geesh

    2. Re:Glad to see new features for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmigaOS would run like a dream on a 500$ laptop. Too fucking bad that the same 500$ laptop will have to cost 5000$ if it's to be allowed to run AmigaOS. Those Boingball stickers don't come for free...

  3. Existing Journaling Systems? by aburnsio.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is this an entirely new journaling system or one based on an existing (BeOS) journaling system? Won't there be performance and stability impacts from basing it on HFS+ instead of a more modern framework? Is is possible to compile one of the existing *BSD journaling systems on OSX/Darwin (I haven't heard of anyone with success in this matter)?

    1. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by StressedCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      This seems like an entirely new system, because the BSD type systems do not have journaling, and there is no such system on the forseable horizon.

      FreeBSD provides something called softupdates, which do much to alievate the need for a journaling system. And it does this without the performance hit. When FreeBSD 5.0 comes out it will do something called snapshoting, which will bring even more stability (and background fsck) without much of a performance hit. NetBSD provides (I think) a different implementation of softupdates. OpenBSD might too, I don't know.

      Which makes me very disappointed that apple chose this route. Softupdates+Snapshots solves the problem without the performance hit. BSD doesn't need no stinking journaling.

      --
      Jason Denton Colorado State University [Thoughs and comments are my own, and not reflective of CSU]
    2. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by h0tblack · · Score: 3

      Difficult to say that anything is totally new, I suspect this is 'new' but it will no doubt be influenced by previous work on BeOS, other filesystems the engineer has worked on, and other filesystems in general.
      I suspect the advantage of having it based on HFS+ is at least partly to do with compatibility. At the moment you can install OS X on a UFS partition, but some apps won't play nice. Hopefully 'Elvis' will get around this problem and give users more options.

    3. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And that is why on *BSD will never be deployed in the enterprise.

    4. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 2, Informative

      OpenBSD does have softupdates. Softupdates don't require journaling during regular use. snapshots only afffect boot-fsck. FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT is getting nicer and nicer every day. =)

      (now if only they fixed the bugs that broke X, it'll be "unstoppable")

    5. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by jazman_777 · · Score: 5, Informative

      OpenBSD uses softupdates (still in development, need an fsck still). Right here. The linked papers are useful reads.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And that is why on *BSD will never be deployed in the enterprise.

      Very astute. It was Windows 98's excellent FAT32 file system that led to its adoption at this and so many other enterprises.

    7. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by uid8472 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BSD doesn't need no stinking journaling.

      So then there's no need for it to have, oh, a log-structured filesystem?

    8. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by sirket · · Score: 3, Informative

      No there really isn't. LFS has been dead on FreeBSD for years. Soft-Updates is reliable and very fast. With the ability to do snapshots, there will be no reason to use an LFS or JFS.

      -sirket

    9. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by sirket · · Score: 2

      If you knew anything about SoftUpdates and snapshots you would realize that they are superior to a Journaled File System.

      If you were trying to point out that many times superior technology is not chosen, then you are right.

      -sirket

    10. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by bopal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This seems like an entirely new system, because the BSD type systems do not have journaling, and there is no such system on the forseable horizon.


      The german magazine iX had a very informative comparison between FreeBSD's SoftUpdates and Linux journaling Filesystems. It actually turns out that softupdates ar more advanced than journaling so it wouldn't be very useful to develop them.
    11. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Poppa_Chubby · · Score: 1



      Actually, LFS is quite a bit different than a typical journalling filesystem. The 'Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System' has a section on LFS, you may want to check that out.

    12. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by falzer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Soft-Updates

      Unix using a feature with unabbreviated, capitalized words? What is the world coming to?

    13. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what Enterprises use Windows 98? The only time I ever saw a company use Windows 98 was at one of my old clients. It was on a laptop before Windows 2000 came out on. NT 4 sucked on laptops unfortunately.

    14. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      You can read the HFS Plus technote and see for yourself.

      Personally I won't use a filesystem which doesn't support FileIDs, thus I'm pretty much limited to HFS+.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    15. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought about trying to replace HFS+ with Reiser when I first received my TiBook. As best as I could tell from the research I did at that time it would be entirely possible, but a lot of porting work--even given the work that has already gone into porting things like Reiser to the PowerPC chip.

    16. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Which makes me very disappointed that apple chose this route. Softupdates+Snapshots solves the problem without the performance hit. BSD doesn't need no stinking journaling.

      I guess that's why BSD is dying and nobody uses BSD anymore in an enterprise environment. :-) Solaris, IRIX, AIX, Linux, NT/2000/XP, etc. all have journaling filesystems available. It is one of the marks of being an enterprise OS. The other is SMP support which FreeBSD only recently gained support for. Even still it's buggy as hell. The other *BSD systems don't even claim any SMP support. BSD is dying, live with it.

    17. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by azav · · Score: 1

      I recall reading that Apple did hire the guy who did the BeOS journaling file system. Read into this what you will.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    18. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by prog-guru · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, there was no JFS for BSD (no reiserfs, no xfs, no ext3). Softupdates are the only FS optimization I've seen there.

      --

      chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
      /.: nothing appropriate.

    19. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by blakestah · · Score: 2

      Parent prolly should be marked troll.

      Soft updates provides similar functionality as journalling with respect to data integrity. In fact, a lot of hurrahs were raised when Daniel Phillips wanted a phase-tree structured file system in linux to achieve the same goal - data integrity with ordered writes instead of journalling.

      FreeBSD has also had working SMP for a LONG time, although it is not as granular as linux or other SMP OSes. FreeBSD runs some really really big server sites. Like Yahoo!'s web servers. Like Hotmail before it was sold. FreeBSD is not dying - it is not really commercial anyway, so how can it die ?

    20. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think su was already taken :-)

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    21. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I recall reading that Apple did hire the guy who did the BeOS journaling file system."

      Yes, it was mentioned in the story you are posting to.

      This ring any bells? "...is on par with BeOS's 64-bit journaling file system. Not surprising since it is being developed by the same person - Dominic Giampaolo."

      You got ADD or something?

    22. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why on *BSD will never be deployed in the enterprise.

      Which enterprise would you be talking about? This enterprise? How about this one?

    23. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pity FreeBSD let it rot. It still works on NetBSD though. Don't know if anyone uses it.

    24. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A young buck named Hiten Pandya has shown some interest in porting JFS: link

    25. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, a lot of hurrahs were raised when Daniel Phillips wanted a phase-tree structured file system in linux to achieve the same goal - data integrity with ordered writes instead of journalling.

      Cool. McKusick and Co. will probably be watching with interest.

    26. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some crappy dotcoms and ISP != "enterprise computing".

    27. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by jweatherley · · Score: 1

      Could have had soup though!

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    28. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by maw · · Score: 2
      Unix using a feature with unabbreviated, capitalized words? What is the world coming to?

      Our doom may be nigh, but it isn't upon us yet, for Soft-Updates are also referred to as softdeps. :)

      --
      You're a suburbanite.
    29. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      only about 90% of them - andthey're using 95 too.

      no, really.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    30. Re:Existing Journaling Systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NetBSD also has a journaling filesystem: LFS. I think OpenBSD has it too, but there's been some development on the NetBSD version recently (increased stability and more...)

  4. a bit offtopic, but by comp.sci · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what other important features has OSX that Linux has not. I am thinking about getting a Laptop with OSX so I was wondering how OXS compares to Linux.

    1. Re:a bit offtopic, but by jbarket · · Score: 5, Informative

      I made the switch over last December. Love it. I was really more of a FreeBSD user, but you get the idea. It's wonderful to be able to have an attractive GUI with all too many bells and whistles to work with, but still be able to throw up a terminal window with bash and work with the real heart of things if you feel the need. Plus the ability to run XFree86 rootless on top of the GUI is nice.

      --

      -----
      jonathan barket
    2. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux has a journaling FS. Redhat installs one by default.

    3. Re:a bit offtopic, but by papasui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A beautiful interface with great professional products available (photoshop, office, etc.) while keeping the ability to run nix software.

    4. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux has a journaling FS. Redhat installs one by default. are you serious? Can anyone confirm this?

    5. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recent versions of Red Hat-- I think it started with 7.3, but I can't swear to that-- default to the ext3fs filesystem. Ext3fs is a journalling filesystem.

    6. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXT3 (A Journaling Filesystem) is the default filesystem for RedHat 8.0

    7. Re:a bit offtopic, but by MoneyT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't know what moron modded you flamebait but...

      On top of being able to run *most* of the software that Linux will run, OS X also gives you Photoshop, M$ Office and other commercial apps, a bunch of non commercial apps (www.macosxapps.com, most of the old classic apps and Virtual PC which will get just about any Windows app other than games working on the mac.

      If there is some linux program that you just can't live without that wont run under OS X, you also have the option to install Linux on your laptop as well.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    8. Re:a bit offtopic, but by xtremex · · Score: 5, Informative

      MOST Linux distros have a couple of Journaling file systems. ext3 being the most common. JFS (from IBM) and XFS (From SGI aka IRIX) are others. I use JFS on my home partition and ext3 everywhere else with naru a performance hit....actually, ext3 has been out for almost 1 years and a half with Kernel 2.4.10

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    9. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mandrake started with reiserfs about 1.5 years ago, now defaults to Ext3. Redhat defaulted to Ext3 sometime ago. Most Linux distros have been running Jounaling FSs for 1-2 years. Soon, I expect for somebody to mention that Linux will be getting a GUI (Somebody from MS, or the media).

    10. Re:a bit offtopic, but by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      There is a performance hit, your hardware is just fast enough for you to not notice. The journaling has to use CPU cycles it ain't magic. Try running ext3 on a P150 with 80 megs of ram, I have, you can really tell the difference between it and ext2.

    11. Re:a bit offtopic, but by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative
      what other important features has OSX that Linux has not.

      huh? Linux has quite a few journaling filing systems, in particular it has the rather fine ReiserFS. In the next kernel series, RFS 4 will be out, which seriously kicks ass from what I've been seeing. In particular it has very high performance, esp for small files. XFS has attributes too.

      I am thinking about getting a Laptop with OSX so I was wondering how OXS compares to Linux.

      A quick comparison:

      • OS X easy to use. Linux, not there yet, check back in a few years
      • OS X single vendor, Linux multivendor
      • OS X good hardware integration, but not much range in terms of machines you can buy, Linux will run on anything, not so good hardware integration.
      • OS X expensive, Linux cheap
      • OS X brand name software, usually high quality, most of the important stuff made by Microsoft, most software relatively expensive, Linux no branding at all, no MS software, practically all software is free speech/beer.

      But the most important of all, OS X is proprietary and has all the lockin nastyness you'd associate with Windows, Linux is free. Nuff said.

    12. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obviously a troll, and it deserves more negative mods. Linux has had 4 journaling filesystems in the works that have been talked about on Slashdot for years -- ReiserFS, Ext3, XFS, and IBM JFS. By asking what other features "OXS" has that Linux doesn't, he's trying to antagonize people who know fully good and well that Linux has had JFS support for a few years now.

    13. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit feeding the troll and trolling yourself, particularly with regards to claiming Apple has pulled the same sort of "lockin nastyness" that MS has.

    14. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is extremely telling how a post like this, which has no factual or useful content, gets moderated up to 2.

    15. Re:a bit offtopic, but by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 5, Interesting

      (/Off topic whining)
      What was it with the flamebait mods today? I got one for *my* opinion + experience...{shrug}
      (/off topic whine off)

      On topic:
      Excellent to get a JFS on OSX, finally. I let out a "whoo-hooo", but what do you want from a geek. Eh?

      The only thing no one has considered/mentioned is that to gain that speed hit back, you'd probably put in a faster scsi drive, right?

      Some people might recall that Adaptec has/is/was dropping mac support (boo!) and while I have an ATTO card in my Mac attached to an 18G Cheeta, well, OS9 does quite well on it...OSX does a less than thrilling job {speedwise}.
      So far everything seems to point to OSX or its SCSI/ATTO drivers. (bummer)

      Insult to injury is:
      {oversimplification warning}
      From a storagereview.com roundup says, in effect:
      IDE ='s write performance (workstation/home use}
      SCSI ='s Read performance (server/raid)
      Makes sense when you think about it, so it might be a good idea to get an IDE raid card and do a raid 1+0 to minimize or cancel out the speed hit and keep some integrity.

      With so many "Good Things (TM)" coming to OSX, the computing world is going to get very interesting, I think.

      (/me crosses fingers for Power4 Macs...now THAT would be a PowerMac!)
      .

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    16. Re:a bit offtopic, but by xtremex · · Score: 1

      True, but I have a gig of ram, so maybe I don't notice....

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    17. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS Office works just fine in linux. For $79 I am able to run my MS Office2000, Visio, Quicken,Microsoft Media Player, Quicktime, Trillian etc. For $15 to transgamming I also play Max Payne & Grand Theft Auto III. Natively I have most of the loki titles, Castle Wolfenstein & Unreal Tournament (Demo). OsX almost no games whatsoever!

    18. Re:a bit offtopic, but by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Actually, isn't reiser4 up in the air WRT if it will show up in the next stable release? I thought Hans said he might/might not have it ready in time for feature freeze at end of month. (Speaking of the announced feature freeze, did it not make /., or did I just miss it?)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    19. Re:a bit offtopic, but by extrasolar · · Score: 2

      Not a troll. He is saying it because he really believes it. You would be stupid to put faith in some company not using its copyright/patent powers if that becomes profitable for them. Just think of GNU/Linux as leverage, if they pull some nasty shit you can switch to a free OS.

      GNU/Linux is something special that the industry hasn't seen before, an autonomous OS. You may not like certain aspects of it, but you must acknoledge why that aspect appeals to a lot of people, myself included.

      Saying that Apples have carbohydrates and give you the shits does not a troll make.

    20. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would bet that if Apple had chosen to use Linux as the core of OS X instead of a BSD variant, every one of you would be fawning over it. You would all be amazed and loving the new OS X, but would still bitch and moan that Apple should open-source the GUI.

    21. Re:a bit offtopic, but by KH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      what other important features has OSX that Linux has not.


      How can geek switchers forget about this?

      emacs key-bindings everywhere.

      I'm sure that most linux users like the bash feature that turns emacs key bindings on by default. This applies to most (Cocoa) appls on Ma c Os X. If you type in an OS X app (that uses NSTextwhatever), many of the familiar emacs key bindings are available.

      For example, I'm using Ominiweb to type this, using those key combos: ctrl-a to go to the beginning of line, C-n to go to the next line, etc. I can't live without it once I got used to it.
    22. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a gig of RAM doesn't stop processes from needing CPU cycles.

    23. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most of the important stuff made by Microsoft

      What, a web browser that hasn't seen a real update in 3 years, and an office suite? This is hardly "most of the important stuff".

      Yes, Microsoft Office is the best office suite on the Mac, but IE is woeful. OmniWeb is easily the most Mac-like, but if that's not good enough for you there's the 'mature' Mozilla or the up-coming Chimera.

      Microsoft making most of the important apps? Ha, I'm laughing at you.

    24. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only main bits which are 'locked in" are quicktime and the gui. nearly every other part of system is open. darwin, cups, ogl, and whole list of shit i dont understand. that is nothing like M$

    25. Re:a bit offtopic, but by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      i just got my ibook. it is unbelievable. i also run linux on my desktop and older laptop, have been for over three years. can't believe how much i can do, and i don't even have Office, ha ha ha.

      what you will be most happy with is the development environment. in addiotion to the project builder, you have perl, python, java, tons of stuff. basically, if it runs on linux, it will run on os x.

      people bitch about it being "proprietary", yada yada, but you seen what intel/amd are doing with paladium lately. the only thing from mac/os x from taking over the world is that mac hardware is more expensive. there is no $400 dollar mac.

      linux on the desktop is more than ready for the enterprise/educational markets, because once configured it just freakin runs. configuring can be a bitch, but once that's done, no problem. on os x, confifuration is a dream.

      for example, multiple network profiles. i go from my school to home, to grad school, each with a wireless and wired connection, and a couple of clicks and i'm connected. f***in ay. dude, you're gettin' a mac.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    26. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      easy to use. Linux, not there yet, check back in a few years

      I've already been hearing that one for a few years.

    27. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Feral+Bueller · · Score: 2, Informative
      OsX almost no games whatsoever!

      http://www.apple.com/games/features

      Count: Games for OSX: 132 Loki Games: 20

      Loki Games is out of business.

      A quick jaunt over to the Transgaming site and a search of the database of games supported gives the following results:

      5 games with a rating of 5
      7 games with a rating of 4 TOTAL: 12 Games

      There were only 2 games listed that the Mac doesn't have: Grand Theft Auto 3 and Half-Life.

      Transgaming's ratings are for usability -- Apple doesn't have (need) usability ratings.

      I can only assume there are no ratings lower than 4 because of mathematically challenged winex fanbois such as yourself.

      Try again.

      --
      - learn to swim.
    28. Re:a bit offtopic, but by jtdubs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, damn that "lockin nastyness."

      Stupid OS X.

      Basing there graphics system off such properietary API as *gasp* OpenGL. And having native support for running that un-portable proprietary Java language, whatever the hell that is.

      And using that damned open-source Mach microkernel.

      And that stupid open-sourced Darwin unix core.

      And that acursed POSIX API (still a work in progress).

      And CUPS.

      And OpenFirmware.

      How dare they rely on such proprietary things as firewire and usb for peripherals. And 802.11b for networking. And optional LDAP authentication. And how dare they invent new, cool, peer-to-peer automatic network configuration protocols (Rendevouz) and then open up the spec and source.

      They are practically the devil.

      And I love how on every point OS X wins. You agreed that it was easier to use, had better hardware integration, and better software. Plus, I think most of us agree that it's really cool tech and is prettier.

      And then you say "Linux is free. Nuff said." as if this clinches it and Linux has won despite losing in every category other than price.

      So, hard to use, poorly-integrated OSs with bad software-support beat easy to use, well integrated OSs with good software-support as long as they are free?

      Damn that apple and their embracing of open standards.

      Justin Dubs

    29. Re:a bit offtopic, but by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      No no no. You completely misunderstood my post. Let me make it clear for you.

      I never said, Apple doesn't use any standardised technology. Everybody does to some extent, yes, even Microsoft. Most of what you spouted is old news, pretty much everybody uses them (usb?), and Apple only use stuff like CUPS because it makes no sense for them to reinvent stuff that already exists. They did not invent ZeroConf, they merely made an implementation of it. The POSIX compatability it should be noted is not exactly complete - despite being based on the efforts of the free unix people, it's still not compatible.

      How about this:

      Damn them with their proprietary hardware that cannot be built by anybody but them (under threat of lawsuits).

      Damn them with their entirely closed source OS above the kernel level, and what kind of madness is an "open source" kernel where they can change the conditions under which it is licensed at any time they like?

      How dare they threaten lawsuits against the creator of an Aqua mozilla skin, despite everybody knowing that they themselves proved in court you can't protect a look and feel.

      May they roast in hell for their DRM enabled (yes, it is) mp3 media player that had to be reverse engineered for the people that wrote much of their OS.

      And why is there STILL no QuickTime player for Linux, despite the fact that they use large amounts of GNU code. A lot of open source software has been ported to MacOS, but do they port anything back in return? No.

      They are in fact practically the devil.

      And I love how on every point OS X wins. You agreed that it was easier to use, had better hardware integration, and better software. Plus, I think most of us agree that it's really cool tech and is prettier.

      What bollocks. My points were deliberately neutral, they could be read both ways. I personally find OS X hard to use, and Linux very easy. I understand that statistically I am currently unusual.

      You conveniently skip the multi vendor point, despite it being the most important. Apple can screw you anyday, so can RedHat but with Linux you can simply install a new distro and get on with things.

      The minimal amount of hardware OS X will run on is a weakness, not a strength. Once more, you are locked to single vendor solutions.

      OS X is far, far more expensive than Linux, despite the fact that you get far more with Linux than OS X in terms of capabilities. Show me where I can find a copy of OS X, with (native) image editing software, word processors, games, music composition software, chat programs etc all for £30. There isn't anywhere. It's cheap - that is good.

      Finally, note that I did not say that Linux software was low quality. I'm using GNOME 2, with Gabber, the Gimp 1.3 and Evolution, and this is high quality stuff. It's all free as in speech too.

      And then you say "Linux is free. Nuff said." as if this clinches it and Linux has won despite losing in every category other than price.

      You must be new here. I paid for my copy of Linux. Free refers to not being forced to kowtow to Steves ego, free refers to freedom. If you had any clue at all you would have realised that, and would understand why it's so important.

      But no. I gave a fairly neutral summing up of the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms, yet you decided to engage in senseless flamebait zealotry, as I knew somebody would. There is always somebody who can't see the bigger picture, is only interested in promoting whatever they've decided is cool today.

      Understand this: Apple is only for your rights when they think it will make them money. Apple only use open standards when they could not force their own on the market. Apple have shown time and time again in their long history that when push comes to shove, they will happily screw their own customers in the name of profit.. Never, ever forget that.

    30. Re:a bit offtopic, but by jtdubs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Damn them with their proprietary hardware that cannot be built by anybody but them (under threat of lawsuits).

      Yes, how dare they try and make profit to support the further development of their OS and fund researches and UI analysts. Until you show your business model of 'give things away for free' to be successful, don't knock everyone elses.

      Damn them with their entirely closed source OS above the kernel level, and what kind of madness is an "open source" kernel where they can change the conditions under which it is licensed at any time they like?

      It's not closed-source above the kernel. The entire unix core is open sourced. The kernel, the command-line utilities, the ENTIRE unix core. It's a complete, free, unix distribution. The closed-source part is the GUI layer, some drivers, and some other miscellaneous pieces.

      Again, show us that your business model doesn't suck and people will think about using it.

      How dare they threaten lawsuits against the creator of an Aqua mozilla skin, despite everybody knowing that they themselves prove in court you can't protect a look and feel.

      How dare they protect the name and look-and-feel that they invented? They actually named the linux theme "Aqua", not very subtle for a rip-off. They ARE allowed to protect the name, aren't they??

      Speaking of look-and-feel, remember how well the OSS community showed off their maturity when RedHat took the OPEN SOURCE KDE and Gnome look-and-feels and unified them.

      May they roast in hell for their DRM enabled (yes, it is) mp3 media player that had to be reverse engineered for the people that wrote much of their OS.

      This is funny cause apple has had a LONG time anti-DRM stance. DRM on the iPod is OPTIONAL. I've never had problems putting MP3's on it. Have you?

      And why is there STILL no QuickTime player for Linux, despite the fact that they use large amounts of GNU code. A lot of open source software has been ported to MacOS, but do they port anything back in return? No.

      Yeah, they give nothing back. Except for that free unix distro, Darwin, and that whole Rendevouz thing. Also, GNU != Linux. Even assuming apple uses LOTS of GNU code in it's quicktime player, they are under no obligation to give back to the community. That's part of the GPL and LGPL. Plus, why linux? Why should apple devote resources to porting a Quicktime player to an OS with almost no share of the desktop market.

      Justin Dubs

    31. Re:a bit offtopic, but by bluefusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few points to be made: 1) There is NO DRM whatsoever in iTunes. There never has been, and there never will be. The iPod doesn't let you copy music files off of it onto your machine (reverse copy) without a third party hack. Wow, big deal. THIS is supposedly DRM? I think not. 2) The kernel and BSD subsystem ARE completely open source. However, the hard work that Apple put into the OS is not. This is because Apple pays HUNDREDS OF PROGRAMMERS to create their software, and they aren't going to just release it for free. It's THEIR intellectual property and they have every right to charge for it. However, they use FAR more open-source software than, say, Microsoft. 3) Yes, OS X is more expensive than Linux. Wonder why people buy OS X? Because it's a more integrated system and it is far more logical than Windows or Linux. You are in the minority on OS X being harder to use than Linux. Sorry. 4) If by "free" all you mean is that we don't have to submit to The Will of Steve, it's a very, very minor issue. Simple fact? You don't HAVE to buy a Mac. No, you don't. You can buy a PC and submit to the will of Bill. Or you can buy Linux and do whatever you want--if you can figure the damn thing out and get GOOD third-party software on it. Which brings me to my next point. 5) The Gimp may be a good app (albeit rather ugly), but this is no substitute for Mac apps. When I can run LightWave, AfterEffects, Cubase, Photoshop (NOT Gimp), etc. on Linux, maybe I'd give it a shot. You can't GET these programs on Linux, because those developers see no reason to support Linux. Why, you ask? Because the vast majority of users DO NOT WANT TO USE IT. This is why they have Macintoshes. Maybe Linux is better than when I tried it last, but I can assure you that the day-to-day tasks most people (and most creative professionals) do are FAR easier and more logical on the Mac. The GUI is professionally designed by people who know what they're doing. This is why it costs more. It's rather obvious. There, I'm done.

    32. Re:a bit offtopic, but by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Yes, how dare they try and make profit to support the further development of their OS and fund researches and UI analysts. Until you show your business model of 'give things away for free' to be successful, don't knock everyone elses.

      You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many, many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no?

      How dare they protect the name and look-and-feel that they invented? They actually named the linux theme "Aqua", not very subtle for a rip-off. They ARE allowed to protect the name, aren't they?? Speaking of look-and-feel, remember how well the OSS community showed off their maturity when RedHat took the OPEN SOURCE KDE and Gnome look-and-feels and unified them.

      Missed the point again. The point is that you cannot defend a look and feel in court. If Aqua is a trademark you can stop people using that name, but they didn't do that did they? They sent him a very threatening letter, which had no legal grounding at all. RedHat also now have their own look and feel, good for them. I have no issues with companies creating their own look and feels, I have issues with them abusing the legal system to try and protect it. You can make any derivative of BlueCurve you like, as long as it's not called BlueCurve.

      This is funny cause apple has had a LONG time anti-DRM stance. DRM on the iPod is OPTIONAL. I've never had problems putting MP3's on it. Have you?

      Define optional. If you mean, you can hack it and switch it off then yes, but in that case Windows Media DRM is also "optional". I know of no other MP3 player that forces you to use various hacks and 3rd party tools like the iPod does.

      Yeah, they give nothing back. Except for that free unix distro, Darwin, and that whole Rendevouz thing. Also, GNU != Linux. Even assuming apple uses LOTS of GNU code in it's quicktime player, they are under no obligation to give back to the community. That's part of the GPL and LGPL. Plus, why linux? Why should apple devote resources to porting a Quicktime player to an OS with almost no share of the desktop market.

      Darwin is not anything special OK? Large parts of which, it should be noted, were already written. It's also a distro with no graphics capabilties and virtually no desktop apps. What use is that? Linux/FreeBSD already do nicely on the server thanks.

      If Apple did use lots of GNU code in QuickTime then they would be legally obliged to give the whole thing back to the community, that's what the GPL forces you to do.

      Finally, "no desktop market share" is FUD, pure and simple. If we take Apples own (optimistic) estimates of MacOS X market share, and an independant third parties (IDC) estimate of Linux desktop market share, you still arrive at Linux have at minimum double, and at best 4 times the desktop market share of MacOS. No, really. Check for yourself. MacOS X 0.4%, Linux 2%. Anyway, as to why Apple should devote resources to it, how about because they insist on buying up various bits of content to try and prop up QuickTime as a media platform. Real can manage to produce a player for Linux, so why can't Apple, who arguably owe a whole lot more?

    33. Re:a bit offtopic, but by jtdubs · · Score: 2

      Darwin is not anything special OK? Large parts of which, it should be noted, were already written. It's also a distro with no graphics capabilties and virtually no desktop apps. What use is that? Linux/FreeBSD already do nicely on the server thanks.

      The rest of your points are even worth arguing, but this one is.

      No graphics capabilities? It run XFree86. It runs KDE. Have you ever even CHECKED this crap before you posted it? Ever seen fink?

      It has a hell of a lot of graphical ability and desktop apps. Not as many apps as linux, but they are easy to port and many people are.

      Most of it was already written?

      Unlike linux whose kernel was originally a free rip-off of minix and now uses the GNU tools which they didn't write.

      Justin Dubs

    34. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why they let these neophyte, zealot apple idiots on here.

      You'd think Jobs had written Darwin(is that what they're calling BSD and GNU tools these days) himself. Don't worry about this kid Mike... he does NOT get it.

      As for Justin.. Go back to Boston Apple-boy and take your IProd, your IE and your *Assport with you.

    35. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, I don't know why they let these neophyte, zealot apple idiots on here.

      As for you BlueFusion it looks like you have already been *integrated*, not what you'd understand the consequences of that anyway.

      I look forward to fscking you via the sshd and/or apache that you don't know how to manage or secure, along with all you other low-tech 'creative types' who wouldn't know what an IC (or Maya for that matter) was if it was sitting in front of you...

      Go back to playing with your desktop icons.

    36. Re:a bit offtopic, but by bluefusion · · Score: 1

      Again, I don't know why they let these neophyte, zealot anonymous users on here.

      As for you Anonymous Coward, who can't even bother to register, it looks like you're too involved with whatever OS you're running to even consider the possibility of using anything else. Not like you'd understand the consequences of trying something new anyway.

      I don't at all look forward to fscking via sshd or anything of the kind--unlike many people I didn't buy OS X just because it has a UNIX layer. I acknowledge that many people find the UNIX layer a great advantage-but no, I don't use it for much except running top and a few netstat checks every once in a while, but I know that many people DO. This does not bother me ("Why do they let these GUI-neophyte, CLI-zealot UNIX idiots on here?" is not something that comes to mind).

      Since for some reason you are immensely bothered by the fact that I support Apple's efforts with OS X, I'm not going to bother to convince you that it's any good at all because you aren't going to listen. You aren't even logged in. You'll probably never read this thread again.

      Next time, back up your statements (and ideas) with a bit of thought--maybe even a registration, so that we at least don't feel like you're just trolling. People who prefer the GUI are not bad or evil, they are simply non-geeks. This is acceptable, even on Slashdot. Not all of us have to know Linux to enjoy /., despite what you might think.

    37. Re:a bit offtopic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many, many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no? Actually it's much more than that: You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. .

      But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

      If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

      If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

      Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

      Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

      The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

    38. Re:a bit offtopic, but by mah! · · Score: 1
      (failed to log in before, so I resubmit not to remain AC)

      You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many, many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no?

      Actually it's much more than that: You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. .

      But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

      If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

      If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

      Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

      Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

      The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

      Unfortunately, I don't personally know any software professional who can work and live 100% M$-free.

      Do you know any GNU-Linux user or software developer who can get rid of all M$ products - no M$Windows, no M$Office, nothing even remotely installed on their PC, nothing ever paid to M$? Unfortunately, I don't personally know anyone in this situation.

      So here's the problem: can you work 100% Apple-free in the software industry? Yes. 100% GNU-free? Yes. 100% M$-free? very difficult.

      Therefore, fight Micro$oft!

  5. 10 - 15% ?! by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Though it will cost you 10% to 15% performance penalty

    this could be a problem, seeing as macs have been seriously underperforming compared to PC's lately already. OS X tends to need a fast g4 just to run properly anyway, I guesse this file system will just push the requirements for OS X even higher :(

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Gannoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though it will cost you 10% to 15% performance penalty

      This refers to hard disk access time penalties, not an overall 10-15% reduction in the performance of your computer. You wouldn't notice the difference.

    2. Re:10 - 15% ?! by jbarket · · Score: 1

      As long as Apple keeps releasing things like Quartz Extreme and system updates to increase performance, I'm not too worried about sacrificing a little for JFS.

      --

      -----
      jonathan barket
    3. Re:10 - 15% ?! by MaxVlast · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pish. I have a Pismo (500MHz G3 PowerBook) and a 933 G4. While the G4 is a lot faster, the Pismo is a delight to use and leaves me with no complaints.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    4. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Faggot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I predict that it will become faster with time.

      Just looking at how OS X itself has progressed in speed from Public Beta (slug with brick tied to it), to 10.0 (slug), to 10.1 (average lazy human), to 10.2 (average lazy human drinking strong coffee), I expect that by 10.3 this technology will not give nearly such a performance hit.

      And heck. Don't like the speed hit? Turn it off.

      --

      But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.

    5. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Lewisham · · Score: 5, Informative

      OS X doesn't really need a fast G4, any G4 is good as long as you have a shedload of RAM. That's the real OS X bottleneck, which is easily solved by a quick trip to Crucial.com.

    6. Re:10 - 15% ?! by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

      Actually this will only effect the Hard disk access, which is exactly on par with every other desktop hard disk access. This would be equiv to upgrading to NTFS from Fat32's performance hit (Ie unless you run a file oriented database you wouldn't be able to tell)

      The only place Apple currently lags is in the CPU, we all hope the Power4 will fix that, but it is true at present. Every other component is just fine, thats why offloading the UI rendering to the GPU caused such a dramatic speedup.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    7. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Master+Bait · · Score: 1

      Considering the several available opensourced journaling filesystems that don't incur performance penalties, I have to laugh at Apple's latest lock-box attempt.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    8. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm willing to bet they aern't as robust as apples by any means. When the specs are out we shall find out.

      Since your a troll I won't continue this post anyway.

    9. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Won't notice a difference? You must be crazy. The hard drive is the bottleneck of modern PCs. Making them slower slows the computer down noticeably, or at least to anyone who actually would *use* their computer.

    10. Re:10 - 15% ?! by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      I predict that it will become faster with time.

      Yeah, things seem to move quicker around me as I get older. When you're young, the days are short and the years are long. When you're old, the days are long and the years are short. It _is_ Fall, I am feeling a bit melancholic...

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    11. Re:10 - 15% ?! by gpinzone · · Score: 2

      Actually, going from FAT32 to NTFS increases performance, not decrease. I don't know if that's a result of NTFS being so good or FAT32 being so bad. I'll take the latter.

    12. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      And heck. Don't like the speed hit? Turn it off.

      You mean leave it off. The reports say the feature will be disabled by default. Which makes sense; most people don't need it.

      --

      I write in my journal
    13. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Triv · · Score: 2

      FYI, Ramjet's usually cheaper. I don't know what system you're running, but 512MB's of laptop RAM for my flatpanel iMac's user slot is $99 - Crucial lists it at $110 after a rebate.

      :)

      Triv

    14. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only place Apple currently lags is in the CPU, we all hope the Power4 will fix that....

      I'm sorry to nitpick, but you're talking about the PowerPC 970. (AKA GPUL) The newly announced chip is not the same as the POWER4. They share some architectural aspects, like the instruction set, but they're not the same.

      Again, sorry for nitpicking. It's just that this is a really confusing matter, what with the POWER4 chip and the POWER architecture and the Amazon architecture and the PowerPC architecture and the PowerPC chips and... so on.

      --

      I write in my journal
    15. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I know, I just haven't found that term in use commonly amoung non-cpu junkies (ie people who haven't heard of many chips other than x86). I'm using Power4 until a "common name" emerges (I think GPUL might be it, but it's a bit ackward off the tounge).

      Thanks for pointing it out though :)

    16. Re:10 - 15% ?! by goon+america · · Score: 2, Funny
      Too bad it reverse-correlates with the codenames.

      10.0 : Cheetah (fastest animal on earth)
      10.1 : Puma
      10.2 : Jaguar
      10.3 : Panther (slowest big cat?)

    17. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      I'm using Power4 until a "common name" emerges

      The common name is "PowerPC 970." Here's the straight shit.

      --

      I write in my journal
    18. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is quite false. There are numerous features turned on when using NTFS that reduce overall performance considerably. Simply take a look at the results of PCMark 2002, or you could just use Google and verify that this is indeed the case. You'll need to disable access timestamping and search journals before you can even approach FAT32.

    19. Re:10 - 15% ?! by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Actually there are many birds faster than the Cheetah, just fyi

      --
    20. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but are they faster on the earth or just in the sky. The only fast land bird I can think of is the roadrunner which we all know is much faster than a coyote.

    21. Re:10 - 15% ?! by afidel · · Score: 1

      is it the same quality? The one thing Crucial has going for it is that the product is always first tier and so it is a known quantity. I personally buy vendor grade and do some testing to make sure the pieces are up to snuff but most people just want to install it and have it work (or take it to a pro and have them install it and have it work).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    22. Re:10 - 15% ?! by afidel · · Score: 1

      Depends on the application. For compiling large projects where lots of intermediary object files are created and changed a compile that takes 15 minutes on fat32 takes hours on ntfs.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    23. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Triv · · Score: 2

      no clue. It's worked for me in the past, but I honestly have no idea how their quality compares with anyone's. :)

      Triv

    24. Re:10 - 15% ?! by goon+america · · Score: 1

      Oops I forgot. Maybe the 11.0 will be codenamed Peregrine Falcon.

    25. Re:10 - 15% ?! by amosb · · Score: 1

      > Though it will cost you 10% to 15% performance penalty
      >
      > This refers to hard disk access time penalties,
      > not an overall 10-15% reduction in the performance
      > of your computer. You wouldn't notice the
      > difference.


      And not even that -- this refers to file system performance. Which means the majority of your hard disk activity (swapping) isn't affected at all. As with virtually all filesystem speed impacts, the scenarios most affected will be those that generate a lot of metadata writes. Most single-user usage patterns aren't impacted. (On the other hand, most single-user usage patterns have the least to benefit from a JFS, but that's only fair. :-)

    26. Re:10 - 15% ?! by porkface · · Score: 1

      Memory/Bus speed, and altivec make the biggest performance differences on Macs, especially in OS X. CPU at 400 is not hardly different than CPU at 800.

    27. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my anus is bleeding!

    28. Re:10 - 15% ?! by 1155 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I am unsure of what performance hit you are talking about...?

      I've been using a mac for a total of about less than 2 months, and I don't notice a performance problem. The only issue I have is that I bought the model with 256, and I need 384 megs of ram, as always.

      I mean, be more defined in your complaint. Don't just say "IT'S SLOW", say what you mean, "It's slow when I do this, or use this utility, or compared to how this was in os9, etc. If apple were to work on this, or the manufacturer of said product were to work on it, I would be much happier with my Human Inteface and user experience, in general. I like this area, I don't like this, etc." but instead, you made a rather blunt statement of "This machine is slower than this one (which btw, it has a different architecture, and will more than likely not function the same as your pc, get over it)" I don't mean this as a flame, but seriously, if you have an issue with a product, contact the manufacterer, and tell them. Nine times out of ten, at least from what I have found with mac, is that they do listen to you, because you will be buying the next release of their software, or whatever.

    29. Re:10 - 15% ?! by fgodfrey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I'd guess that the memory bus is the bottleneck of modern PC's, but regardless of whether or not I'm right there, journaled filesystems tend to slow down writes more than reads (since reads don't require as many, if any, journal entries). So as far as performance goes, it probably won't slow down the performance of just reads (ie, applications loading) by 10%. The majority of the time, you are doing reads and not writes to the disk.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    30. Re:10 - 15% ?! by GlassHeart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The hard drive is the bottleneck of modern PCs. Making them slower slows the computer down noticeably

      This is quite misguided, and is symptomatic of somebody who is obsessed with numbers.

      First of all, it's crucial to note that the article is quite vague: "enabling the journaled file system will slow current system performance by 10 percent to 15 percent." What is a "system performance"? Editing a 100 KB document in Word is going to generate a very different load on the file system than streaming a 6 GB video.

      Secondly, disk caches anticipate common usage patterns, so that most accesses (especially CPU instruction fetches) are satisfied from the cache in RAM. This means that the access that brought the data in from the disk counts for a much smaller percentage. Compression can also reduce the need for raw bandwidth.

      Thirdly, journalling typically does not affect read performance, only write performance. Many applications don't require a great deal of write bandwidth, and those that do typically require a constant minimum bandwidth (capturing video) rather than a high peak bandwidth.

      Fourthly, 10% or 15% is quite difficult to detect. Try to see if a friend can tell the difference between 10 seconds or 11 seconds. Try other durations if you wish. Then try to do it without counting ticks.

      Finally, users can be distracted by appropriate eye candy. This is not a joke - it's a serious (and cheap) engineering solution.

      In conclusion, no, the hard disk is not necessarily a bottleneck, and no, the computer may or may not slow down noticeably. The benefits of journalling, on the other hand, are well known.

    31. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes thats great, I run a professional fileserver at my feet too...

      Really, how about some PC based benchs?

    32. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The hard drive is the bottleneck of modern PCs.

      You're right, of course. Because, god knows, my HD just works itself to death every time I load slashdot.

    33. Re:10 - 15% ?! by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      You know, I've run OS X since 10.0 on an older G3. No, it isn't as fast on this laptop as OS 9 or as spry as Linux on my Dell desktop. But it's plenty useable.

      I bet OS X on a G4 is more pleasant, but damn near any modern Mac hardware will do. Just have some RAM available.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    34. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my ANUS is BLEEEDING!!!

    35. Re:10 - 15% ?! by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      11.0 Pengerine Falcon

      11.1 Millenium Falcon

      11.2 African Swolow

      11.3 European Swollow

      or whatever. my attempt at a vauge monty python reference.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    36. Re:10 - 15% ?! by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      11.4 Maltese Falcon (not very quick)

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    37. Re:10 - 15% ?! by jweatherley · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the link - in the second paragraph they state that the PowerPC 970 is a POWER4 derivative.

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
  6. even more performace hit by minus_273 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I love OSX, woudl kill for an apple, but...
    given how sluggish the OS is now, i wonder what it it would be like with a 10-15% hit...
    what woudl i use jouranlised fs for anyway?

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  7. Re:CmdrTaco Logic by CommieBozo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How does him saying he's impressed with OS X translate into that?

  8. 10-15% by SlamMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, so being I'm not the highest on there terminology totem pole, can somebody expain to me why journaling matters to me, and why its worth 10-15% of my system resources?

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
    1. Re:10-15% by toupsie · · Score: 5, Informative
      Ok, so being I'm not the highest on there terminology totem pole, can somebody expain to me why journaling matters to me, and why its worth 10-15% of my system resources?

      So you can have fun yanking out the power plug of your computer while its doing a write operation without the unpleasant experience on reboot. Most people (as in AOL Grandmas) don't need it but for servers, its a must. This will help beef up Mac OS X Server against Linux.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    2. Re:10-15% by Bastian · · Score: 2

      Journalling filesystems don't suffer data loss when the computer loses power suddenly. That's probably the most salient advantage.

      If you can afford a UPS and run an OS that doesn't crash or hang often, you can most likely survive without one.

    3. Re:10-15% by aburnsio.com · · Score: 5, Informative

      Journaling your filesystem allows you to maintain integrity through a system crash or power outage. This doesn't mean you'll have all the data in your files uncorrupted (a point often missed by many), but rather that your filesystem won't become corrupted (you won't lose your filesystem because of a crash). Modern filesystems like the more recent Linux etxfs and XFS and Windows NTFS support journaling. It's an essential part of keeping your computer crash-resistant.

      There is a cost, however. Journaling filesystems are slower than non-journaling because all file metadata update operations have to be written to a transaction log. This makes journaling a poor choice for some high-volume filesystems in scientific computing or other arenas where performance is uttermost (games). In most cases, however, the performance penalty is worth the added integrity.

      Note that journaling your filesystem only keeps the metadata intact, not the file data itself. You can still loose data, such as the contents of a document you were editing but had not saved. For full transactional integrity you need the cost and overhead of a transactional database (SQLServer, Postgres, DB2, Oracle, etc.).

    4. Re:10-15% by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      Journaling means that if your system isn't shut down cleanly, it won't take forever to fsck your disk the next time you start up. The journal will contain all the information the system needs to get the system into a consistent state after an unclean shutdown. In addition, if the system journals all data instead of just metadata (as most journaling systems seem to do) it will prevent data loss, too.

      Also bear in mind that it won't cost you 10-15% of your system resources; it will slow down disk operations by 10-15%, which is a much smaller penalty. If you aren't doing really disk intensive stuff, you probably won't even notice the slowdown. If you are doing lots of disk intensive activities, you'll probably like the fact that you're less likely to be hosed if your system crashes in the middle of one.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    5. Re:10-15% by TheMatt · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you have ever had a Linux system running a non-journaling filesystem, you'd know. I had a box using ext2, a non-journaling fs, go down in a power failure. This baby had about 100 GB of space in ext2. It took at least an hour to get the system up because if a box crashes without journaling, it must check the drives for consistency.

      In comparison, that same box using ext3, a journaling filesystem, takes a second or two to recover since it is not dependant on the size of the drives, but the (small) size of the journal (except if your drive hardware fails).

      Also, journaling helps with data integrity in cases of failure as well, so you don't get files filled with garbage at the end.

      If they are using anything close to BeOS's filesystem, use it. That was by far the best filesystem I have ever seen. Beautiful.

      --

      Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!

    6. Re:10-15% by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      First off, thank you for asking this question. Some of my frustrations with Slashdot is that some of "obvious questions" can result in a good old fashioned hosing, so I commend your bravery where my mine so clearly faltered.

      Now, my appendment to the question is this - we're getting two highly moderated threads with each one contradicting one another:

      aburnsio.com writes "Note that journaling your filesystem only keeps the metadata intact, not the file data itself. You can still loose data, such as the contents of a document you were editing but had not saved."

      whereas rgmoore writes "In addition, if the system journals all data instead of just metadata (as most journaling systems seem to do) it will prevent data loss, too."

      So my question to the community - not the authors - which one of the two are correct?

    7. Re:10-15% by Ari+Rahikkala · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, at least ext3 can do full data journaling (there's a mount option for that, but I've forgotten what it is). It's dog slow since all data needs to be written on disk twice, once to the file and once to the journal, but at least it keeps your data intact well. At first I thought that Elvis also used full data journaling, since this quote implied it:
      The current version of NTFS, the file system within Windows 2000 and XP, does not handle full- fledged journaling, sources said; change-journal logs note alterations to files but don't provide enough information to reverse them.
      However, AFAIK full data journaling should cause a 50% performance drop (unless the journal copies aren't written when the data proper is written - I don't actually know how this is handled, I wish free karma to the one who explains what those kjournald processes on my system actually are doing every five seconds) so Elvis probably only does metadata... or then I just don't know enough about journaling filesystems.
    8. Re:10-15% by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As for why Journaling matters, I recomend going to Google and asking it for the tutorial on ext3. The tutorial has links to even more depth on the issue. As a quick overview, when you edit files in most applications, the process of saving involves two steps, write data to disk, update whatever form of table is in use on the disk with what updates have been made. For example, a file now uses sectors 5200,5201, and 5209 rather than just 5200 and 5201 as it was originally written.

      If the power goes out between when the data was written, and when the tables were updated, the data is effectively lost, as the system will only know about the fact that data was written to 5200 and 5201.

      Journaling has several implementations, however one of the most common is to log what data is being written to the hard disk, then when all the tables are updated, flushing that information out of the journal.

      If the power fails, the system opens the journal file, and starts the process of writing the data in the journal file to the hard disk again.

      Why might this be worth a 10-15%? This will be different for different users, but a fairly simple (if contrived) example is if you are running a commercial web site. If I decide to purchase 1000 units of roduct XXZ from your web site, without knowing that a thunder storm is moving through your community, I place my order, get a confirmation number back, and think all is well. Unbeknownst to me, your web server dies after generating the confirmation, while writing the record to the hard disk.

      If my purchase is important to your business, say for example the money has been handled as part of the confirmation, and I would not be happy about you not shipping the product I paid for, you might think it worth a 10-15% performance penalty to insure that my purchase gets recorded properly when your power comes back up.

      At the same time, if you spend your time on the computer reading slashdot, playing Everquest, and crunching DES keys, perhaps journaling isn't worth the 10-15% hit.

      I may be wrong here as well, but I believe the 10-15% hit being reported is for disk intensive transactions, not for processor performance.

      Then again, I could be wrong.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    9. Re:10-15% by mickwd · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Note that journaling your filesystem only keeps the metadata intact, not the file data itself".

      That depends on which journaling filesystem you use, and, sometimes, which mode you use it in.

      For example, the Linux ext3 file system supports three different journaling modes: "journal", "ordered" and "writeback".

      From the "mount" man page:

      journal All data is committed into the journal prior to being
      written into the main file system.

      ordered This is the default mode. All data is forced directly
      out to the main file system prior to its metadata being
      committed to the journal.

      writeback Data ordering is not preserved - data may be written into
      the main file system after its metadata has been commit-
      ted to the journal. This is rumoured to be the highest-
      throughput option. It guarantees internal file system
      integrity, however it can allow old data to appear in
      files after a crash and journal recovery.

      "You can still loose data, such as the contents of a document you were editing but had not saved".

      Well unless you've got some special sort of memory, you're going to lose everything you (or the application) haven't saved, whatever type of file system you use.

    10. Re:10-15% by djweis · · Score: 1

      You won't lose metadata, there are no guarantees about your actual file contents. Important difference!

    11. Re:10-15% by ahknight · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is no penalty for games. Games only read. The performance hit is for mass file creation and renaming and so on.

    12. Re:10-15% by rusty0101 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Both. It depends upon the journaling method used. BFS for example only journaled system information. User data was allowed to become corrupted because a user's data file being corrupt is unlikely to bring the system down.

      If you go through the documentation for the various journaling filesystems, XFS, ext3, jfs, Reiser (sp?) others, you will find that each implementation takes a different tactic when it decides what gets journaled, and what does not.

      A document you are editing, is almost never journaled, unless it is happening as part of a background save process, or as part of you saving the document to disk specifically.

      Then again, I have been wrong before.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    13. Re:10-15% by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 5, Informative
      Journaling filesystems are slower than non-journaling because all file metadata update operations have to be written to a transaction log.
      That isn't necessarily true. At least, not always. In a RAID environment, filesystem logging can actually result in a net performance increase, because queuing up your writes in cache ram while waiting for the journal to commit increases the likelihood that the physical write operation will get spread sequentially over all of the drive heads. See Adrian Cockroft's book for more details.
      --

      News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

    14. Re:10-15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I remember when, instead of journaling filesystems, we just used OSes that didn't crash. Anyone remember OS/2?

    15. Re:10-15% by ceswiedler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The kjournald process is flushing the journal. This doesn't mean (AFAIK) that your filesystem is only up-to-date as of the 5s interval that kjournald last ran. When the system reboots without unmounting properly, it replays the journal to get it as up-to-date as possible (up to the last transaction that was fully written to the journal). The point of flushing the journal every 5s is to limit the size of the journal and therefore the time it takes to replay it on reboot. And quick reboots are the point of journalling.

    16. Re:10-15% by cioxx · · Score: 1
      Also bear in mind that it won't cost you 10-15% of your system resources; it will slow down disk operations by 10-15%, which is a much smaller penalty. If you aren't doing really disk intensive stuff, you probably won't even notice the slowdown. If you are doing lots of disk intensive activities, you'll probably like the fact that you're less likely to be hosed if your system crashes in the middle of one.

      Or alternatively, switch to RAID virtual drives or plain SCSI setup which would not only preserve that 10-15%, it'll also give the performance a noticable boost.
    17. Re:10-15% by afidel · · Score: 2

      Wrong, Journaling filesystems insure a sane metadata state, they do nothing to protect data. Basically they allow you to boot the computer without making sure that there no half completed write operations. Also I have a complete room UPS with 48 hour backup generator (and I can get fuel in 8 hours so it is indefinite) and I still wouldn't use a non-journaling fs given the choice. When we had a low power event that freaked out our UPS and caused it to power down the datacenter all the NT boxes came back up unattended but about a third the Solaris machines had to be console servered into because we weren't running Veritas and they needed to have fsck's done to them.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    18. Re:10-15% by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not as contradictory as you think. Almost all journaling systems journal metadata only, so they only protect the integrity of the filesystem, not the actual data. There are a few systems that actually journal everything, providing protection of the actual data as well as the filesystem integrity, but most ordinary users aren't likely to use them.

      As I understand it, full data journaling is not really practical for most user applications. If you journal to the same physical device that the main filesystem is on, there's a big performance penalty because you essentially have to write everything twice. That obviously isn't efficient, and you can still lose your data if the system crashes while you're writing it to the journal. Full data journaling only makes sense if you have another device to use as the journal- say a small but blazingly fast SCSI disk or some kind of nonvolatile RAM. That's not something that most users are going to do, but it would make sense in an enterprise environment.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    19. Re:10-15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's for power outages and hardware failures, you twit.

    20. Re:10-15% by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2

      Journaling your filesystem allows you to maintain integrity through a system crash or power outage.

      It depends on the type of system crash. If the file system code itself crashes, it's not too unlikely that journalling won't help.

      Furthermore, writing a sector is not atomic, and there are a few drives which can kill journalling (e.g. when a partially written sector becomes unreadable).

    21. Re:10-15% by matt-fu · · Score: 1

      Put "logging" in as a filesystem mount option in /etc/vfstab.

    22. Re:10-15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flushing each 5s also have some disadvantage when
      you have 'real time' application with intensive
      writes.

      For example, I had some problems recording with
      my TV card. Each time the system was flushing
      the journal, I was losing one or 2 frames.

    23. Re:10-15% by marhar · · Score: 5, Funny
      Most people (as in AOL Grandmas)



      I think this will also benefit the AOL Grandma crowd. Can you imagine their reaction upon booting up with a dirty partition and having to go into single-user mode and repair a filesystem?

    24. Re:10-15% by benedict · · Score: 2

      Did OS/2 have technology to prevent fans from failing?

      I got to get me some of that.

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    25. Re:10-15% by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree. "AOL Grandmas" are exactly the sort of idiots most likely to turn off their machine by pulling the plug or turning off the surge protector the machine is on. Not to mention, they're also the people most likely to destabilize their system into crashing with bad software in the first place.

      I think it should be turned on by default with advanced users, such as video editing pros, being the ones to turn it off.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    26. Re:10-15% by toupsie · · Score: 1
      I think this will also benefit the AOL Grandma crowd. Can you imagine their reaction upon booting up with a dirty partition and having to go into single-user mode and repair a filesystem?

      True, true. Safety is always key with these folks. I hate the calls I get from mine.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    27. Re:10-15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say that OS/2 crashed all the time, but then I remembered that it usually just hung.

    28. Re:10-15% by legis · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Wrong, Journaling filesystems insure a sane metadata state, they do nothing to protect data.

      This is true with the exception of ext3 which can journal data (data=journal mode) as well. Even in its default data=ordered mode ext3 can mostly guarantee data integrity by using transactions.

      Please refer to:
      http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/l ibrar y/l-fs7/

    29. Re:10-15% by legis · · Score: 1

      > It's dog slow since all data needs to be written on disk twice, once to the file and once to the journal, but at least it keeps your data intact well.

      This is in theory but in some setups data=journal mode can actually be faster than all of the other Linux journaling FS and ext2. Please refer to:

      http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/libr ar y/l-fs8.html

    30. Re:10-15% by Caktus · · Score: 1

      Journaling your filesystem allows you to maintain integrity through a system crash or power outage.

      I'd like to point out that under a system crash you can't guarantee anything, and a journaling filesystem can't help there. The reason is that when the system crashes it may have already corrupted data that has been sent to disk. A journaling filesystem could unroll the changes back to the moment data corruption began, if that moment could be determined and the required data was still in the journal. In most cases it's impossible to determine when data corruption began, and then the journaling can't help there.

      Note that journaling your filesystem only keeps the metadata intact, not the file data itself.

      It depends on the filesystem. For example, ext3 allows both modes: just metadata or full journaling.

    31. Re:10-15% by Reece400 · · Score: 1

      in NTFS,, is it enabled by default? or must it be enabled??? if so,, how can it be done?

      Thanks, Reece,

    32. Re:10-15% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it did. Also, it eliminated the need for your hardware to consume any power whatsoever.

    33. Re:10-15% by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Journalling isn't about data integrity. Data integrity can be ensured in a number of different ways that all have different pros and cons.

      Many of them work with journalling.

      All that the bullet point "journalling" guarantees is that checking the file system takes less time. Really. That is all. Some good journalling FSs are also better at maintaining file system integrity. This is not because of their journalling nature. If you run a commercial website, you may desire journalling because you don't want your servers to spend 2 hours doing fsck after your power comes back.

      Similarly, if all you do is play everquest and other games, you might crash often, and spend a lot of time doing filesystem integrity checks with a non-journalling file system. This'll be a big deal for Mac OS X users, just 'cause there are a number of non-crash situations where our FS dirty bit is set, so we have to wait during too many regular boots.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    34. Re:10-15% by rweir · · Score: 1

      Wrong, Journaling filesystems insure a sane metadata state, they do nothing to protect data.

      Er, you're wrong too. It depends on the FS and on the options you give it. Ext3, for instance can be told to journal file data as well as meta-data (using the journal=data option), but it's a pretty big performance hit.

      links: RedHat, LinuxWorld and LKML.

    35. Re:10-15% by rusty0101 · · Score: 2

      Point of contention. The reason that you are doing a fsck, chkdisk, or other hard disk test is because the system needs to validate the integrity of the data on the hard disk. System files may have been open, only partially written to, or other problems may exist.

      The assumption being made with journaling is that the data in the journal is that which should have been written to disk, but the system has no verification that it was. If you take the transactions in the journal, and repeat them, the system will have it's integrity insured and it is reasonable to assume that the system will operate as expected.

      The side effect of your buisness surviving or failing that I contrived was a contrived example. There are certainly many other methods of doing that process. Perhaps the best example would be to use a known good UPS to backup the system, and do a clean powerdown when local power fails. Of course that mitigates the need for a journaling file system in that case, as the hard drive will be in a clean state when it powers up, not requiring a long fsck or chkdsk.

      Perhaps Quake would be a better example of where it may not make sense to have a 10-15% hit on your system. Yes if a bug causes your system to crash, leaving the dirty bit set, it will take a long time to get back into the action. The question becomes is Quake, Doom, EQ, or other interactive gameplay buggy enough that taking a 10-15% hit on performance is worth Journaling? I would think that if you were a developer, or creating Hacks for the games it may make sense, however for general gameplay I would be somewhat surprised. Especially on the Macintosh.

      One cure for that would be to boot a custom configuration with small partitions for gameplay, and large partitions for general OS use, but I doubt that anyone is really interested in doing that.

      Then again, I could be wrong. I wasn't even aware that the Macintosh required "too many regular boots." One of these days I will have to go out and get a system capable of running OS X and see for myself. (Or wait for Apple to release the x86 varient of OS X.)

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    36. Re:10-15% by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      You can make a transactional FS without journalling. You can make a journalling FS without transactions. That's all I'm saying.

      And I was unclear: Mac OS X does not require many reboots at all. However, most of the times that I shut down my machine, it does a consistency check on boot. It shouldn't be dirty. Dunno what it's doing in there.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    37. Re:10-15% by rixstep · · Score: 2, Informative

      With the risk that you are getting more than you bargained for, here goes.

      Journaling is the process whereby a file system keeps track (keeps a journal) of its operations, along with a 'pointer' to where it is in its 'todo' list. Cutler called this 'transaction-based' on his NTFS. When an operation, such as a copy or move, is planned, the system makes an entry both for the operation as planned and for what would be needed to reverse it. The system holds an 'atomic' pointer that is only advanced when the system knows an operation is complete and flushed to disk.

      NTFS has been historically impossible to screw up because of this. (NT's Registry runs the same way, another layer of journalism on top of the file system's.) If the power goes, the system will see at next boot that an operation was underway but not completed. It can then 1) undo what has been (partially) done; and 2) complete the operation properly.

      Hope that helps.

    38. Re:10-15% by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Ok, so being I'm not the highest on there terminology totem pole, can somebody expain to me why journaling matters to me, and why its worth 10-15% of my system resources?

      Like everything else, it's about money. If you are getting paid to do a massive compute job - for example, rendering a movie, or simulating a skyscraper in an earthquake - then the otherwise minimal risk of filesystem corruption becomes significant. What do you do if you lose the output and don't have time to compute that part again before the deadline? A lot of the intermediate data produced by serious computation is simply too big to dump to tape regularly. This is why SGI had journalling in XFS - because time is money, and journalling saves you a lot of time if something goes wrong.

    39. Re:10-15% by stux · · Score: 2

      Yes first point, no second point :)

      "Let me just turn off the set"

      as she pushes the power button on her iMac (it promptly goes to sleep)

      and promptly unplugs the computer, and plugs in a lamp

      Ouch...

      (true story)

      I was actually over there to help her with her drive problems ;)

      Anywho, journelling will be fantastic for AOL grandmas... they get to treat their computer just like a TV (set)

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
    40. Re:10-15% by alispguru · · Score: 2

      So, if I have, say, a laptop that I only reboot when I install system updates, and it almost never crashes, a journaling file system would not be very important for me?

      --

      To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    41. Re:10-15% by toupsie · · Score: 2
      So, if I have, say, a laptop that I only reboot when I install system updates, and it almost never crashes, a journaling file system would not be very important for me?

      On a laptop, a journaling file system would suck down a battery fast since it updates the hard drive contents more often than a non-journaling file system. The more the hard drive spins, the faster the battery is depleted. Journaling is geared to towards servers and power user desktops.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  9. Just another reason... by toupsie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...to Switch! This was about the last major gripe I had with Mac OS X. We already have an encrypted file system. However, no matter how I have abused my Macs in the past, I have never had filesystem corruption with HFS+. I constantly forget to unmount my iPod and yank it off the firewire cable. Mac OS X grips about the possibility of filesystem corruption but so far, so good. Others mileage may vary and I wouldn't do it during a write.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Just another reason... by agentZ · · Score: 2

      Are they going to put Elvis on the iPod? Would that make it even easier to use my iPod under Linux? (And wouldn't it be cool to have Elvis on Elivs?)

    2. Re:Just another reason... by aburnsio.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      You get away with it because you aren't banging hard at the filesystem while yanking away at your cables. Try fulling loading your system with data copies back and forth to your iPod and an external hard drive, open your Mac box, and then on full disk load pull all cables (including internal hard drive connection). Try this a few times and you may have more luck. ;-)

    3. Re:Just another reason... by x136 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I have never had filesystem corruption with HFS+.
      You haven't been trying hard enough. :)

      Although I will say that I've only had it happen once and it was pretty much my fault (and it wasn't in OS X, either.). More than I can say for FAT16/FAT32.
      --
      SIGFEH
    4. Re:Just another reason... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Are they going to put Elvis on the iPod? Would that make it even easier to use my iPod under Linux? (And wouldn't it be cool to have Elvis on Elivs?)

      It sounds like its bolted on top of HFS+ so it should work on the iPod which is HFS+ for the Mac version. I think the Windows iPod runs FAT32 which should be easier to use on Linux. I have never had great luck with the HFS drivers in Linux having full compatibility with my Mac drives.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    5. Re:Just another reason... by edremy · · Score: 5, Informative
      Got a call from one of the help desk people yesterday: he was confused about a Disk First Aid message on a Mac here.

      Yep, you guessed it... B-tree was basically spaghetti: reformat and reinstall time. I've seen it happen a few times before: the most spectacular being a crash during a defrag. Basically, nothing pointed to the right file: all the icons were there, but the info in them was basically noise.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    6. Re:Just another reason... by dubiousmike · · Score: 4, Funny

      People, people. I would think as Mac fans we wouldn't want to tout the Switch campaign. Do any of us here really think that it is meant to target any of us, or just the lowest common denominator that happens to have extra money to spend on a system?

      Apple commercial: "I wanted to do video editing and no one could help me to do it on a PC". What a fucking moron. If you can't use a search engine, what makes you think you could edit video? For God's sake, you can buy a PC with a firewire card and some cheap editing software and BAM! you can bring your video right in.

      I understand that OS X is great for us geeks, but pulease stop bringing up the commercial that HAS to be targeted at AOL users and other internet bottom feeders.

      Disclaimer: i DO like macs.

    7. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand that OS X is great for us geeks, but pulease stop bringing up the commercial that HAS to be targeted at AOL users and other internet bottom feeders.

      I don't know about you, kiddo, but those bottom feeders pay my salary. The more of them who order Apples for the office, the easier the desktop support part of my job, and the happier I am.

    8. Re:Just another reason... by toupsie · · Score: 3, Funny
      I understand that OS X is great for us geeks, but pulease stop bringing up the commercial that HAS to be targeted at AOL users and other internet bottom feeders.

      And Slashdotters are top of the food chain? :) Actually there are several sysadmins that are apart of the Switch campaign. Not all of them are teenaged girls with their brains nuked out on Nyquil.

      Disclaimer: i DO like macs.

      Sure you do. Sure you do. If you really liked Macs, you would never, ever diss the marketing department built by Steve Jobs. Admit it! You are just a paid consultant from the Microsoft Marketing department astroturfing Slashdot. So which stock photo do you use? :P

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    9. Re:Just another reason... by LoudMusic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow dude, that kicks ass! The worst I've seen is the error where the file size is being reported incorrectly. A file showed up as some 37TB or something. Of course the OS had no idea what to do with the file, and the only way to get rid of it is to format/reinstall.

      One of the nice things about Macs (old school at least) is that I could just boot from a CD and copy everything on the HDD (minus the bad file) to the server, format the drive, and copy it all back. Good as new ... errr ... old.

      HFS and HFS+ have serious file corruption issues that most people don't ever see because they don't use their computer for more than web serfing and email. When you get into a business environment and really go at it full speed, the file system chokes. It's slow, resource heavy, and prone to file damage. It's a regular occurance on my 20+ PowerMacs to have to boot from a Norton CD and "Disk Doctor" the file system just to get them to boot from their hard drive.

      ~LoudMusic

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    10. Re:Just another reason... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Apple commercial: "I wanted to do video editing and no one could help me to do it on a PC". What a fucking moron. If you can't use a search engine, what makes you think you could edit video?

      Is it possable that they know this. But can't be fucked spending hours on the web looking for good advice and trying to decide who's right, downloading/buying different software to see which on is the best package, discovering that the new video editing card they bought conficts with their motherboard?
      This person is a fucking moron because they didn't want possability of having to go through this?

      BTW. Saying that someone who isn't good with the internet would also have no clue with video editing, is just plain ignorant and false.

    11. Re:Just another reason... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Are they going to put Elvis on the iPod?

      I've got Elvis on the iPod right now... I'm just a hunka hunka burning love

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    12. Re:Just another reason... by Pengo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmm... I disagree.

      I use my tiBook as my unix dev server for our server platform. though, we deploy onto unix, I can do 99.9% of the operations on my tiBook and as I work 50% from my home office, it's a perfect fit.. I always have my dev server with me.

      I have managed thus far to achieve a few crashes, mainly due to a resource leak with file handles and also a strange bug in Java. I have had my software crash litterally thousands of times in development cycles. I have had to hard-reset because of a hard lock w/the quartz engine....

      Anyway, I -abuse- this laptop (which I am typing on right now). It's has been an absolute champ. I haven't had anything go corrupt, and never had an error i couldn't recover from.

      Note, that I did re-partition my drive and stuck /usr/local/ mounted with a 3 gig UFS partition, but not problems with that in the last 3 weeks.

      My G4 tower (466) has been a mysql and pgsql database server and a host of my personal webserver for almost 2 years now. It survived moving over-seas twice and my abusive MP3 harvesting tools to newsgroups *gasp, I know*.

      Anyway, to say that a 'real user' will experience problems is utter bullshit. I don't know what's going on with your stations but we have 5 people on the team using G4's (some laptop+tower) and we never have problems.

    13. Re:Just another reason... by anti-drew · · Score: 1
      B-tree was basically spaghetti: reformat and reinstall time. I've seen it happen a few times before: the most spectacular being a crash during a defrag.
      It's worth noting that Apple has never shipped a defrag utility. Having a crash trash your disk is probably the fault of the utility itself... there are ways to do it safely, and there are ways to do it unsafely.

      Once you've unmounted the volume and are poking around at the raw blocks, no amount of journaling in the filesystem is going to help you.
    14. Re:Just another reason... by cioxx · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Apple commercial: "I wanted to do video editing and no one could help me to do it on a PC". What a fucking moron. If you can't use a search engine, what makes you think you could edit video? For God's sake, you can buy a PC with a firewire card and some cheap editing software and BAM! you can bring your video right in.

      Look, maybe you have lots of time on your hands to sit in front of google typing queries, then read pdf manuals to figure out how to use the latest Pinnacle DV Studio, then buy additional Firewire card, proceed to open your case, install it, configure settings, fetch the DV stream, make sure you fully understand VIVO interface, etc...

      But, most of the people don't have time to clown around on the PC doing all that shit. Most of my friends spend less than 30 minutes on a computer per day on average. You think they give a shit? No.

      Truth of the matter is, the average Desktop Joe wants everything simplified, fast, badabing - badaboom. And then return to his regularly scheduled life. Stop measuring eveyone with your ruler. Vast majority of people have higher priorities than to read technical manuals on how to edit a small clip on their computers. It's 2002. The average consumer should not fuck around with idiotic schemes just to put couple of scenes together and burn in on a CD. That's what you get with Windows.

      Mac is different. They have their finger on the pulse of the population. Simplicity is what matters. And when iMovie outputs the same or better results than Pinnacle or Ulead applications, then the choice is clear. Mac is the answer.

      I understand that OS X is great for us geeks, but pulease stop bringing up the commercial that HAS to be targeted at AOL users and other internet bottom feeders.

      In case you missed the common denominator in the whole Apple advertising campaign, it's the simplicity and hassle-free computing. Everyone percieves the commercials differently. You just have to consider your own computer usage patterns and make the decision whether speed and simplicity is your requirement. Furthermore, the commericals are NOT targetting AOL users, or low-income individuals for that matter. No person with 12k/year salary could ever afford to buy an iPod or have a DV camera.
    15. Re:Just another reason... by LoudMusic · · Score: 2

      So you write code and store mp3s? Try doing something that is actually disk intensive ... like Photoshop. What you're doing pales in comparison to image work - though you do have the ability to test the operating system more precisely, but Photoshop is designed to work, not to 'see what the OS can handle'.

      So you have five people using HFS(+) doing software developement - I have twenty people using apps that nearly peg out the FS for hours at a time. Their mileage WILL vary.

      ~LoudMusic

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    16. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      video editing card they bought conficts with their motherboard

      What the fuck are you talking about? What the hell is a video editing card and since when do cards conflict with motherboards? You obviousy have always had your computers prepackaged in a nice color box.

      In the commercial the guy says he didn't know how to hook it up to his PC and then he says he just plugged the firewire into the Mac. Well fuck. If he knew it was firewire why not go to CompUSA and ask for a firewire card. Not exactly rocket science. And Windows XP comes with Video Editing software also. If he didn't like it there are dozens of other packages out there including most of the ones available on the Mac and some that aren't.

      The Apple switch commercials play on outdated problems that were fixed 5 years ago by Microsoft. All they are a Apple's typical FUD advertising. They have never had a commercial that wasn't some sort of dig at Microsoft. There commercials have always bordered on fraudelent. Apple is a company that deserves to be flushed to the depths of hell for all of the years of crappy OS's that I was forced to work on.

    17. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you plan on doing video editing why not buy a Sony computer? They come with IEEE1394 built in and chances are your camera is a Sony anyway. As for not needing to read pdf instructions that is just bullshit. Most of the software comes with print manuals and is easy enough to use to do basic editing. If you are doing advanced editing you will need to read the manual on the mac or pc. Apple users have such an arrogance about them. I can meet somebody and right away tell if they are a mac user. The only time I have trouble is when I meet a former mac user like myself who got disgusted with the crappy systems and arrogance of the user community.

    18. Re:Just another reason... by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2
      However, no matter how I have abused my Macs in the past, I have never had filesystem corruption with HFS+.

      You lucky bastard. When I was running the OS X Public Beta, my 20 gig hard drive got messed up bad enough that OS 9 wouldn't mount it any more (and with OS 9, no mount means no boot). Of course Disk First Aid was useless. I had to go out and get Norton, at which point I found out that my files had gotten badly crosslinked. A crosslinked HFS+ file system is a truly evil thing. And from more recent experience with Norton, it seems that OS X still refuses to keep the alternate volume header block up to date.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    19. Re:Just another reason... by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2
      In the good ol' days, System 7 point something or so, sometimes a directory could report that it contained a negative number of files. So of course it wouldn't allow you to delete it, because it had files in it. If you put files to make the number equal to zero, it would notice that the directory had file entries it, and you still couldn't delete it.

      And then there was the dreaded Error -127. That's the generic "HFS is confused" error code.

      As for Disk First Aid, it was totally useless on all but the simplest of directory corruption. It also refused to work on a disk with open files (including of course the boot volume). It was a great day when Norton was able to fix a drive without rebooting from a slow recovery floppy, although it did bitch on some sorts of boot volume problems.

      the most spectacular being a crash during a defrag.

      One time I was defragging with a shrinkwrap copy (as in not warezed) of Mac Tools and hit cancel during the defrag. It left the directory in a corrupted state. That was the last time I trusted Mac Tools to either defrag or repair HFS volumes.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    20. Re:Just another reason... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      When I was running the OS X Public Beta,

      Now what do we do when we run Beta software? BACKUP! :)

      I have had those problems on HFS not HFS+. Guess I have been blessed by the FS fairy in the last two years.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    21. Re:Just another reason... by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2

      Ehh, I've seen a few Apple ads with SysOps and other geeks. You just have to be watching the discovery channel or TLC to see those ;) If you watching prime time TV on the big networks then you see all the ads aimed at normal consumers. Moreover, if you stay up late and watch cartoon network you start to see all the Apple ads aimed at slacker college kids.

      Nevertheless, I'm not going to knock those ads about Apple's consumer software. Apple's free "i" multimedia software is free and beats the pants off every Windows or *nix alternative that has come my way. I may be a geek, but that doesn't mean that I don't want cool easy to use consumer toys as well. I want to rip-mix-burn just as much as the guy down the street who's using his 1025 free AOL hours.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    22. Re:Just another reason... by marhar · · Score: 2
      For God's sake, you can buy a PC with a firewire card and some cheap editing software and BAM! you can bring your video right in.



      I tried this on my Sony box... I thought that Sony of all people would have some decent video editing software. It was really painful. When I did the same thing with iMovie it was a very pleasant experience.

    23. Re:Just another reason... by Pengo · · Score: 2

      omg, give me a break.

      I would say a 4 gig database is pretty disk intensive.

      I would say that working with 4-500+ constnantly changing files + servlets is disk intensive.

      I have written a distributed locking system for doing VoiceXML->WAVE SPEECH then convrsion to VOIP data using HFS+ is fairly fucking disk intensive. And test MANY instances of it on my machine. And yes, it uses HFS+.

      Photoshop, which I do use, doesn't cause corruptions in the file system.

      iPhoto which I have 3 gigs of image data, doesn't corrupt the file system.

      Frankly, I think your just full of shit.

    24. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay! So I got the Firewire card. Now what do I do?

    25. Re:Just another reason... by erikvcl · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that you've been a Macintosh user for very long. Expert Macintosh users reformat their hard drives every year or so to be on the safe side. At my office, in a server environment, the filesystems on the server become corrupted regularly and for no reason. I've used Macintoshes since 1987 and I can tell you from my experience that the HFS and HFS+ filesystems are extremely vulnerable to corruption.

      That's one more reason why it's foolish of Apple to build on the aweful HFS+ filesystem. This is Unix -- we no longer need to store resource and data forks separately on the filesystem!

    26. Re:Just another reason... by usfGPM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not trying to argue with you, but have you considered that Norton might be your problem? I had a few clients get hosed by Norton in the Pre-OS X days (installing Norton Crash Guard was quite possibly the fastest way to make a Mac crash) and stopped using their products all together. From what I have read, the newer versions are no better.

      Maybe you could try using DiskWarrior (which has saved my ass numerous times) on one of the machines and see if that machine has a lower future failure rate than the other 19 that are using Norton.

      Who knows, maybe it is OS X that is causing your problems, but this is probably worth looking into.

    27. Re:Just another reason... by LoudMusic · · Score: 2

      We don't install the Norton software, just run it from the CD. I agree that it causes more problems than it solves when it's installed and running.

      I've tried TechTools - it finds different problems. I suppose they're best used in conjunction with eachother.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    28. Re:Just another reason... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
      What the fuck are you talking about? What the hell is a video editing card and since when do cards conflict with motherboards? You obviousy have always had your computers prepackaged in a nice color box.

      A video editing card was just an example. The fact is, you can never be guarrenteed to get components to work together, even if you do your research first (which most people never even think about).
      I have never bought a pre-assembled computer (except for my iBook). I have made them all myself, I did my research, but I still have problems. You may not, but a lot of people still end up with conficts.

      Win2000 maybe very stable untill you add a small hardware realted problem into the mix.

    29. Re:Just another reason... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      I don't believe that you've been a Macintosh user for very long. Expert Macintosh users reformat their hard drives every year or so to be on the safe side.

      Expert Macintosh user? That's like saying, "Expert Training Wheel Cyclist"! Though I don't mourn the loss of the 'Happy Mac' and 'Clarus', I have been using a Mac as long as they were around. Some things deserve to die. Hopefully HFS+ will meet their fate. As I said before, user mileage may very. In dealing with large numbers of Macs, HFS+ was the least of my problems.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    30. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For future reference, the words you are thinking of are possible & possibility.

    31. Re:Just another reason... by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      Norton, ahh yes.

      I used to wrangle Macs for money, and after the Great Norton debacle (where they shipped 3.0, whose disk defragmenter defragged your disk by wiping it clean), I pretty much gave up on it - it regularly did more harm than good.

    32. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> -----
      >> Gawd, I am getting sick of the groupthink on slashdot.

      Me too!!!!

    33. Re:Just another reason... by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      I would agree with you that Sony is suspect. But I would also say that if one buys an Imac to do video editing, they will quickly run out of options. No space for an additional HD (except getting porked by buying an external Firewire drive) and once you outgrow Imovie, you will be paying $1000 for FCP, $300 for a firewire drive, and $50 for a good amount of ram.

      I know Imac users who are kicking themselves becuase, at least for video editing, they feel like they have an overpriced toy instead of a machine that can really do more than basic video editing.

      BTW, I work for BorisFX(.com) and we make plugins for all of the major NLE's, including the actual text generator in FCP. Macs are cool, but again, Apple sells Imac Imovie making machines that are overpriced and seem to only entertain those who want to make videos for a VERY short period of time. It ends up seeming like a waste of money.

    34. Re:Just another reason... by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      Thank you for not being a raving Mac lunitic. I like Apple, but some folks go overboard with their passion for Mac.

      I work for BorisFX(.com). We make the text generator in the past couple of versions of FCP, along with plugins for every major NLE on the market for both Mac and Windows.

      I guess the thing is that got to me was specifically the commercial where the guy speaks about video.

      The problem is that Imacs aren't a good solution for those who want their video hobby to grow. You can buy a Firewire card that comes with decent NLEs. You can fit an additional drive in most PCs you buy.

      If you have an Imac, you need to spend $999 for FCP and $300 for an external Firewire drive. That's a real kick in the teeth when you already spent too much on an Imac (IMHO). I like OS X. I don't like to have to buy Apple hardware that they seem to build without expanding your video hobby in mind. And thay are marketing it to you to do just that.

    35. Re:Just another reason... by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      They have their finger on the pulse of the population.

      I wonder if the pulse of the population registers that as their video hobby grows that their machine wont. Buy an Imac to do video editing. After a week, if you still want to keep it up and stretch your legs, you find out that you'll need an additional drive cause movies take up a lot of hd space. Whoa! $300 for an external firewire drive?!? $999 for FCP 3?!? How come my desktop viewing area isn't really big enough to see everything I need to when doing video editing? Oh, another $400 for an external monitor?

      Suddenly your overpriced Imac doesn't see like sucha great bargain and you find out that if you had DONE some legwork instaed of just blindly believing Apple's commercial, that you WOULD have bought a G4. But wait, I can buy a PC for half as much (I can at least) that will do the same thing?

      BTW, I work at BorisFX(.com). We make plugins for every major NLE, both Mac and Windows. We make the text generator for FCP. I work with a LOT of Mac users. I have two family members with Imacs. I have at least 5 friends who do also. I think I have my finger on the Mac market. And you know what, excluding sys admins who now like Macs becuase of *nix, most Mac users, especially those who bought a Mac to do video editing are AOL/internet bottom feeders. Of course, as they raise themselves up into some knowledge of computers and the internet, they ALL realize that they wouldn't have bought an Imac had they know how limiting it would be (harware, not software) and all have the same question:

      "Why in the world did I pay so much for a computer that can't grow with my hobby without paying a LOT more money?"

      Perhaps doing a little reasearch to get a PC that can grow with your needs (or a G4 - though its out of most consumer's price range) would be better than dumping $2500 bucks to get an Imac that can do almost what you need for video editing.

      And that's why I don't like the Apple ad campaings. I think they get newbies to buy something that really wont suit their needs long term.

    36. Re:Just another reason... by dmarcoot · · Score: 1

      you can hook a firewire HD up that imac and run final cut pro and burn your video to DVD if they have the high end imac. if these people didnt know that, they arent ready for pro video yet

    37. Re:Just another reason... by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      I hear you.

      But what they really weren't ready for was to pay $1200 for an Imac to find out they needed to spend another $1300 ($999 for FCP, $300 for external FW drive) to help them let their hobby grow with their skills.

      For that price they could have gotten a turnkey NLE system with extra dives, at least Premiere (if not a better NLE).

      Personally, I'd get a kick ass dual Athalon system, a nice big monitor, at least one extra drive and Avid Xpress DV for $2500.

      That's video editing lovin!

      Check out my URL if you want to know why I am so opinionated on DV and NLEs...

    38. Re:Just another reason... by stux · · Score: 2

      HFS+ corruption is ONLY a problem if you crash.

      When doing dev work, its unlikely you'll crash OSX (although I have done it when I tripped over some CPU bugs^H^H^H^Herrata)

      Use photoshop, under OS9, or quark, you will corrupt the filesystem... but its normally very easy to fix. The problem is that one time when it isn't :(

      I have an OSX box which doesn't get along with firewire drives... this used to cause kernel panics... now it just causes pizza-death (which can be rememedied by unplugging the firewire chain)

      That machine was prone to corruption through 10.0->10.1.5 (or was it .4?)

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
    39. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked at your companies website and the first three products I looked at cost $1600, $600, and $600. If your belief that FCP at $1000 is too expensive for the industry, you better start looking for a new job.

    40. Re:Just another reason... by Death_Angel · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with NyQuil?

      --
      Bond girl numero uno!
    41. Re:Just another reason... by myov · · Score: 2

      FWIW, we recently bought a NLE (Non Linear Editor - a computer based editing system) to replace an older editing system.

      The way I saw it, we had 2 options. Since we're mostly PC based, I could base the system on a PC. However, I would still need to add a Firewire card, software, and hope the whole thing works together. In the event that something does go wrong, I'm looking at at least 4 vendors (hw, os, firewire, and sw). While PC-based NLE's exist and work, I wasn't convinced that it was the best solution for us.

      Or, I could get a Mac instead. One company supplies the box, firewire, os and the software. I know that I can unpack it and it will just work out of the box. iMovie is fine for most of our needs, and I can always move to Final Cut if I need to. To take it further, while NLE's work fine on a desktop, try a notebook computer. Yet, I can run iMovie or Final Cut on my TiBook and edit just as if I was on the desktop at work.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    42. Re:Just another reason... by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      If you already have TiBook, then it makes perfect sense to buy a Mac based NLE system. Its not that I think that PCs are better than Macs for doing non linear editing, its that I think they are overpriced for what you get (many times, but not all).

      FCP 3 will cost you $999 unless Apple gives you an upgrade price from IMovie.

      I have been using PCs for video editing since 1996. I have never had any problems (other than frying my computer from static electricity).

      A firewire card costs about $20 from reputable companies. The drivers have worked for a long time now. We aren't in the days of Windows 98. You throw it in a box with Win2000 or XP and it just works. Just like if you threw one in a Mac.

      But at the end of the day, PCs are still MUCH cheaper.

      FYI, you can buy turnkey systems for both PCs and Macs (open the box, plug in the machine and start editing). But if IMovie satisfies your needs, then it would be over kill anyway.

      Also, my posts were arguing that Apple advertises iMacs for people to edit video with. But After you add on FCP 3 and an external Firewire drive, the costs are enourmous for what really amounts to a pretty weak machine (for video editing).

  10. Thisis 100% PURE rumor by gsfprez · · Score: 5, Informative

    i wish it would have been explained that way...

    the writer of the eWeek article is Nick De Plumme (or something) - he's the guy from ThinkSecret....

    hardly a "journalistic" website.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    1. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by jamesoutlaw · · Score: 5, Informative


      Remember a few months ago when several web publishers lost their Press Credentials to MacWorld for publishing Rumors? "Nick dePlume" was one of them. Matthew Rothenburg wrote an editorial entitled "Let My People Go" (or something like that) saying that these so-called "rumor" sites should be allowed the same privileges as the "real" press. Since then he's been co-writing articles every now and then with dePlume (that's a pen name, who knows that the guy's real name). I think that it's to try and lend some credibility to Think Secret and dePlume.

      Of course, this is pure speculation and all. who knows. haha

      Regardless of the truth, Rothenburg's "association" with Think Secret has basically caused me to lose respect for him.

    2. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by heychris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, this is purely IMHO, but eWeek and ThinkSecret seem to have a pretty good track record in predicting future Apple moves. I don't have any data to back that up, though...and I'm not inclined to go looking right now.

      That being said, it's been pretty well known that Apple seems to be taking a shining to corporate America more in recent months. A journaling file system would go a long way. Not as long as RAID 5 support in the Xserve would, but it would help. Yes, I know of the XRaid, but that's not here yet (or even officially announced, as far as I can tell). One wonders what Sun thinks of all of this...

      Apple seems to "get" the corporate world now. I've heard nothing but positive comments about Apple's Server support from clients. Under AppleShareIP, it was all but useless, but they seem to have a good mix of Unix and Mac folks manning the lines.

      If only Open Directory and AD integration were not such a chore. If I wasn't working on MSCE material, I think I'd be lost with Apple's Open Directory. High-level training of any kind still seems to be difficult to come by, though I think the certifications are on the right track. Hopefully, MacOS X's appeal to the alpha geeks and *nix cross-over will help there.

      CC

    3. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by MatthewRothenberg · · Score: 5, Informative

      We made it very clear that we're working from sources, and that the release of this information has not been sanctioned.

      Of course, I stand behind it completely, and I recommend that you check out our track record for accuracy when reporting unannounced Mac news on eWEEK: The end of Mac OS 9 booting and the rise of IBM's 64-bit PowerPC are just two recent examples of stories we nailed to the wall in advance of the official PR.

      It's not my place to speak for Think Secret, but Mac stories we put on eWEEK adhere strictly to a three-source rule (and always make a point of offering Apple an opportunity to respond, not that the company often avails itself of the chance). While we'd never burn a source, we make it absolutely clear what's official writ and what's unreleased insider information. This falls into the latter camp, but that doesn't detract a bit from its authenticity.

      Check back with me in a month, gsfprez, and we can talk about whether or not this story has legs. :-)

      Matthew Rothenberg
      Online editor
      Ziff Davis Media

    4. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by MatthewRothenberg · · Score: 5, Interesting
      >>Matthew Rothenburg wrote an editorial entitled "Let My People Go" (or something like that) saying that these so-called "rumor" sites should be allowed the same privileges as the "real" press.

      James,

      Actually, I wrote that "rumor and speculation" was a silly yardstick for Apple to apply to press access, since all the mainstream press sources that cover Apple (present company included) happily employ both:

      http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,338330,00.a sp

      I also said that Apple has a right (and a need) to establish a method for differentiating between the press and enthusiasts when it comes to allocating press badges. However, applying this particular measure to the small fry and not the big fish smacks of intimidation.

      Press access is a privilege that Apple can extend or withhold, but if they're not going to apply it fairly or consistently, I reserve the right to call them on it.

      Matthew Rothenberg
      Online editor
      Ziff Davis Media

    5. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by heychris · · Score: 1
      One more quick thought...

      If you really want rumor, you can always check out RumorTracker; it covers all of the Mac rumor sites. Though the rumor sites are almost never 100% accurate, they do tend to have some good commentary, and they're a lot less rah-rah about Apple, and more balanced in coverage overall than they used to be.

      Now, where are the sites to go for Gateway rumors?

      Oh, sorry, I forgot! :)

      CC

    6. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by gsfprez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Check back with me in a month, gsfprez, and we can talk about whether or not this story has legs. :-)

      while it may have legs or not - that doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, rumor - and not solid facts coming from the 1 Infinite Loop Compound.

      Therefore, it doesn't change the fact that the /. report that "Apple: MacOS X to Get Journaling FS" is not an accurate way to announce this news.

      "Apple: Mac OS X rumored to get a JFS in 10.2.2" - which is what your report is - would be far more acurate, and acceptable of a title.

      It also doesn't help to involve yourself with someone who is only slightly more accurate than Ryan Meader. While nothing is as bad as MacOS Rumors - which is only slightly less accurate than CrazyAppleRumors, you might do well to re-examine the useless Ryan Meader-esque drivvel Think Secret has given us in the past...

      - the amazing iPad - which was such an amazingly horrid case of egg-face that they've deleted every possible history of it on their site

      - G5s since may of 1999(http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/0599.html )

      - Mac OS Lite on a Palm-like device since june of 1999
      (http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/0699.ht ml)

      I could go on... but i think that my basic point is that if you're going to lecture people on sexual harassment, you don't have Bill Clinton co-write the material with you - it diminishes your credibility, regardless.

      i do give marks to eWeek for their news on the Mac - its fairly unbiased compared to other tech news outlets like c|net - and i do note that the actual article at your website does clarify clearly that this is, indeed, rumor, and not Apple Computer making an announcement.

      so - while it seemed like a slam on you and eWeek, it was more of a slam on /. and Nick dePlume. My apologies for not being more clear.

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    7. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've gotten what 10 out of hundreds of rumors right? They got every single rumor for MWNY right and not a single false rumor. They were the only ones too. Thats like saying slashdot is worthless repetitive dribble because sometimes the editors repost stories.

    8. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by Henriok · · Score: 1

      This might be a rumor, but it is true!

      I've seen a 6F-beta run journaling HFS+. Just run 'diskutil' in the terminal and turn it on yourselves!

      It is undocumented thus far, but it _is_ there!

      --

      - Henrik

      - when the Shadows descend -
    9. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Dunno if you're trolling or not, but you'll have to explain how Nick DePlume and his site, Think Secret are less journalistic than any other website. I have yet to read a single thing on his site that wasn't completely accurate. He always explains exactly how well confirmed his news is.

      The NYT recently posted an article suggesting that Apple was making a cellular telephone. Their only source was the fact that Jaguar's features seemed like they would nicely compliment a cell phone.

      What has he ever done to betray his readers' trust? Defend your statement.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    10. Re:Thisis 100% PURE rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matthew is a good guy and he knows his stuff. So does Nick. They used to hang out with the current staff of MacEdition with MTK back on the old Mac The Knife Boards with Robert Morgan of RFI. There was a lot of talent and juicy goodness on those boards. Try writing your own site or aquiring your own rumors before you pick someone else to death. Nick was barely a teenager when he started. I think he has done well with himself.

      too lazy to set up an account,
      Mark Anthony Collins
      fourthattention@cox-internet.com
      http:// www.cox-internet.com/fourthattention/

  11. About that performance hit ... by benedict · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if that stated 10-15% performance hit
    is with or without journal on a separate disk.

    I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet.

    --
    Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    1. Re:About that performance hit ... by Bastian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since about 90% of mac users won't ever put a second disk in, and there isn't even room in an iMac for a second disk that I know of, I'd imagine they are only talking about on a single disk.

    2. Re:About that performance hit ... by the_rev_matt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would disagree, as most Mac users I know have at least 3 disks in their towers and I have an external (firewire) drive on my iMac. This is only my experience and may be abnormal, but given the heavy use of Macs in multimedia (with the accompanying monstrously large files) I seriously doubt it.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    3. Re:About that performance hit ... by analog_line · · Score: 2

      Many more than 90% of mac users will have two or more drives in or attached to their machine. Most of my Mac customers are in the advertising or design business, and most have G4 or G3 towers. Generally, even if they don't have a second disk in the tower, they have a RAID array or other external storage plugged into at least one of their machines...usually ones where a journaling filesystem would be the most appropriate.

    4. Re:About that performance hit ... by Jobe_br · · Score: 2

      Many of the folks I know use external Firewire drives on their iMacs. Its dead easy that even a novice can do it - unpack the box, plug-in the cable, follow the screen prompts (if any) and voila, you're done.

      If this JFS has an option to put the journal on an external Firewire drive, I'll certainly be enabling that. Otherwise, much of my work doesn't involve disk-intensive tasks, so the 10-15% penalty won't be that noticeable for me. Anyway, if Elvis goes the way of the rest of the OS, that 10-15% penalty will erode away over the next few updates/releases.

      Cheers.

    5. Re:About that performance hit ... by bocee · · Score: 1

      If the journal is on a different disk, there wouldn't be a performance hit at all; disk accesses would actually be faster. (Or at least they should be.)

      I always thought speed was one of the main advantages of journaling. Because the writes to the journal are concentrated in one part of the disk, the drive doesn't have to seek as much.

      --john

    6. Re:About that performance hit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not only do most (desktop) mac users have a second disk in their mac, in a lot of cases those disks are SCSI.

      Mac users aren't like the slashdot weenies who buy whatever is cheapest. They generally have really good hardware.

    7. Re:About that performance hit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you thought wrong. Journaling slows down the box since first it has to write 'i'm gunna go do this' in the journal, THEN it has to go do that. Journaling is always a performance hit, but it helps ensure integrity, so it's considered a positive.

    8. Re:About that performance hit ... by Alex · · Score: 1

      Actually because in disk transfers are about 50% faster than transfers across the ide/scsi bus it more than makes up for the extra total number of writes, so its about the same speed on Linux and Solaris.

      Alex

    9. Re:About that performance hit ... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      No one has brought it up because virtually no one wants to waste an entire disk for a filesystem journal.

    10. Re:About that performance hit ... by benedict · · Score: 2

      You can't escape a certain performance hit when
      keeping a journal on the same disk as the file-
      system being journaled.

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    11. Re:About that performance hit ... by benedict · · Score: 2

      You can use the same disk for journal, syslogs,
      holding disk for backups, etc.

      Anyway, since people are willing to "waste" a
      disk for RAID-5, or N/2 disks for RAID-1, I think
      they'll be willing to do so for journaling. Good
      thing you covered your ass with "virtually".

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    12. Re:About that performance hit ... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      RAID provides a lot more benefit than journaling.

    13. Re:About that performance hit ... by benedict · · Score: 1

      In-disk transfers? What planet is your hardware from?

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    14. Re:About that performance hit ... by benedict · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily. They do different things, each
      is better for some situations. And, as I pointed
      out, it isn't necessary to dedicate a disk to a
      journal, one can just use an underutilized disk.

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    15. Re:About that performance hit ... by MCZapf · · Score: 1

      A journal on an external drive? If you take the drive away, the journal is gone! Though, I guess it'd be possible to detect the absence and revert to non-journaling mode.

    16. Re:About that performance hit ... by namespan · · Score: 2

      There's certainly no room for a second disk in my TiBook....

      (Oh wait. I don't have TiBook... just a TI/994a! And my alarm is buzzing and I'm late for work. And my new Altima is actually an.... 85 Sentra Wagon !!!? Where is my beautiful house? Where is my beautiful wife?)

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
    17. Re:About that performance hit ... by brarrr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, I partitioned the drive on my pbook so I won't get the speed hit.

      --
      to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
    18. Re:About that performance hit ... by bocee · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm probably thinking of a logging filesystem, where almost all writes just go to the (sequentially written) log, and then are migrated to their "real" place on the disk.

      Anyway, with the journal on a separate disk, you wouldn't have to write the journal "first," you would write to the journal and the data at the same time.

  12. more than just a pretty face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least this shows Apple's serious with courting the tech-savvy audience. Before, the reason to go with Apple was out of preference for the UI... and that was it. OS9 was ungainly and unstable. With OSX there're now true geeky reasons to want a Mac. No more being ashamed of coveting the rainbow apple! I want protected memory/journalling fs/unix multiuser/process stability/gnu tools/etc ... and an interface that looks like i can eat it for dessert!

    1. Re:more than just a pretty face by aiabx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except it isn't a rainbow apple any more - it's a white one that lights up. The old rainbow logo was an emblem of the touchy-feely-UI-is-everything old Apple. Now that they are trying to win on technical merits, they want a cooler, high-tech looking logo.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    2. Re:more than just a pretty face by non · · Score: 1
      almost ten years ago i gave up my mac in favor of NT3.5 for most of those features you mention. it took apple that long to make real computers. in the meantime taligent, copeland and be came and went, and i finally turned to linux.

      i was looking at the apple store today. for the same price as a dual G4/1G i can build a dual Athlon with 266FSB, more and registered memory, in an aluminum case with a 430watt power supply, stuff it with reasonably priced SCSI, and for the coup de grace give it a NVidia Quadro4 750.

      now why would i want a mac again?

      --
      ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
    3. Re:more than just a pretty face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple has also alwasy had bettter plugin in play and reliabity which is a lot more substantial that a pretty UI. but PC geeks put it down for not having command line. then windows came out and it sucked but apple kept trucking along doing it right.

    4. Re:more than just a pretty face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you dont want a mac. who fucking cares what anyone wants? i want a new car, i cant build one myself, got a problem with that and do you even care? i wouldnt expect you to.

    5. Re:more than just a pretty face by Into+The+White · · Score: 1

      The problem with that Athlon is that you've got to run either Linux or Windows. If you buy the Mac, you get to run OS X. That's the whole point of the matter. It's true that Macs are lagging in performance right now, but in a year or so the pendulum will swing the other way for a couple of years. If you're someone who must always have the fastest system, then I suppose you could switch platforms and buy all new software whenever x86 and PPC traded places as the fastest hardware....but wouldn't that get a bit expensive? And what is more determinant in how fast you accomplish tasks with your computer, the hardware or the OS? Most Mac users would argue that the OS enables them to be more productive. Apple will never be the computer of choice for geeks who like to build their own computers and endlessly tinker. It is not even Apple's intent to woe this sort of user. Apple aims to be the computer of choice for those who use their computers as tools to CREATE--the artists, writers, and with OS X, the programmers. When you're busy using your computer to create, the LAST thing you want to do is crack it open and tinker with it.

      --
      "If you're half-evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person you are opposed to is totally evil." N. Mailer
  13. Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Hairy_Potter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the main reasons I haven't switched from the despotic Linux family with it's Nazi-esque SysV init scripts is the presence of awesome journaling capability, knowing that I can pull out the power cords on my SCSI disks and reconstruct data on the fly gives me a lot of peace of mind.

    But, having cut my eye teeth on SunOS 4.1.3, I still have a hankering for the old rc files, and the general Berkeleyness of the BSDs. Will Apple be good enough to help roll a decent journaling file system back into the BDSs, so I can return to my blissfil Berkely rc days, and not worry about the cleaning lady pulling out my RAID power outlet to use the vacuum cleaner?

    1. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BSD's have soft-updates, which depending on who you ask, are as good or better than journaling.

    2. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by StressedCoder · · Score: 1

      Read up on softupdates. BSD doesn't need journaling.

      --
      Jason Denton Colorado State University [Thoughs and comments are my own, and not reflective of CSU]
    3. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 3, Funny

      This will probably have its source released as part of Darwin (simply because it's a low-level function; I don't have any news about this), but it will also probably only work on HFS+ filesystems, so someone else would still have to adapt it to other filesystems to add it to the other BSDs.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
    4. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      You know, just because you use Linux, doesn't mean you have to use SysV-styled init scripts.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    5. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...with it's Nazi-esque SysV init scripts...

      It's vs. Its: This one is simple, even though it represents an exception to the rules of possessive apostrophe (see next tip)."It's" means "it is" (as in, "It is cold," "It is time to clean the bong," or "It is not that I don't like you, I'm just not attracted to you"), and sometimes "it has" (as in, "It has come to this," or "It has been a long time since I read an article by such a snob"). Meanwhile, "its" means "belonging to it"--as in, "The bear wiped its ass on the rabbit," or "This post is certainly taking its time to come to the point."

      (Paraphrased from The Stranger.)

    6. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Informative

      What does SYSV init even have to do with Linux? The kernel doesn't care how the crap it's expected to support gets started!

      If you're really so worked up about the trivia of SYSV init, go wander over to FreeBSD's CVS site and grab the etc module. Snag the rc files out'a there and smear them bodily into Gentoo or Debian (or whatever.) You're probably looking at 2-3 hours work to port that rc nonsense over.

      This is O P E N source. You are free to have what you want. But, whatever you do, please stop your stoopid whining... k thx.

      Nazi-esque.... wut a dink. You badly need to spend some time with real nazi folk.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    7. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by sirket · · Score: 2

      rc nonesense? No offense but how does splitting up rc into 32 different files in 6 directories with sym links to yet another directory make SYS V style startup scripts _EASIER_ to deal with?

      Frankly the only thing that bothered me about the persons post was that they thought that they needed a journaled file system. SoftUpdates is fast as can be and stable as hell. With snapshots we will also have the background fsck that will make the system perfect.

      -sirket

    8. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by sczimme · · Score: 1

      and not worry about the cleaning lady pulling out my RAID power outlet to use the vacuum cleaner?

      Your cleaning lady plugs the vacuum into your UPS?? (hint, hint)

      --
      I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    9. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      rc nonesense? No offense but how does splitting up rc into 32 different files in 6 directories with sym links to yet another directory make SYS V style startup scripts _EASIER_ to deal with?

      It doesn't. I didn't suggest that it did.

      About the only real advantage of SYSV init is that it gives third party vendors a slightly easy means of spamming their crap startup code into approximately correct locations without doing grievous damage to what is already there. Of course, any admin that would actually rely on this has far greater issues anyhow, so it's not a terribly significant gain.

      I would never suggest the SYSV crap is in any way "easier" than the rc crap. I wouldn't even suggest that "easy" is a worthy goal. I merely suggested that the twit from the original post consider dealing with the situation. ...and it's nonsense, mkay?

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    10. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and not worry about the cleaning lady pulling out my RAID power outlet to use the vacuum cleaner?

      Amazing. I don't think you managed to get a single thing correct in your entire post except the spelling, and yet you still managed to get modded up. WTF is up with that?

    11. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Fweeky · · Score: 2
      Will Apple be good enough to help roll a decent journaling file system back into the BDSs, so I can return to my blissfil Berkely rc days, and not worry about the cleaning lady pulling out my RAID power outlet to use the vacuum cleaner?

      Enable softupdates, mount your filesystems sync, and either set hw.ata.wc=0, or if your drives support tagged queuing, hw.ata.tags=1.

      Of course, if power failures are that much of a worry, you could always get a UPS. Otherwise, you make sure transactions aren't interlaced and your drive *really* writes stuff out when it says it does.
    12. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      HFS+ isn't POSIX compliant since it preserves case, but doesn't allow two files with the same filename sans case to exist in the same directory.

      Furthermore there are a lot of neat HFS+ features which can only be accessed via Carbon.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    13. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2
      the despotic Linux family with it's Nazi-esque SysV init scripts

      Never used Slackware, have you?

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    14. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Funny
      Hmm, Nazi-esque? I can see the conversation now..

      Nazi SYS5 init architect:

      Mein Furher! Ve needen maken startup of system harrrrrder to administrrrrate. Ist too eazy now. Even girly non-blue eyed non-Aryans can administrate serrrrvers now.


      SVR4 Nazi Furher:

      Ja wohl!!! How can we skrrrrrrew de administrrrrators?


      Nazi SYS5 init architect:

      split ze starrrrtup scripts, makingkt dem more komplicated.

      Umm, I don't think that happened. I find SVR4 style easier. Every service in it's own seperate file. Ever try to start a system server on BSD by hand? It's harder than you think. In SV$ land, I can take any server down by running a kill script and restart it by running its startup script. hell, even FreeBSD has a SVR4 style init directory (granted, only for a single run level now). And if it's all that hard, just make /etc/rc3.d/S99local and run your stuff form there. RedHat (and probably most other Linuxes) have runlevel editors that make administration pretty easy.

      Hmm, Berkeleyness of Berkeley software, who knew?

      FreeBSD (maybe all {Free,Net,Open}BSDs) uses SoftUpdates, which in some ways is better than journalling, depending on what you want.

    15. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by tdelaney · · Score: 2
      You let your cleaning lady into your server room? With a vacuum cleaner?

      Think of the ESD man!!!

      :)

    16. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...Nazi-esque SysV init scripts...

      sorry, i just love reading that bit for some reason. i'm not quite laughing aloud, but i can't stop reading it over and over again, and it drags the corners of my mouth up every time...

      ...Nazi-esque SysV init scripts...

      it's just got to be one of the funniest things i've ever heard said about linux, or the *BSDs, or anything remotely unix-like for that matter. and yeah, i know what a *BSD-like init script setup looks like, Slackware had one back when i was a newbie cutting my teeth on it. when i switched to red hat, SysVInit was one of the major advantages, for me.

      ...Nazi-esque SysV init scripts...

      i just can't seem to stop! somebody slap me!

    17. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by g4dget · · Score: 2
      You don't have to use the SysV init scripts on Linux. In fact, I think several Linux installations revert to /etc/rc if they can't find the other init scripts.

      Of course, the reason why those init scripts are there is for package management. It's hard to see how you can have decent package management with a monolithic init file.

    18. Re:Can this be rolled back into the BSDs? by sirket · · Score: 2

      Fair enough.

      The advantadge that SYS V style startup scripts give third party vendors is already available in *BSD though. FreeBSD maintains a directory called /usr/local/etc/rc.d which works exactly like /etc/rc.d/rcX.d on SYS V boxes. You simply put an executable script into the directory and it runs at boot time.

      The real advantadge to SYS V style scripts is that it is easier to restart a complex service by typing ./script restart than it is to do it manually. FreeBSD gets around this by keeping the system started utilities simple and sensible. Restarting them usually requires no more than a -HUP so there is no confusion. The /usr/local/etc/rc.d scripts should always accept restart as an argument and thus gives you the best of both worlds (ideally).

      -sirket

  14. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by SlamMan · · Score: 2

    Since plenty of people hate that, I don't see that being a default. Ever.

    Would be nice to have the option though.

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
  15. Re:even more performace hit by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

    I trust the speed hit is for FS operations.

    And the second question is why it's off by default :-)

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  16. I THINK YOU MEANT "SHITLOAD" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:I THINK YOU MEANT "SHITLOAD" by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2

      He types with an accent. Give the man a break ;)

      (off topic...you bet)

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  17. Apple == Microsoft by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Meet your new boss, same as the old boss.

    for all the users crying OSX rulez, dont forget the Freedom in GNU/Linux has a purpose - to avoid being owned by MS or Apple or Sun or many others who would enslave your computing lives.

    remember that when you think about OSX.

    1. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up

    2. Re:Apple == Microsoft by alexandre · · Score: 1

      Apple is even worst, they control the hardware too! Just imagin apple and ms role reversed, it would be computer hell ... :-(

    3. Re:Apple == Microsoft by jkujawa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The critical differences for me are that Apple stuff Just Works, Really Really Well, OS X is a Unix, and Apple seems to be philosophically opposed to Digital Rights Restrictions.

      Whether or not they'd be like this if they were in a monopoly position is up to debate, but Apple is currently a far less evil company than Microsoft. Instead of putting roadblocks up for me, the Mac makes most things I want to do far easier.

    4. Re:Apple == Microsoft by mister_jpeg · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you run GNU/Linux to make a statement against corporate closed source software. Does this anti-corporate ideology follow through to asus, intel/amd, western digital / maxtor and the manufacturers of all your hardware? How do you resolve your love of Freedom with using proprietary hardware?

      all ideology is vanity. vanity is stupid.

      --
      -jpeg
    5. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Silverhammer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Blockquoth the poster:

      for all the users crying OSX rulez, dont forget the Freedom in GNU/Linux has a purpose - to avoid being owned by MS or Apple or Sun or many others who would enslave your computing lives.

      When Apple has retaken 95% of the market and starts using its 100 MWatt master Airport transmitters to force-download 3 GB trailers for 'Toy Story 5' onto my desktop, then I'll worry...

    6. Re:Apple == Microsoft by knife_in_winter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are so attached to your computer that the software it runs *really* dictates how "free" or "enslaved" you are, then I think you have much bigger problems.

      Computers, and the information they hold and route, that we are all so addicted to, are just toys. Computers are the ultimate distraction by which we, as a culture, impress ourselves with how clever we are. All the while, the quality of our lives becomes increasingly dominated by ones and zeros that don't really exist.

      Think about it and tell me, how many hours of your life are spent in front of a computer that runs Free Software or not (it does not matter), *really* making the world a better place? How much of your self-worth is invested in the software you use or write, the games you play, the mp3 collection you build?

      If your computer blew up today, how much of a life would you have?

      Now tell me who is enslaved and who is free.

      --

      Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
    7. Re:Apple == Microsoft by hondo77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gimmie a break. There's another kind of freedom: the freedom to get shit done without having to wrestle with the operating system. Remember that when you think about OSX. No slaves here, just someone getting the job done.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    8. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Gizzmonic · · Score: 3, Funny

      America can, should, must, and will install Linux to protect our freedom. We must destroy the terrorism that is Mac OS X.

      Onward, GNU soldiers! We cry freedom from coherent, mature GUIs! Freedom from packaging systems that work! Freedom from mature, accountable developers!

      And if you consider for one moment "switching" to one of those evil, repugnant, proprietary systems, just Think of the Children, and pray that Stallman will give you strength in your time of weakness. Now we crush the infidels!

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    9. Re:Apple == Microsoft by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Ever hear of XBox? I wonder what XBox2 will do.. or XBox 3...

    10. Re:Apple == Microsoft by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1, Troll

      Meet your new boss, same as the old boss.

      for all the users crying OSX rulez, dont forget the Freedom in GNU/Linux has a purpose - to avoid being owned by MS or Apple or Sun or many others who would enslave your computing lives.

      remember that when you think about OSX.

      flaimbait my arse.

    11. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By then it will be too late.

    12. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey! It looks like you found a friend. Why don't you guys take it to IRC and enjoy your circlejerk (sorry, GNU/circlejerk). FIGHT THE MAN!

    13. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm. I take it that you did not submit your rant via paper mail to the ./ home office. Perhaps you used a computer, you self righteous pig.

      Have a nice day in front of your computer listening to MP3s.

    14. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I thought GNU/Linux was only free of any usefull applications...

      Remember that when you think about the GPL.

    15. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about the data, not the software.

      I keep old love letters to my girlfriend, as I do old love emails and photos. Sometimes I reread them. That's mine, and I should be free to own it in the way I choose, in the place and time (ie., platform of my choosing).

      If she sent me a digital copy of a song she wrote, I would be upset if Windows wouldn't let me play it because a digital key was lost in transit (Sorry! DRM is Feature!)

    16. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slap the moderator who modded this ANYWHERE but down....jeez...

    17. Re:Apple == Microsoft by knife_in_winter · · Score: 1

      Oh, you got me there!

      You know, you don't *have* to be such an ignorant penghis.

      In case you did not know, there is a difference between using a tool and letting the tool run your life. Someone who uses Free Software is not necessarily free; not in the most important ways. I merely ask questions that we should all ask ourselves. Of course, I use a computer; but that does not mean that I loose sight of what is important in life.

      But since you are such a level-headed, open-minded person, you must have already known all that, right?

      --

      Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
    18. Re:Apple == Microsoft by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Whether or not they'd be like this if they were in a monopoly position is up to debate, but Apple is currently a far less evil company than Microsoft. Instead of putting roadblocks up for me, the Mac makes most things I want to do far easier.

      Unless of course you someday decide that you don't want to use the Mac anymore, in which case you'll find you're just as badly locked in to it as 95% of the world is with Windows. I know you might think it crazy that you would ever wish to stop using the Mac, but Apple is a company, and we all know that they are hardly the most consistant things when it comes to doing what you want. What would happen if you wanted to switch to something else?

      Well, you'd find that none of your apps would work on the platform of your choice, because the Mac APIs are proprietary, and there is only one implementation of them - the Apple implementation. Notice how easy it is to make open sourced Linux stuff work on the Mac? Yet that it's impossible to do the reverse? What about the Mac file formats? Even the iPod, a frickin MP3 player had to have some format reverse engineered (the index? don't remember). It's not like Apple deliberately throw up these roadblocks (though they have a history of abusing the legal system), it's just a natural consequence of lockin, which is what characterizes these kind of platforms.

      [sigh]. I'm tired. Don't get me wrong, this isn't me criticizing OS X or even Apple specifically, not this time. I think it's great you're getting a journaled FS, more power to Apple and as a consequence you

      But comments like the above just show that you haven't really experienced the pain of vendor lockin yet. Right now things are peachy. But in the future? What if the upgrade to 10.3 also costs $120? What will you do? Pay up I guess. Well, it's your choice, but at least understand that there are plenty of roadblocks in Mac land, it's just that they're one way only.

    19. Re:Apple == Microsoft by jkujawa · · Score: 2

      I can port my Cocoa applications to GNUStep with relative ease.

    20. Re:Apple == Microsoft by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Yeah, but most of the (important) MacOS apps are not Cocoa based. Also, it's not that simple is it? Cocoa apps expect to be run on OS X, they also make use of OS X specific stuff. Would those apps look/feel right if suddenly stripped of Aqua? What about all the closed source apps?

      Note I don't believe all apps should be open source (well, ideally they should obviously, but that's currently not economically possible). But that's like saying, "There is a POSIX emulation layer for Windows, so I can port my Linux apps to Windows easily". Well, that's true in one way, false in another. There's porting, then there's porting isn't there?

    21. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Until Intel start building in "features" in their hardware that prevents me from using the software I want, they are above reproach on the issue. Both Microsoft and Apple have used ethically questionable practices to dissuade competitors.


      BTW: Your sig is retarded. Ideololgy gave us such niceties as FREEDOM and CAPITALISM. If you think having beliefs is "stupid", then you should go kill yourself because equating ideology to vanity is a form of ideology.

    22. Re:Apple == Microsoft by gutter · · Score: 1

      What about the Mac file formats? Even the iPod, a frickin MP3 player had to have some format reverse engineered (the index? don't remember). It's not like Apple deliberately throw up these roadblocks (though they have a history of abusing the legal system), it's just a natural consequence of lockin, which is what characterizes these kind of platforms.

      Actually, iPod uses MP3 (it's the HFS+ filesystem that people needed, and there is source code for HFS+ in darwin) and now you can use it as FAT32, so you don't even need HFS+ anymore. And their mail application uses mbox. And their calendar application uses iCal format (RFC2445). Calendar sharing and idisk is based on WebDAV. And their address book application exports as vCards. And QuickTime 6 is centered around MPEG4 instead of the Sorenson codec. And the (open source) quicktime streaming server uses RTSP. And Rendezvous is based on zeroconf networking (an IETF standard) and is open source.

      Seems to me like Apple is doing a pretty damn good job of sticking to industry standard formats and protocols.

      --
      Check out DRM-free movies at http://www.bside.com
    23. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I ever for some strange reason wanted to give up OS X for Linux, what do I LOSE by switching over to Linux? I lose all the great Mac apps that can't be ported to Linux, as you said. Hmm... would I have gotten those by using Linux from the start? That's right, I wouldn't have!

      So really this big *loss* is just being limited to free open source shit. Good point.

    24. Re:Apple == Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> When Apple has retaken 95% of the market and starts using its 100 MWatt master Airport transmitters to force-download 3 GB trailers for 'Toy Story 5' onto my desktop, then I'll worry...

      Kang: Soon, it will be possible to display entire 'Toy Story 5' trailers in pop-up windows which CANNOT be dismissed!!

      Kodos: The humans will be driven mad, and then the Earth will be ours!!

      Both: Moohooohhahahahahaha hahaha haha hahahahaha!!!!

  18. Case sensitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd rather have a plain old UFS filesystem that IS case sensitive than HFS+journaling+whatever.

    Actually, I'd like to see XFS on mac. I guess it's one thing to take ideas from *BSD, but completely different from taking ideas from IRIX.

    1. Re:Case sensitive by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 0

      Case sensitive filesystems make no sense - Unix is only case sensitive because of impetus and because it was easier at the time.

      In a desktop OS, users don't want to have "My Document" and "My document" be two different files. At least Apple is smart enough to know this.

    2. Re:Case sensitive by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd rather have a plain old UFS filesystem that IS case sensitive than HFS+journaling+whatever.

      Then... use one. You can create and mount UFS filesystems with OS X. You can even install the OS on a UFS filesystem, but legacy software often depends on features of HFS/HFS+. So if you don't have any legacy apps, you can run an entire OS X system on UFS.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:Case sensitive by spitzak · · Score: 2
      Oh, I see. Obviously they do want "My Document" and "My Document" to be different, since the file system does allow that.

      There is absolutley NO reason for case-insensitivity to be in the file system except for back compatability! Trying to make any other argument and you will soon look like a moron.

    4. Re:Case sensitive by Kalak · · Score: 1

      Legacy Apps? Consider Mozilla a Legacy app? From the release notes:
      http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.2 a/
      Mac OS X: Mozilla will not run when the application is installed on a UFS partition. The workaround is to move the application folder to an HFS+ partition and it will run correctly.

      I recall other apps with similar restrictions (compiling Perl, which may be fixed by now, Airport Configurator, some Adobe product). I've successfully used a combination of HFS+ and UDF for the BSD stuff, such as /usr/local on a UDF partition. Also, creating a UDF disk image is handy for working with a UDF partition if necessary for BSD work.

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    5. Re:Case sensitive by Permission+Denied · · Score: 2
      So if you don't have any legacy apps, you can run an entire OS X system on UFS.

      WRONG.

      Try using Apple's Remote Desktop or Mozilla on UFS. Lots of applications break on UFS, and not "legacy" applications, but native, new applications. If even Apple's Remote Desktop software won't work with UFS, how much luck do you think you'll have with large commercial applications like Adobe's stuff? I won't even mention the performance problems with UFS on OS X.

      Why would you care? Because you cannot access forks when using standard unix programs on HFS systems. Do this: install some largish application, such as Office on a UFS machine. Create a tarball of the .app directory. Now untar this tarball on a HFS system. Works fine. However: try creating a tarball on an HFS system. You can't.

      So, what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to use your pretty little tools like Stuffit Expander? Go ahead and try using stuffit using an ssh session logged in from a Windows box across the city. Am I supposed to download some inane perl script to do this? And am I expected to download this perl script whenever I want to distribute that archive to another machine?

      OS X does not give you any ability to do the most basic filesysem manipulation in any meaningful fashion without ridiculous third-party tools, most of which were designed for a specific purpose unlike the standard unix tools which I can use to make backups, "image" machines, distribute archives, duplicate directory hierarchies, and a host of other things.

      If you've never typed

      tar -cf - . | (cd /mnt; tar -xf -)
      then you won't understand that OS X is deficient as a Unix operating system.
    6. Re:Case sensitive by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Lots of applications break on UFS....

      You know, you've got a point. When I said "legacy applications" I really should have said "applications that use legacy APIs." Of course, I don't think that really justifies the monster screed that you wrote.

      Mac OS X is a hybrid system. It is based on UNIX-- no arguments about trademarks, please; I mean "UNIX" in the traditional, not literal, sense-- but it incorporates all of the features of the original Mac OS. A key feature of Mac OS is the idea of a forked file. Moving forked files to filesystems that don't support them naturally doesn't work. Also, moving forked files with tools that only touch the data segment naturally doesn't work.

      Are you supposed to download an "inane Perl script?" No. You're supposed to use ditto. See the ditto man page for more information.

      Just because Mac OS X is based on UNIX doesn't mean that it's not also a Mac OS.

      OS X does not give you any ability to do the most basic filesysem manipulation in any meaningful fashion without ridiculous third-party tools....

      That's simply untrue. You need to spend a little time checking out the man pages, that's all.

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:Case sensitive by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      I apologize for replying twice, but I accidentally clicked submit before I'd finished my response.

      All I had left to say was this: I've looked at your posting history, and you seem to be a pretty educated and reasonable person. I don't know what the root of your bilious attitude toward OS X is. Maybe you've had one or more bad experiences, or maybe you just got up on the wrong side of the bed. Whatever the cause, I'd suggest that you try to cool it for a little while and give OS X a shot. Don't let the fact that you have to learn some new tools-- like ditto-- get you down, okay?

      --

      I write in my journal
    8. Re:Case sensitive by Permission+Denied · · Score: 2
      You're probably the first person to respond to my OS X rants with a reasonable and thought-out response and a suggestion as to how to proceed.

      This is somewhat ironic, as I was in the middle of composing a reply to your first comment when I read your second comment. I'm including my reply below (although it's vitriol, sometimes it's fun to read vitriol).

      OS X isn't as bad as I make it out to be. The nicest thing is that a number of the bullet points I've used for rants in the past have subsequently been fixed by Apple's newer releases. The Objective C Cocoa APIs are also quite amazing, even though it took me some time to figure out how to get a vi/zsh/make development environment working rather than relying completely on the GUI stuff (which is very nice for dialog design type stuff but will never replace my beloved vi). Comparing the Cocoa APIs to something like GTK really shows how advanced some of their stuff is.

      Although it probably won't replace my Solaris and FreeBSD workstations, OS X might find a place alongside them. I'll try to be more understanding. After all, almost anything's better than win32 programming :)

      Original rant:

      I've read the man page for ditto. I make a point of scanning through all the man pages whenever I encounter a new system. (A bit off-topic, but OS X's man pages are ridiculously outdated, and, in many cases, misleading: OS X 10.2 has man pages for XFree86 commands that don't appear, and have nothing to do with OS X, the man page for 'passwd' does not mention that the command does not do anything after the system has booted and does not contain a pointer to netinfo, and so on.)

      Ditto does not work with pipes - it only works for copying from one local filesystem to another local filesystem (does not even work reliably over AFP). There is no flag that says "output to standard out" because it does not any internal encoding of data, but rather just uses Mac APIs. It's also pretty obvious that these tools weren't written for unix users: ditto is completely useless unless you specify the flag to preserve HFS forks (by default, it's exactly equivalent to the tar command line I demonstrated above, so it's quite pointless). The flag to preserve HFS forks is something like "-rsrcFork". Am I expected to type that? Name one other Unix command that uses StudlyCaps for flags. More importantly, how am I supposed to remember that? How is this "friendly" in any sense of the word? If they thought that it would be "friendlier" to make the flag longer, they could have spelt it out in its entirety: "-resourceFork" or "-resource-fork". What's wrong with the convention that critical flags use only one character: "-r". It also does not comply with SUSv2 recommendations for command-line flags.

      CpMac is no better. These commands make me feel like I'm using Java, not zsh.

      How difficult would it be to provide, with the OS, a simple command that would encode forked files into some flat format? Not very difficult at all.

    9. Re:Case sensitive by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Well said. I have no problem at all with vitriol, as long as I can see where it's coming from. In your first post, I couldn't understand where the rage was coming from. Now I understand, and your points are totally valid. I still have a higher opinion of OS X than you do, evidently, but that's certainly because I use it differently than you do.

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:Case sensitive by rixstep · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip about legacy software. Also - and correct me if I am wrong - there are certain issues with the way OS X assigns icons to folders and the like. Not all of this will be possible with UFs.

    11. Re:Case sensitive by rixstep · · Score: 1

      Oh wow. What a bad trip.

    12. Re:Case sensitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be damn sensible... XFS and it's legendary IO speed would suit the A/V crowd for sure. It's GPL'd though, so they'd can't just rip it off like they can with BSD stuff.

  19. UFS + SoftUpdates? by sinator · · Score: 0

    Doesn't the Apple_UFS have SoftUpdates compiled in? Doesn't ordered writes of metadata preserve filesystem integrity better, faster, and with less performance hit than journaling (which ideally requires its own platter?) Doesn't Apple already have this?

    --
    Three Step Plan:
    1. Take over the world.
    2. Get a lot of cookies.
    3. Eat the cookies.
    1. Re:UFS + SoftUpdates? by Halo1 · · Score: 2

      No, Mac OS X's UFS implementation does not yet have softupdates. It's not a top-priority for them either, since most of their users use HFS+. It's been presented as a good OpenDarwin project by Apple engineers on multiple occasions though.

      --
      Donate free food here
    2. Re:UFS + SoftUpdates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good question. Does anyone know the answer to this question.

  20. so when you unmount... by Hooya · · Score: 5, Funny

    do you get an "Elvis has left the building" message?

    1. Re:so when you unmount... by cygnus · · Score: 4, Funny

      fsck failed. "I'm all shook up."

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    2. Re:so when you unmount... by quiksan · · Score: 1

      when you unmount properly:
      'Thank you, Thank you vury Much!'

    3. Re:so when you unmount... by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 2

      -Look at that error that is Huuugge!
      -your funny tiny e
      -I'm just trying to say that's a huge error thats all.

    4. Re:so when you unmount... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** information wants to be two dollah! ***

      Good thing it doesn't want three fitty or I'd think it was the Lockness monster.

    5. Re:so when you unmount... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that supposed to be tree fitty? You didn't buy any of the cookies did you?

  21. But will it Blog? by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 5, Funny
    yeah, yeah, yeah...Journaling is sooo 1990's.

    A new and cool feature would be a file system that maintained a Weblog...

    Today I stored my user's tax return...what a piece of crap...he actually expects the IRS to believe that he donated 40,000 to the MDA?...I think I'll just switch a few numbers around and drop a hint to the audit hotline

    Yeah, that could be good...where's the SourceForge project for this?

  22. Re:please post a picture of the mare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this do?

  23. Codetek VirtualDesktop has this feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's in Beta 5 - has Focus Follows Mouse, also has multiple desktops (the only one that "really" works on OS X)

    CodeTek is extremely responsive, and VirtualDesktop will be a musthave app when it is finished.

    product info: http://www.codetek.com/php/virtual.php
    direct d/l (full featured but limited to 2 virtual desktops) http://www.codetek.com/CodeTekVirtualDesktop.dmg.g z

  24. Re:Disk Space. by Soko · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I use FAT32.

    The diskspace used by the journal file in NTFS and this new filesystem can be put to much better use.


    Ya, like all of the fucking backups you need to keep your data safe. On that 80Gig disk, no less.

    Fuck
    All
    There

    is what we used to call the FAT filesystem, and for good reason. No security, no recovery. You work for Peter Norton, any chance? :-P~~~~~~~~~~~

    Get a clue, bud - journaling file systems were integrated with _all_ modern OSes for a reason. Namely, big gain, near zero cost.

    Soko

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  25. Questions for CmdrTaco... by webslacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rob, what kind of laptop is it?

    And will you be writing a review of OSX and Apple laptops in the near future?

    1. Re:Questions for CmdrTaco... by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

      And will they all be favorable?

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    2. Re:Questions for CmdrTaco... by berniecase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He already did. Looks like he likes it, for the most part.

    3. Re:Questions for CmdrTaco... by iguana · · Score: 1

      Inquiring minds want to know! Write a review!

      I've been thinking about picking up an inexpensive iBook for a while now. Still not sure.

    4. Re:Questions for CmdrTaco... by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

      CmdrTaco probably already knows this, but if you hold down the command key the mouse does soft focus in all Cocoa apps (but it's not perfect, as the background app will perceive the fact that the command key was held down and this may trigger a command that's not what you want).

  26. Re:Disk Space. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The diskspace used by the journal file in NTFS and this new filesystem can be put to much better use."

    You mean like empty cluster tips?

    NTFS might use a good amount of space, but you make up for allot of that just based on the smaller cluster sizes. Take a large directory (20,000+ files, 10GB+), put it on a Win2k machine with NTFS, then another with FAT32. Right click -> properties. Size on Disk says it all.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  27. I am too, however... by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it takes a 10-15% performace hit that is significant on older hardware. 10.2 is faster than 10.1 but on a G3 333 it's still dog slow. It works out my G4 733 too.

    That being said I'll try it but hopefully there will be a way to disable it as well.

    1. Re:I am too, however... by ahknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think beige boxes are the target market for this. I'm imagining this running on a RAID 5 setup with Xraid later this year. I wouldn't use this on just one little drive at home...

      As for disabling it, read the article. It's not even on until you get into Terminal and turn it on.

    2. Re:I am too, however... by jonadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Giving up my change to use my 2 remaining mod points in this
      thread by posting...

      > If it takes a 10-15% performace hit that is significant on
      > older hardware.

      That explains why it's switched off by default, I expect. Some
      people in some situations will be glad to take a 15% performance
      hit for the benefits of journaling, _if_ the journaling is of the
      level of quality that is claimed (i.e., as good as in BFS). The
      article says (at the end) that Apple wouldn't comment, so they
      may still be weighing that, as well as the performance issue.

      IMO, it's good for them to give people the option. If nobody
      turns it on, there's no real downside. If some people _do_ see
      fit to turn it on, presumably that's because they value it.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    3. Re:I am too, however... by bastion_xx · · Score: 1

      Giving up my change to use my 2 remaining mod points in this
      thread by posting...


      Mod something else... moderator points are a terrible thing to waste. :>

      I'll take a 15% performance hit on my TiBook if it adds even 1% of additional stability. Nothing worse then going on the road (to Bermuda) and having the battery run down. Attempting a reboot and you get the infamous question mark disk. Urgh.

      Plus, just try getting an OS X disc in Bermuda. Two weeks without my Mac, *that* is a terrible thing.

    4. Re:I am too, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can you read? it says OFF BY DEFAULT. rofl.

    5. Re:I am too, however... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      From the article...
      "The journaled file system, which will run atop the Mac's traditional HFS file scheme, will be switched off by default;"

      That's all I have to say about that.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  28. AGREED, HE CERTAINLY MEANT "SHITLOAD" by suffocate · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I really like the letter 'z'

  29. The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is a lot of things, and Microsoft isn't one of them.

    DARWIN IS OPEN-SOURCE
    OS X gives such an Incredible amount of freedom. It can run any app, IN AQUA (with rootless XDarwin), with a simple recompile. With fink, no recompile needed.

    I doubt if you've seriously used OS X

    Note that Windows' core will never be open source if we all live to be 3000 years old.

    1. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      Hm, im fully aware OSX is leveraging OpenSource via Fink.

      By Putting Aqua ontop of BSD, they have very neatly co-opted all the work of the BSDers. While I do understand that is within the rights granted in a BSD license, I wonder if those BSD coders look favourably - or see themselves as - being the Unpaid Development Team Apple has co-opted.

      OSX is decidedly NOT Free Software - Apple has selling OSX by saying "Here, we'll give the Car Away for Free (Darwin), but you cant have the keys unless you pay-to-play (Aqua).

    2. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise, I wonder how many UNIX developers of old feel sort of ripped off that their hardwaork and code is the basis of RedHat and other Linuxs

    3. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hm, im fully aware OSX is leveraging OpenSource via Fink.

      Shouldn't that please you? Oh, wait, I don't think you meant what you said (ie; Fink is leveraging OS X via OpenSource).

      By Putting Aqua ontop of BSD, they have very neatly co-opted all the work of the BSDers.

      And by putting Mach under BSD and releasing it with Darwin, BSD has neatly co-opted NeXT. Seems fair.

      While I do understand that is within the rights granted in a BSD license, I wonder if those BSD coders look favourably - or see themselves as - being the Unpaid Development Team Apple has co-opted.

      If they don't like it they can always develop GPLed code. Personally, I'd be torqued to have my developments used by a few tens of millions of new people. And some of those developers are quite well paid by Apple BTW.

      OSX is decidedly NOT Free Software - Apple has selling OSX by saying "Here, we'll give the Car Away for Free (Darwin), but you cant have the keys unless you pay-to-play (Aqua).

      No, it's more like they say "We'll give you a fully functional car for free... a millitary Jeep (ca. 1944). But for a little money we'll upgrade it to a new BMW for you." Yea, what a-holes...

      Stay with your GPLed half-baked crap. Me? I've got work to do and OS X actually does it.

    4. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by kalidasa · · Score: 2

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple contributing a lot of changes to FreeBSD's codebase?

    5. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      By Putting Aqua ontop of BSD, they have very neatly co-opted all the work of the BSDers. While I do understand that is within the rights granted in a BSD license, I wonder if those BSD coders look favourably - or see themselves as - being the Unpaid Development Team Apple has co-opted.


      Actually, there are people at Apple that have commit privs back into the FreeBSD tree, and, Jordan Hubbard himself, now works at Apple. Apple is hardly not taking from the BSD community and not giving anything back.
    6. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, "OSX is leveraging OpenSource via Fink
      is exactly what I meant.

      Fink, is being used by OSX users to leverage the value in OpenSource.

      If they don't like it they can always develop GPLed code. Personally, I'd be torqued to have my developments used by a few tens of millions of new people. And some of those developers are quite well paid by Apple BTW.

      Yes, some are paid by Apple - big deal. As to the 'marketshare' increase, and the ego-jollies by coders who get a hardon by knowing many people use their code, again, who cares? OSX users are still beholden to Apple. And Im talking about Freedom here. OSX users are as unfree as MS users.

      Stay with your GPLed half-baked crap. Me? I've got work to do and OS X actually does it
      Wow, How long have you been a Mac User? It looks like the "It just Works" mantra has gotten your head completely shoved up your butt.
      Please, come back to reality..

    7. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Rendezvous?

    8. Re:The Parent is FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only persons head up there butt is yours

  30. System Error by jbarket · · Score: 5, Funny

    Disk Read Failure: The King is dead.

    --

    -----
    jonathan barket
    1. Re:System Error by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apple Update Advisory: "Buffet Overflow Condition Found In Elvis Filesystem"

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  31. Swap performance by yerricde · · Score: 2

    This refers to hard disk access time penalties, not an overall 10-15% reduction in the performance of your computer.

    When I bought my Acer notebook computer in 1999, I could afford only 64 MB of RAM. I have since upgraded it to 128 MB. A 10-15% reduction in swap file throughput will noticeably decrease the performance of my computer, especially with the slow 3600 RPM drives they put in laptops to keep the power drain down.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Swap performance by gimpboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ive never used osX but if it's like linux swap space has it's own partition. the swap space also doenst reside on the same type of file system as the rest of the computer. i dont know what file system is used for linux swap, but i doubt it is ext3.

      also you can enable journaling on a per partition basis, at least in linux, so you could enable it for your /home partition but not for swap if it was hfs+.

      now if your acer notbook was running windows, then sure the swap space was on a fatxx or ntfs file system. it would then fall victim the the 10-15% preformace loss. i seriously doubt osx is designed in the same way.

      --
      -- john
    2. Re:Swap performance by GMontag451 · · Score: 3, Informative
      ive never used osX but if it's like linux swap space has it's own partition.

      OS X isn't like Linux in that respect. The swap file resides on the main partition.

    3. Re:Swap performance by modecx · · Score: 2

      Nope, there's no swap partition by default on OSX. It uses a swap file on the boot volume. I think you can create a partition to use for swap, but it's certianly not an install option.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    4. Re:Swap performance by gimpboy · · Score: 1

      eek. it should be possible to put the swap on it's own partition, and not journal that one (the swaps partition) right?

      --
      -- john
    5. Re:Swap performance by Fillup · · Score: 2

      Swap in Linux, IIRC, actually doesn't use a filesystem at all. It just uses drive geometry and raw bits. So there is no "swap filesystem" -- just a swap partition (or 2 or 3 or whatever).

      --
      "I think there is a world market for, maybe, five computers." __ IBM Chairman, 1943 __
    6. Re:Swap performance by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2

      You can also put a swapfile on your root partition.
      Just do
      dd if=/dev/zero of=swap bs=1M count=128
      mkswap swap
      swapon swap

      But having a swap partition is more efficient.

    7. Re:Swap performance by GMontag451 · · Score: 3, Informative
      It is apparently possible to put the swap on its own partition by fiddling with rc, but it is kind of pointless. The OS X swap file is dynamically allocated, so most of the time, the rest of that swap partition will be sitting there useless. It does prevent swap fragmentation, but with more than 256 MBs of RAM, this really isn't an issue.

      With a journaling filesystem, it may become more of an issue. It would still be a performance vs. disk space trade off though.

    8. Re:Swap performance by gimpboy · · Score: 1

      i was thinking more of the swap fragmentation, and also disk fragmentation in general. i suppose if it is on a filesystem that doesnt change much (/usr/share) then it wouldn't matter. i really dont know how osx (and bsd for that matter) allocate space. surely apple has done it in a fairly intellegent fashion.

      --
      -- john
    9. Re:Swap performance by GMontag451 · · Score: 2

      The OS X VM allocates space in approx. 80 MB chunks. Because of that, if you have 256 MBs or more of RAM it will rarely allocate more space, and so doesn't really fragment. Its located in /private/var/vm. In OS X, the entire file tree except the /Volumes/ directory is on one filesystem.

  32. Re:The Parent is _NOT_ FLAMEBAIT by alexandre · · Score: 1

    So why isn't apple distributing ISOs for me to trashout OS X and install a real/complete open source OS?

  33. Yeah.. but.. by jbarket · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a few people have pointed out, that's drive performance. I don't think alot of people will suffer from this. I am kind of paranoid however with my older TiBook because of the slower drive. As is, my external firewire drive rapes the internal one speed wise. Be interesting to see though.

    --

    -----
    jonathan barket
  34. Red Hat uses ext3fs by yerricde · · Score: 1

    are you serious? Can anyone confirm this?

    By default, Red Hat Linux since at least 7.3 has formatted Linux partitions in "ext3fs", a journaling version of the ext2fs format common on Linux systems.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  35. Apple will never = Microsoft by SirOgre · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying that Apple is a great company and deserves unwarranted praise from the /. crowd, but just because Apple is in it for profit does not mean Apple is, or ever will be as bad as Microsoft.

    1. Re:Apple will never = Microsoft by justsomebody · · Score: 2

      I disagree on that.

      Either just as bad or even worse. Apple is making a good record of punishing companies that helped them stand up and become one of the largest computer companies.

      1. Remember clones? In a day they just cut licensing for clone making practicaly without warning. Even though these companies have helped (take it as you wish, but Apple was in financial crisis in that time) when Apple was selling clone licenses.

      2. Every new version of 9.x system broke adobe postscript in favour of laserwriter and OSX. (Although I wouldn't remember any of new features in >9.04 releases)

      3. Open source kernel under a false promises. Hell, open source kernel for one type of hardware only. I don't know which x86 can you use with him, everything other is pure proprietary software

      For now Apple doesn't keep as good record as MS, but in time when Apple would grow, believe it will.

      I've been using Macs for about 6 years now and I'm just looking to completely Switch off.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:Apple will never = Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. Remember clones? In a day they just cut licensing for clone making practicaly without warning. Even though these companies have helped (take it as you wish, but Apple was in financial crisis in that time) when Apple was selling clone licenses.

      Clones cannibalized apple sales, while failing to grow the mac market. Most of them didn't even target PC users in their marketing...

      2. Every new version of 9.x system broke adobe postscript in favour of laserwriter and OSX. (Although I wouldn't remember any of new features in >9.04 releases)

      Blatantly untrue, LaserWriters use postscript to draw, so if it doesn't work, neither will they. Early versions of OS 9 broke Adobe Type Manager because ATM used parts of the Mac OS that Apple specifically told developers not to use.

      3. Open source kernel under a false promises. Hell, open source kernel for one type of hardware only. I don't know which x86 can you use with him, everything other is pure proprietary software.

      What "promises" does Apple give with Darwin? What should it be obligated to promise to you? Anything you want?

      I've been using Macs for about 6 years now and I'm just looking to completely Switch off.

      Judging by your posting history (Mac-bashing at every opportunity) sounds like you were forced to support them in a lab or something and never liked the idea. Is that really cause to barf up half true or untrue statements every time an Apple story gets posted? If the platform sucks so much, and/or you really knew anything about Macs, why don't you have any complaints that are honest or relevant?

    3. Re:Apple will never = Microsoft by justsomebody · · Score: 2

      1. Apple started to sell licenses because of the financial troubles, to expand Mac compatible market. After that, you've got it right. Mac clones canibalised market (price). But, looked from the other side, they expanded Mac market (their low price made Mac market grow). So, you're right on one part of the story

      2. I guess you never realised, that one and another PS driver are completely different way drawing on prn canvas. I guess that's why one version printed bad fonts on newer version. Next one took forever to show printer list. Next one oftenly resolved in corrupted DesktopPrinters.DB, etc. But then again, maybe it's just me.

      3. Darwin runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers and a version is also available for x86-compatible computers. (taken from Apple.com), Question which x86 hardware, but hey, they aren't promising anything, there you're right.

      Actualy last point you're getting right. I was working for a computer company and our Mac covering support people sucked. So after hearing complaints I've started to learn all about Macs just to avoid them. It somehow came out that people started turning to me about Mac support and ever since I've funded my own company I'm trying to avoid that dark side (do not take it personaly, but just compare number of files that are visible and files that are not, and there are other examples) of my job, but still not with a complete success.
      So take it or leave it. unfortunatelly I'm not the happy Mac user, that blindly believes in that company. My computer times started with Indigo 1.

      "Judging by your posting history", well, if you studied me that well, you should've realised that I accept my mistakes if someone proves me other.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    4. Re:Apple will never = Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. Remember clones? In a day they just cut licensing for clone making practicaly without warning. Even though these companies have helped (take it as you wish, but Apple was in financial crisis in that time) when Apple was selling clone licenses.

      Yes, those greedy bastards, they decided they didn't want to go bankrupt.

      If Apple had stayed with clones they would not exist today. I'm glad they bailed out in time to come back like they have.
  36. I should hope so by jbarket · · Score: 1

    Just let me know when you find a 5,000$ laptop and we'll find out, heh :D

    --

    -----
    jonathan barket
    1. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The high-end TiBook is well over $5K. $6,059.00 to be exact, and that's without any extra options. Even the middle of the road one is over $5K but not by much.

    2. Re:I should hope so by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The high-end TiBook is well over $5K. $6,059.00 to be exact, and that's without any extra options.

      The high-end TiBook is $3,799.00 without any extras. The middle-of-the-road one is $3,199.00.

      If you had mentioned the fact that you were quoting prices in Canadian dollars, you could have avoided this correction. Of course, if your purpose was to artificially inflate prices, you should have looked at the Australian store, where a top-end PowerBook goes for a whopping $8,745.00.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5000? no problem. I just checked IBM and Apple's sites, it's possible on either one of them. And in both cases you end up with a monster laptop.

    4. Re:I should hope so by Atzanteol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny. You scath another poster for not pointing out that he was using Canadian dollars, but you never once said you were quoting USD.

      Not everything is US-centric you know. And yes, I *am* an American.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first clue that the original AC was using foreign currency would have been the 5.000 instead of 5,000. Outside of the US the . and , are switched.

    6. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most part of the world still use , and . the same way us does. Chances are the guy/gal is from Quebec or somewhere like that.

      Yes, I'm a Canadian...

    7. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everything is US-centric you know.

      Dollars are. The names of the unit of currency for Canada is the "Canadian dollar." The unit of currency for Singapore is called the "Singaporean dollar." The unit of currency for Australia is called the "Australian dollar."

      The unit of currency for the United States is called the "dollar."

    8. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, ISO doesn't seem to agree with you, cus IIRC (and I do) it's actually USD, as in United States Dollar

    9. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF do you expect? What does the "I" in ISO stand for? You think we're going to let ISO tell us what to call our currency? Fuck that. That's one step away from having the blue-helmets marching down your town's Main Street. ISO can get fucked and die.

    10. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again i find myself back here correcting you little hippy wannabes.

      please, and for once and for all.

      yes. the world is: AMERICA-CENTRIC. WE WON, YOU LOST. WE ALL JOINED IN A NICE GAME OF POLITICAL DAWINISM, AND HAHAHAHAHAHA WE WON! WE HAVE THE CENTRIC, YOU HAVE THE WHINING SORRY ASS VOICES OF RESENT.

      there is not a fucking thing you enjoy that you don't owe us for. so please shut the fuck up.

      you retarded children.

    11. Re:I should hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will enjoy exploding you fucker Americans up. Die you Mother Fucking goat.

  37. 10.2 performance / memory by Lovejoy · · Score: 1

    Yes. I'm running a 17" iMac (That is: a single G4 at 800mHz) with 768MB RAM and it's plenty snappy. I DO wish for a faster processor when rendering video, but system performance and app performance is generally great.

    10.2 is also generally acceptable even on my old Wallstreet, upgraded to 500mHz running just 192 MB of RAM! I like XP OK, but can you run it on a laptop you bought in 1998?

    Yes, I am very cheap, but I don't need a ton of processing power for most stuff I do.

    1. Re:10.2 performance / memory by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      I like XP OK, but can you run it on a laptop you bought in 1998?

      Well, yes, of course you can. Why, did you think you couldn't?

    2. Re:10.2 performance / memory by damiam · · Score: 1

      Only if you bought a really expensive laptop. I have a $2000 desktop system from 1998, and it barely meets the minimum requirements.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    3. Re:10.2 performance / memory by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the poster is referring to a 500 Mhz job. Apple came out with the 450 Quadra at the end of 1998 for ~$4000 (US), so I was pretty much assuming expensive. ;p

    4. Re:10.2 performance / memory by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      Er, I meant 500 Mhz on the Quadra. It was the 450 Mhz PII that was out at about the same time. I hate it when I do that.

    5. Re:10.2 performance / memory by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      You mean G3, right? Quadras haven't existed in years. A beige G3 was what you got in G3. Not sure when the B&W ones came along.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    6. Re:10.2 performance / memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the poster is referring to a 500 Mhz job.

      I don't know what "Mhz" is, but the poster was referring to 500 mHz (i.e. 0.5 Hz, or 0.0000005 MHz).

  38. Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh well. I don't run OS 10.2 on my G3-333 I just tried it on that before installing on my G4-733 to test it (since I'm new to macs). I also wanted to see if it could live up to the hype on older hardware. I knew if it would run well on a G3-333 it would scream on my G4-733. That being said I run OS 9.2.2 on it and it's faster than hell (10.2 was creeper slow).

    I also missed the part about HD performance, however my G3 has SCSI hard drives so I bet it wouldn't hurt that much. Now on IDE it's probably a whole different story.

    1. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Teancom · · Score: 2, Redundant
      I think this is a great time to point out that people should be very careful about blindly trusting what other people say when it comes to performance issues and what is "creeper slow" vs. "works for me!". Case in point: my laptop is the original toilet-bowl iBook. That is, g3-300, bumped to 160Megs of RAM, 6 gig harddrive, ati rage video. For a long time, I didn't install OSX because of people saying that it was unusable with anything less than a G4. Then, 10.1 rolled out, and I tried it, and it was slow, but usable (I would develop on it, if I wasn't at home or work).

      Since 10.2, I actually prefer using my laptop w/OSX to my desktop athlon 750 w/512 Megs, G450, and KDE 3.0.4. I can run terminal (w/screen), omniweb (3 windows), Project Builder, ssh-agent, java-browse (that's not the right name, whatever tool is used to browse java class docs), and iTunes, "fast enough". That is, I can switch back and forth between apps without delay, scrolling is normal, and iTunes doesn't skip. I don't really know what else to ask for... Oh, and divx movies play full-screen just fine using quicktime, but java compiles could definitely do with a speedup. And I don't play games (Jewel Toy doesn't count).

      Having said all that, I'm not discounting Boomer's experience. I have no doubt that his G3 was not fast enough for his needs under OSX. But if he had different needs (or expectations!) it would have worked just fine. So if someone out there is waffling between going with OSX or not, depending entirely on the reputation that it has for being slow, I can only suggest tring it for yourself (edonkey2k is great!) and if it is worth it, buy it. It almost goes without saying that if it isn't worth it, you should delete it...

    2. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. What are you doing that I'm not? I'm on a new iBook (700Mhz, Radeon, 192MB RAM, 20GB) and performance kinda sucks when I've got my typical 3-6 IE windows open (I tried omniweb and didn't notice much speed difference. Haven't tried chimera yet), iTunes, TextEdit, iChat, and a Terminal or two. It's definitely usable, but not fast by any definition. Switching between windows takes at least half a second, between programs twice that. Sometimes it's so bad that using my PC (Windows 2000, PIII 800Mhz, 256MB) via VNC is faster. I can't imagine what it would be like on an old iBook with even less RAM and bus speed. Actually I can, but I definitely wouldn't have the patience to use it. :)

      I'd like to keep it, but IMHO a system that is merely "usable" for me doesn't justify the extra couple hundred dollars (actually more than that in my case, as I was hoping to replace a desktop PC, which are dirt cheap compared with Mac or similar PC laptops). For $1500, I don't think I should be able to complain about speed when I'm simply browsing the web.

      What you said about not trusting someone else's opinions of system speed is exactly correct. If you're not sure whether it's fast enough for you or not, borrow a Mac from someone for a week. I wish I had.

      I'm looking at selling this iBook and putting the money into upgrading my PC and buying new batteries for an old, PPC-upgraded Powerbook 520 I've got. If anyone's interested in it, leave your email and I'll get back to you.

    3. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      That's an interesting assumption. When you say your G3 has SCSI, do you mean you've added a third party controlled and modern SCSI drives? Because if you've just got Apple's default Fast SCSI interfact, the IDE drives in a modern Mac will shit all over anything in your G3.

    4. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Cadre · · Score: 3, Funny
      That being said I run OS 9.2.2 on it and it's faster than hell (10.2 was creeper slow)

      Yup, and if OS 9.2.2 ever gets too fast for you, just remember to hold down the mouse button and it will stop and let you catch up.

      --
      All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
    5. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm, I have a bronze G3 400MHz powerbook w/256M RAM from a couple years back that I installed Jaguar on while back. have to say that I'd prefer it over my desktop for most things, too.

      took a little tweaking, but after I removed a few processes from the startup scripts(nfsiod, automount, cron, inetd), and removed all the other crap I didn't need... I'm very happy with it. I'm not saying that I can't boot into classic and go twice as fast, but considering the quality of some of the XFree servers and the weight of X apps, I would say I definately prefer it to trying to use Linux on the same machine.

    6. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Omega996 · · Score: 1

      ugh, i think IE is part of your problem. it's dog slow, especially if it has to render a large or complex html page. it must have something to do with the way MS carbonized it. i'd suggest either omniweb or chimera/navigator. chimera is very fast, and does tabbed browsing, etc. both are cocoa apps. you probably don't have enough RAM, either. I think apple should put up something that says 256MB is mandatory. I ran 10.1 on my g4/400 powerbook (with 512MB and pokey stock 10GB ide drive) and it was quite snappy. I sold it before 10.2 came out, but i suspect it would've been much more responsive. same with my old graphite imac - g3/500 and 512MB makes it a decent machine for everything but games.

    7. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      The scsi options with beige G3s included an ATTO ultra wide scsi card and one or two 4GB 7200RPM UW SCSI drives. Still not to bad, especially if you're using them for scratch disk space.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      if you've typically got 3-6 browser windows open then why the f**k aren't you using a tabbed browser? On OSX, Chimera, Mozilla, Netscape and Opera ALL support this - Chimera best of all. If you must use IE, do it on a PC. The iBook is a great machine - but a performance machine it is not. If you're main application is surfing, why the hell did you get a computer with such a tiny screen and keyboard in the first place?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    9. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nice.

    10. Re:Whoops! I thought it said on by default. by Teancom · · Score: 2

      Don't use multiple terms, use screen. Don't use IE, use chimera or omniweb (not that omniweb is *faster*, just much "lighter" when opening multiple windows, IME). Make sure that you are not running anything in the background that you don't need to (apache is a ram killer). Um, I don't think I'm running any sort of performance tweaks or anything (anymore). *shrug* Maybe add a dab of patience B-) And after all that, realize that we quite probably just have differing levels of tolerance for application responsivness... Hence my original post *grin*

  39. 50% pure rumor by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    Dominic Giampaolo does work for apple, and is working on such a file system... so, this has been expected. but, as a mac person with limited experience, what are the advantages of a journaling file system? my understanding is that it prevents data loss upon crashing, and is very useful in database applications. but, will backup software need to be completely rewritten to take advantage of this feature? in terms of speed, it looks like the only way the os will become truly speedy is with major processor improvements--gpul. i booted into os9 yesterday, and found that the os was really snappy on my tibook 400. i generally run 10.2.1. there is a thread running at powerpage.org discussing the lack of speed.

  40. (-1, Offtopic) by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2

    If this were a statement about just about anything besides GNU/Linux, it would be modded (accurately) as offtopic. Think about if something similar were said about Apple in a Linux thread.

    This article is about journaling on Mac OS X. Some people are saying the journaling is another good thing about Mac OS X, but they are still talking about the subject at hand.

    The parent comment, telling everyone that GNU/Linux is good because it is not Apple or MS is just plain off the subject. Not to mention that it has loaded phrases like "Apple == Microsoft" and "enslave your computing lives"-- the commenter of course says nothing to support his claims.

    --

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    1. Re:(-1, Offtopic) by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      the commenter of course says nothing to support his claims.

      because everyone (at least on /. i'd bet) knows that Aqua is closed.

      I dont need to repeat that, and my statements are both A) Correct (imho) and B) OnTopic; a JFS is irrelevant, the OS itself is not something people who enjoy their Freedom would Use, Support or Advocate. OSX is closed (for all intents and purposes), add an AutoMagic Fallatio Output and OSX still sucks.*

      *not because "SubtleNuance is a horrible fanboy who hates mac users" but because Apple is trading on the resurgent populatrity of Unix on the desktop, and the success in winning Share by the GNU/Linux && BSD camps. Apple 'stole' (i know, bsd coders licensed their code for anypurpose.. but that doesnt make it less true) BSD, slapped a Closed GUI ontop and sold people BSD - on closed Hardware.

      Really, I believe it is massively offensive, and Im surprised more people dont agree. I actually like - VERY MUCH - what ive seen of OSX, its cool... but Ive got an issue with paying money for bits, and Ive got an issue with being beholden to gatekeepers - in this case Apple, in the x86 world: MS.

      I *really* like Computing Libre.

    2. Re:(-1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Fallatio/Fellatio - whoops.

    3. Re:(-1, Offtopic) by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      because everyone (at least on /. i'd bet) knows that Aqua is closed.
      I meant the claims that "Apple == Microsoft" (or that there is some sort of "slavery" to the hardware) are unsubstantiated. Those claims are by no means inherent in Aqua being a closed environment. Some people don't believe that a partially closed OS is Wrong. Apple is _very_ much different from MS, even if they are both profit-motivated.
      a JFS is irrelevant, the OS itself is not something people who enjoy their Freedom would Use, Support or Advocate. OSX is closed (for all intents and purposes), add an AutoMagic Fallatio Output and OSX still sucks.

      I still say, with all due respect, this is offtopic. JFS may be irrelevant in the discussion of whether OS X is a good/free OS, but JFS is what is being discussed here at the moment.
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  41. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't touch OSX until it implements click to focus.
    Oh wait, it already does! Swe-e-e-e-et!

  42. Apple != Microsoft by Corvus9 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Sing it comrade! It's not like Apple has ever released any of their OS as Open Source.

    Oops, they have!

    Well, we all know Apple's just "embracing and extending", they don't ever submit any of their extensions to the IETF and release that code, right?

    wrong, and wrong again!

    1. Re:Apple != Microsoft by justsomebody · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, where do I download source for Aqua?

      Ups, and Darwin isn't supporting my hardware, damn. But then again Darwin itself is just as usable as DOS prompt from desktop view.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:Apple != Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Darwin's just lip service. Better open source kernels than Darwin are a dime a dozen, and under freer licenses, too. Do you know ANYBODY who uses Darwin without Aqua on top? No, because it's useless on its own - except for marketing people who can claim Apple is "Open". Streaming is a pain in the ass which should die an ugly death, especially in a proprietary format, and rendezvous' openness is to get marketshare so it will actually be useable somewhere besides Keynote speeches.

      If they release AQUA as open-source, I will jump for joy and get on the bandwagon. Until then, who cares. Anything Apple doesn't HAVE to open for legal or survival reasons WILL NOT BE OPENED *EVER*. They are far more closed than Microsoft.

      And the reason they didn't use a more mature open JFS for their OS is to break compatibility with the Unixes and/or retain control. They are VERY VERY BIG on keeping a very tight rein on their system, who uses it and how.

      I know Apple, I've been a customer before any of you OSX 'switchers' who don't know how truly corrupt Apple can be... Remember the DMCA threat, or forgot it already in the glow of Steve's RDF? That's what I thought. Just wait until the new PowerBook you just bought won't run this new JFS. Or when they cancel your favorite product and stop developing software for it, leaving you with a useless handheld lump of crap with no future. Why isn't anybody using BeOS anymore? It's just as functional as it was three years ago. Same thing here.

      I will trust them more when they prove themselves to me. So far, they haven't. Even Microsoft has open-source code with their shared source scam. Apple's gotta do better if they want me to praise them wildly for finally getting a JFS or whatever.
      Despite the fact that this post is rational and correct, it will be modded a troll, as all so-called "anti-Apple" posts are here at Apple Corporation's Slashdot division. Looking for a buyout, Taco?
    3. Re:Apple != Microsoft by MouseR · · Score: 2

      So, where do I download source for Aqua?

      Ups, and Darwin isn't supporting my hardware, damn. But then again Darwin itself is just as usable as DOS prompt from desktop view.


      That's rubbish (I'm staying polite).

      Darwin supports most (if not all) PCI Power Macs. It supports a variety of Intel based systems.

      If your system is not supported by Darwin, it's up to you to bring whatever special drivers you require, or to make whatever modifications are necessary for the kernel to boot on your hardware. Your Open Source advocacy doesn't stand on a platform that's has it's sources online to anyone.

      Stop bitching about some open source project if you're not willing to contribute to is.

      And to set your totally uneducated record straight, Linux's no better than DOS either if it doesn't have X-Window on top.

      Shove X-Window on top of Darwin, and you have a fully graphical OS.

      Better yet: shove GNUStep on top of Darwin, and you get a clone of Mac OS X.

      So stop yer bitching and start your coding!

  43. Re:Obligatory Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is about as close as you can get. Its like saying linux is not unix. Fine its a unix clone.

  44. it's your lucky day then by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 2

    Just grab yourself a copy of CodeTek Virtual Desktop for OSX: it provides an option for focus-follows-mouse.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  45. Re:Obligatory Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the n'th time, OS X != UNIX!!! No, you are talking about Linux. Do you also believe none of the BSD's are UNIX, since they started as extensions to UNIX?

  46. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Junta · · Score: 2

    Won't ever happen... That sort of option would be a threat to the 'consistancy' of OSX feel. On top of that, that functionality is against the most fundamental principles of UI design. In apple thought, moving the mouse means the cursor moves without in any way having the UI take action. If a UI action is required, a mouse press is required. Personally, I use sloppy focus where possible, but to most people it doesn't make sense that something like window focus can be changed without a click, and it annoys them. If they move the mouse out of the way and a background app grabs focus, they get frustrated...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  47. So how long until... by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    There are 20 differnt GUI front ends to turning this thing on? And of course a couple of people will make such an application shareware.

  48. FYI -- This isn't meant for you by MidKnight · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sure some people out there realize this, but I wanted to point it out: having a journaling file system isn't meant for the typical user who has their laptop to check email & surf the web. Duh! No one using a graphical interface would want to sacrifice 15% of eye-candy processing power just to have a more reliable file system.

    This change is meant for people who are using OS X on *servers*... possibly even (gasp!) headless servers! I'm currently running a webserver & IMAP mail server off of an OS X box, and I never actually pull up the GUI on it (why would I need to?). But I'd love to have the added assurance of JFS on it. This is the market that Elvis is meant for.

    Apple is trying to edge their way into the low-end server market, which is already over-crowded. Putting this feature into their OS, even though it's turned off by default, is a big feature difference for the XServe-purchasing crowd.

    So, unless you're really nervous about losing your porn, your desktop machine doesn't need this.

    --Mid

    1. Re:FYI -- This isn't meant for you by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 2

      What about developers?

      I don't use my Mac as a server, but I do use it for lots of compilation. Because of all of the programs I develop and compile, I have 10x more files on my disk than the average user. Would it be worth my while to use a journaling file system?

      One thing I'd like to try is a speed comparison to see how much it slows down a long build. If building wxWindows takes 10-15% longer, that would suck.

  49. I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by js7a · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Apple would be positivly stupid not to immediatly fly Rob Malda over for a "Switch" spot.

    A huge fraction of technical (and high-spending) PC users who might switch know exactly what Slashdot is.

    It would be awesome: "... I'm Rob Malda, and I run Slashdot.org"

    1. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mr. malda has always been a sellout. since apple "isin't paying anyone" for switch ads, we'd all know they were lying.

      damn smart they are.

    2. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh let's see. Score 5: Interesting. Do you think Taco is doing some modding today? The real question is whether Taco paid for his laptop or not. Then the ending would be "...I'm Rob Malda and I got my mac free because my sit is one of the top tech sites on the internet."

    3. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I was compiling this SMB client ... on the PC... and it was like BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP. And then... like... half of my code was gone. And I was like... nnngh? It devoured... my code. It was really good code. And then I had to write it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good. It's kind of... .... a bummer. I'm Rob Malda and I crash websites by posting them to Slashdot."

      tee hee

    4. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by Grizelmac · · Score: 0

      Mod this up! I've got the giggles!

      --
      Your Technology General Contractor http://www.birddogdigital.com
    5. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by droopus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Drat, it got modded up, not down. Well, serves me right for being a pussy and posting (what I consider) humor as an AC.

      Ah well.

      --
      "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
    6. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking hilarious! Buy yourself a box of cookies and send the invoice to this 3l337 h@X0r

    7. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the best slashdot posting of all time.

    8. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

      No one would recognize him. You can't tell words are misspelled when spoken aloud.

    9. Re:I wanna see CmdrTaco on TV by MaxwellsSilverHammer · · Score: 1

      dude, you should have logged in for that!!! I am still laughing my ass off! =:-D that is too perfect. he would need to wear the green tshirt and gray sweatshirt also.

  50. dangit, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    another good reason to buy a mac. what are you people trying to do, make me go into debt!!!???

  51. why not soft updates? by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They've already got Jordan H of FreeBSD fame working on the guts of the thing, why not use Kirk Mccusick's soft updates on top of their ufs implimentation?

    In it's current implimentation it vastly outperforms journaling filesystems and has great data integrity.

    1. Re:why not soft updates? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      UFS is not really usable under OS X since it doesn't support Mac metadata.

    2. Re:why not soft updates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:why not soft updates? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      Sure, I've read the articles too. The bottom line is that in reality UFS does not work with all apps.

  52. So What? by Spyky · · Score: 2

    Your swap file doesn't need to be journalled.

    Spyky

  53. 10-15% for disk write operations only, right? by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    It's not 10-15% of over all performance, but 10-15% performance when data is written to disk. For other operations, the journaling file system doesn't do anything, and doesn't influence performance.

    Or at least that's what logic would seem to dictate. I don't actually know anything about journaling file systems :)

  54. Answer unclear, ask again. by El_Smack · · Score: 5, Funny


    Do I see an Apple "switcher" ad featuring CmdrTaco in the near future?

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    1. Re:Answer unclear, ask again. by zaren · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That could actually be an interesting marketing move on Apple's part - one of the guys that runs a (dare I say THE MOST) highly visible geek web site, switching?

      Not only that, but it'd be a few more bucks in Taco's pocket for being in the ad :)

      --
      Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
    2. Re:Answer unclear, ask again. by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Do I see an Apple "switcher" ad featuring CmdrTaco in the near future?

      Only in print, where Taco's yooneek grusp off hte speling uv teh Enlish langage will hav e its is fulll affect.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:Answer unclear, ask again. by Into+The+White · · Score: 1

      Apple has paid air fare and lodging for those appearing in Switch ads, but no compensation beyond these expenses. That would be highly questionable from an ethical viewpoint (although it doesn't stop other corporations from doing so).

      --
      "If you're half-evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person you are opposed to is totally evil." N. Mailer
  55. Re:NTFS was way ahead of its time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hooray for you! Yay for NTFS!

    I love you man.....

  56. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay for you too! I glad that your convictions are rock solid! No need to apologize that you want focus follows mouse. ( Notice "want" as opposed to "need", but that is another story...) You rock! I love you...

  57. Umm... no. by tgd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unless Apple is caching its graphics to disc before displaying them, it wouldn't make a different in your "eye-candy processing power".

    Thats a 15% hit in disk performance, not system performance.

    1. Re:Umm... no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless Apple is caching its graphics to disc before displaying them, it wouldn't make a different in your "eye-candy processing power".

      That is, unless the system dosen't have enough RAM to accomidate that shiny GUI. It's definitely possible, given OSX's lust for memory.

  58. Sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the last six months, OS X has somehow emerged as the main competitor for desktop/laptop Linux. It's sad, really, to see people who have espoused the benefits of Free Software for years turn around in the blink of an eye and show up with a Ti Book. Don't get me wrong, OS X is some pretty hot shit right now. The problem is that it is hot *proprietary* shit. Yeah, yeah, Darwin. Whatever. Don't be a fool.

    To me, the last great hope is Red Hat. Did Red Hat release their excellent 8.0 too late? No. There is still hope left. 8.1 will hopefully fold in the multimedia bits and polish thing up a bit. The war isn't over yet...

  59. Oh nos! CmdrTaco a SWITCHER!? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Funny

    A week with a Mac laptop, running OS X?

    We are all doomed! Once you go Mac, you never go back!

    Next he'll be dressing up in black, sporting a goatee, and drinking pretentious coffee drinks...

    Like him!

  60. Re:even more performace hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slugish?? Wha? Wha? Have you tried 10.2 It works much better for on my even my old iBook. It was WAY, WAY faster then say KDE is on my laptop

  61. Cross Platform FS (Mac/Linux/?) by peel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What I want is a filesystem that supports 1)Long File Names 2)Large Files (over 4GB) 3)Journaling and 4) can be used between Linux, Mac OS X and whatever else. Unfortuantely there are currently no filesystems that mett all of these criteria. The closest one unfortunately is FAT32, only even it falls way short. Until then it is very difficult for me to share my firewire drive between multiple platforms. -peel

    just my carrot for the button soup.

    1. Re:Cross Platform FS (Mac/Linux/?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      iso image on fat32

    2. Re:Cross Platform FS (Mac/Linux/?) by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      What I want is a filesystem that supports 1)Long File Names 2)Large Files (over 4GB) 3)Journaling and 4) can be used between Linux, Mac OS X and whatever else. Unfortuantely there are currently no filesystems that mett all of these criteria.

      What you want is one of these.

  62. We need better tech writers by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

    A journaling filesystem does not "provide corporate Mac sites with a new, historical view of their data"; all it does is increase reliability.

  63. Honest question by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    What do you need a case sensitive FS for? I've honestly never come across a need to have a "random.file" and a "RANDOM.file" ever. Why do you need case sensitvity?

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    1. Re:Honest question by g4dget · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because it means that file name equality translates into file identity; not having that guarantee complicates software in subtle ways. Besides, how do you propose to generalize that to other languages? Are file names written in katakana and hiragana identical? What about file names written in kanji and the same file name spelled out in hiragana? File names using the same Chinese and Japanese character?

      Furthermore, yes, software does rely on it. Even just untarring a UNIX archive on OS X can break it, like if it contains "Makefile" and "makefile".

    2. Re: Honest question by Corvus9 · · Score: 1
      What do you need a case sensitive FS for? ... Because it means that file name equality translates into file identity.
      This has not been true since the 1970s. Hard links and internal shares can make multiple file names for the exact same file. External shares can use the same filename for different files. If you think file name equality translates into file identity please post a warning label on all software you have ever written.

      Even if file names were unique identifiers, this would do no good because they are not persistent; you can change a file name without changing its data, and vice-versa. File names have absolutely nothing to do with file identity.

      HFS+ includes an internal File ID with does uniquely identify a file; the same file referred to by file name, symlink, or alias will have the same ID. Mounting two different files with the same name will give them two different IDs.

      File names identify files to users, not computers. Users think "Random", "random", and "RANDOM" are the same name, and HFS+ thinks they are too. Users think "Random" on one CD is different from "Random" on another CD, and HFS+ thinks so too.

      Are file names written in katakana and hiragana identical?
      Good question! UFS thinks they are not; even if the names are character-for character identical. This means you can never, ever match a file name unless you know the script system used for every character in every file. Too bad the shell doesn't show the script system used by characters in file names.

      HFS+, on the other hand, allows you to specify the script system used for filenames, and uses it when if matches files. That means typing the name "Random" in the U.S. English script system will display as "Random" when localized to Japanese, and will match the file named "Random" typed in Romanji. With your method, they are three different files, two of which can't even by typed in the other script system.

      Furthermore, yes, software does rely on it.
      Sadly, you are right. There is software that assumes a filename is a unique identifier. Such software cannot be localized, breaks with external filesystems, and goes into infinite loops when it encounters symbolic links.

      Programmers need to let go of the assumption that file name equality translates into file identity.

    3. Re:Honest question by spitzak · · Score: 2
      You want it when you want a secure, reliable, and understandable system.

      Files are identified by streams of bytes. The fewer rules you put on the stream of bytes the better because it simplifies algorithims and makes the system more reliable and less likely to have bugs. Unix is pretty good here in that only nul and the slash are handled specially (I suspect systems could be designed where all bytes are allowed, so Unix is not ideal). Windows is much worse as there are about 2 dozen characters handled specially (ie they are illegal) and there are either 48 or 86 characters that are paired and you must know the equivalence of (there is disagreement about which ones are case-matching, which should also indicate why this is a bad idea).

      For some reason there is a huge number of stupid people out there who cannot see that a small user interface enhancement does not have to be built into the lowest levels of the operating system. They are picking a trivial user convienece for typing in filenames into a command line program, and insisting that this dictate low-level design, and are apparently blind to the many ways this could easily be accomplished at the application level. They also fail to see that many other user interface enhancements such as matching or ignoring whitespace or spelling correction are just as valid but are not addressed, and in fact made more difficult, by their insistence on this kludge.

      The most absurd thing is the repeated claims that this is user friendly. The average user clicks on icons to pick files and would never notice if the system allowed many files with identical names! In fact this only provides a convenience to command-line programs, and if you ask the same people I'm sure they will be the first to say that Linux sucks because of those user-unfriendly command-line programs!

    4. Re: Honest question by spitzak · · Score: 2
      Just because you can type a lot does not mean you know anything.

      Different filenames guarantee unique directory entries. This is quite valuable. Of course they can both point at the same location. But the fact is that "create" called with different strings will ALWAYS make a different file, and that is not true with any system that considers any two different byte streams to match.

      And I think users think the file " Random" and "Random " are the same, and maybe event the file "rand0m". Yet your brilliant file system thinks they are different!

      Face it, this is a user interface issue. It does not belong in the file system!

      And I am absolutely shocked that somebody would be so stupid as to think that matching unicode mappings is a good idea. HFS does not do this, you seem to be confusing the fact that the filenames are Unicode and thus 'r' has a unique byte that does not depend on the "locale".

    5. Re:Honest question by fgodfrey · · Score: 2

      Well, you don't *need* it, but convention is that files ending in .c are C files and files ending in .C are C++ files. Conceivably, you might want random.c and random.C in the same directory.... I'm sure there are plenty of other such examples. The biggest reason is that if you plan to use a MOSX box as a Unix box, it would be nice if it worked in a way similar to every other Unix machine you are using. I use Irix, Linux, Solaris, NetBSD, and MacOS X. OSX is the only one of those that's not case sensitive. That can occasionally make life interesting.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    6. Re: Honest question by Corvus9 · · Score: 1
      You're right; typing a lot does not mean I know anything. Actually using the HFS+ APIs in Mac OS software does mean I know things, however. And I have used them.

      Your assertions about file names and user interface are complete straw men; you are the one claiming that file names and file identifiers are identical. They are not.

      If you think "Random" and " rand0m" are the same, you are wrong, they have different characters in every encoding. File names are composed of characters, not encodings, because people can type and read characters, not encodings.

      And I am absolutely shocked that somebody would be so stupid as to think that matching unicode mappings is a good idea. HFS does not do this ...
      I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that is exactly what HFS+ does. Don't believe me? Read the docs.

      I don't know what to make of your "HFS" remarks; HFS is not in OS X, has not been used for many years, and was never even mentioned before by anyone in the thread. OS X, OS 9, and 8 use HFS+ and I only ever referred to it. Do you think they are the same thing? They are not. Do you think HFS+ does not use unicode? You are wrong. Read the docs.

      Perhaps you should write Apple about how "stupid" they are. I warn you, they'll require more proof than the typical /. reader.

    7. Re: Honest question by g4dget · · Score: 2
      "What do you need a case sensitive FS for? Because it means that file name equality translates into file identity." This has not been true since the 1970s. Hard links and internal shares can make multiple file names for the exact same file.

      I'm sorry--I guessed you would be able to figure out the way in which hard links differ from case sensitivity yourself. Give it some thought--you may yet.

      HFS+, on the other hand, allows you to specify the script system used for filenames, and uses it when if matches files. That means typing the name "Random" in the U.S. English script system will display as "Random" when localized to Japanese, and will match the file named "Random" typed in Romanji. With your method, they are three different files, two of which can't even by typed in the other script system.

      Wow. HFS+ is even more broken than I thought it was. Allowing multiple different "script systems" in file names is just incredibly poor design. Even Windows is exorcising this demon.

      There is software that assumes a filename is a unique identifier. Such software cannot be localized, breaks with external filesystems, and goes into infinite loops when it encounters symbolic links.

      There may be such software, but it isn't the software we are talking about here.

      What we are talking about here is the property that, given a directory entry, there is exactly one way of referring to it. If there are multiple ways, that greatly complicates some software. And if the set is open ended, as it seems to be on HFS+, a lot of things break in subtle ways; in particular, it has the potential of creating lots of security holes.

    8. Re: Honest question by spitzak · · Score: 2
      Okay, I looked at the page that you pointed at. It clearly states that HFS uses UTF-8 encoding of Unicode characters for the filenames. This means the word "Random" is stored THE SAME for a Japanese user as for an American user, which is not what you were implying. My understanding of your original post is you claimed that it converted encodings. Fortunately Apple is at least smart enough to realize that "encodings" are garbage and have gone with Unicode.

      Unfortunatley the document does have definate proof that Apple *IS* stupid. I'm sorry, but it is quite possible for the engineers at Apple to be stupid and they have proven it right there:

      This is because they talk about "decompising" characters, which means they want the combined codes in Unicode removed and replaced with the combining accent characters before they store filenames. Their obvious purpose is so that different strings that appear the same to the user will be stored the same. Now the basic cause of this is stupid back-compatability that was put into Unicode where two strings that look identical can be different. However their "solution" is wrong, as wrong as the case-insensitivity "solution".

      Decomposing is quite complex and depends on Unicode assignments that have not all been finalized yet. This is extremely bad because some programs are going to rely on algorithims that do not match other programs and fixes to the algorithim (such as adding a new decomposable character) will break existing filesytems. The most likely result is that the code in utfconv.h will be frozen in the filesystem, even if the Unicode consortium changes their rules.

      Another indication that they have no idea what they are doing is their failure to realize that this is the same as case insensitivity, but they have failed to put these similar/identical functions in the same place. The decomposing should be done by the *comparing* function, not by the filename storage. This would greatly simplify their code.

      I'm sorry but I am completely unimpressed by this document. Apple is being stupid, and this crap is going to bite them eventually. It would be nice if they would pay a little attention to history before going off and making fools of themselves, and of you!

    9. Re: Honest question by Corvus9 · · Score: 1
      How you interpreted "typing the name "Random" in the U.S. English script system ... will match the file named "Random" typed in Romanji." as meaning they are actually stored differently baffles me, but whatever.

      Whether the fact that different unicode strings can appear identical to the user is because Apple or the Unicode Consortium is "stupid" is irrelevant. They can and do appear identical. What you are suggesting is that file names which are absolutely identical to the user be stored differently in the file system, even if the user has a script system that doesn't allow them to type one of the file names. Interesting...

      The decomposing should be done by the *comparing* function, not by the filename storage.
      No. The reason the case insensitivity check is done by the "comparing function" and not stored in the filesystem is to preserve case but not rely on it. If your file name is "Random" it stores and displays it that way, but if you search for "RANDOM" it will still match. I know this is not the way computer geeks do it, but this is the way English-speaking people have done it for centuries.
      Decomposing ... depends on Unicode assignments that have not all been finalized yet. ... some programs are going to rely on algorithims that do not match other programs.
      Wrong. The filename decomposing is done by the filesystem; not user programs. Your program does not get to decide on the file name algorithm, and if the algorithm changes it changes for the file system and all user programs.

      Again, it is irrelevant if you think I am "stupid" and a "fool" since I am not the one who decided this. If you have a better idea, let apple know. You will have to do a better job convincing them than what you have posted here.

    10. Re: Honest question by Corvus9 · · Score: 1
      Allowing multiple different "script systems" in file names is just incredibly poor design.
      I don't think you understood the article. Script systems are UI-only abstractions. They allow people with different languages to type file names in their own language and have them appear correctly on each others' computers. They are not stored in file names and all file names are stored as UTF-8.
      What we are talking about here is the property that, given a directory entry, there is exactly one way of referring to it.

      No we are not. The original question and this discussion was specifically about file names. You know, those things users see in the GUI when they open a folder? File names.

    11. Re:Honest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always seen (and named) C++ files as .cpp and C files as .c (I don't primarily program in Unix environments).

      In any case, just because you *can* do that, doesn't mean it is any good.

      Why would ".c" and ".C" be better than ".c" and ".cpp"? Name one reason. (And no, two less keystrokes doesn't count.)

      I can, however, name a reason why .c and .C is *worse*. There is nothing in .c or .C that tells you which is which. It would be easy to get the two confused ("is C++ capital C or lowercase C?"). And someone who comes from a different environment or hasn't seen the convention before can just guess which is which (or not even notice they are intended to be different!).

      Honestly, that is a great example of why the case-sensitive file system is a BAD idea.

    12. Re:Honest question by fgodfrey · · Score: 2
      Hey, I didn't say *I* would do that :) (Of course all of my code is in C or assembler anyway...) The problem is more that you aren't always dealing with packages that you've written. I've had to merge some source code together and had files with both .c and .C and .h and .H.


      As for getting the two confused, if you're used to the convention it makes perfect sense. If you aren't, it's a PITA. This is true of many things in Unix :)

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    13. Re: Honest question by spitzak · · Score: 2
      Okay, I sent this to Apple:

      Title: FIlename mangling in HFS

      It has come to my attention that the HFS filesystem includes a layer to "decompose" the Unicode/UTF-8 string used to identify files. This I believe is a serioius security and design mistake that will hurt you greatly in the future and may seriously impact the ability to make a user-friendly interface to the system. I got into an argument with somebody about this and he basically said "well if you think you are so right, tell Apple". Well, I do think I am right and so I am trying to tell you.

      A file on the file system should be identified by a series of bytes. Ideally there should be as few rules as possible about this series of bytes. For instance the Unix rules that the nul and slash characters are not allowed are, in my opinion, pushing the limits of complexity. (An ideal system would take an arbitrary byte stream and a length in bits to identify the file). In addition all different byte sequences should be required to identify a different directory entry.

      The fact that other parts of the system will treat these bytes as UTF-8 encoding of Unicode and that when the same bytes are sent to a totally different display device causes some glyphs to appear that have some meaning to a human being should NOT be a consideration when designing low level communication and storage protocols. Unfortunately you seem to have fallen into the same trap virtually every file system designer has.

      I am most concerned about the "decomposing" rules, though the case insensitivity is also a problem. These rules make it very difficult to write secure software that can make assumptions about the non-collision of files, or to use filenames for database purposes, or to support foreign file systems that do not follow the same mapping rules (as you have already discovered with NFS). They also seriously damage the ability to write user-friendly front ends that do more complex file-matching rules by making the underlying service complicated. People keep saying the average user thinks the file "Random" and "random" are the same, which is true, but they also think the file "random" and "ranndom" are the same, and systems that can solve this are much harder to write when there are cheapo "solutions" hidden underneath that they must contend with and compensate for.

      Therefore I wish to recommend that you seriously reconsider your design. Ideally the operating system interface should accept any stream of bytes as a file identifier, including malformed UTF-8 strings. Decomposition and all other matching, though quite useful, are best done at the application level, for instance your file selector could decompose any text typed in, and you could provide a spelling-corrector like interface in a library to find the best match of a user-typed filename, much like the bash shell's spelling corrector.

    14. Re: Honest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decomposing is not dependent on unfinalized Unicode assignments. Normalized Forms C and KC are fixed to version 3.0 of Unicode. The decompositions used by HFS+ are documented here [apple.com]; even though they don't encompass the range of 3.0 decompositions they're still fixed (and generally not encountered by applications, which are insulated from the file system(s) by several layers of APIs).

  64. Quite to the contrary by g4dget · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A journaling file system is actually primarily useful for laptop users: it insulates laptops and external devices on laptops from power failures and other things that happen to laptops.

    On servers, despite its popularity, journaling makes much less sense: there are better ways to recover from failures, and the performance hit really does matter.

  65. Great... by SiMac · · Score: 2

    So Windows has FAT32 and all we've got is old Fat Elvis.

  66. umm... ?? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    You can do a few things about those nasty SysV init scripts.

    1. Use Slackware. BSD-style init scripts, very nice and simple, definately not written by Nazi's ;-)

    2. Roll your own. They're just simple scripts fer chrissakes!

    Besides, SysV init scripts aren't in any way difficult, I can't imaging someone wanting to use a different OS on account of the init scripts!

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  67. Swap Partition HOWTO by red5 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I found this howto through google. It shows you step by step how to set up OSX to use a different partition for swaping. I've never used it myself so I can't comment either way.

    --
    I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
    1. Re:Swap Partition HOWTO by weatherbee · · Score: 2, Informative
      I found this howto through google. It shows you step by step how to set up OSX to use a different partition for swaping. I've never used it myself so I can't comment either way.

      Some of us techs were talking to an Apple rep the other day, and we asked specifically about this procedure. We were told that extensive testing by Apple had determined that there is NO advantage to having a separate swap partition for OS X.

      We were also told that, despite OS X's unix base, it's still running on HFS+ (usually), so it's still a good idea to defrag every once in a while.

  68. Always more than just a pretty face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the reason I bought my iBook was, at the time, Compaq and Apple were the only major U.S. suppliers offering the CD-RW/DVD combo drive on a notebook. Also, I didn't trust Micrososft with my media files and I needed good Unicode support for Japanese. Stable, easy Unix with good hardware, in a laptop that was only 5% more than the similarly configured Compaq machine.

    UI had nothing to do with it.

  69. Re:Is that gay??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel more and more inclined to buy an Apple laptop. Is that gay?

    No. That flamboyant feeling is your money burning a hole through your pocket.

  70. here's the Applescript...just compile it as an ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tell application "Terminal"
    do script with command "[insert command]"
    end tell

  71. How it works... by emil · · Score: 5, Informative

    Imagine that you have a library, and a librarian is filing away new books. When she is done filing them, she puts entries into the card catalog downstairs for the new books. The card catalog represents a filesystem's metadata.

    Now imagine that the librarian falls out of a 2nd story window into a dumpster and is carted away before she finishes filing the books and updating the catalog. You have no idea what books were filed; you have to perform an exhaustive search of the library to ensure that the card catalog is correct, which takes a long time. This was fsck before journaling.

    Servers with large amounts of disk space cannot afford extensive fsck times after a crash. It can take hours.

    Now imagine that the librarian keeps a small notepad of the books that she is filing, and when she meets her sticky end, the new librarian can read the notepad, check and verify the new entries, then update the card catalog to a consistent state. We assume that the notepad is updated before the book is filed, so if we have an incomplete notepad entry, the librarian died and the entry can be disregarded. The notepad corresponds to the journal in a journaling file system.

    It takes time to write a journal, so journaling filesystems will always be at least a little slower than non-journaling equivalents, design improvements aside.

    Most journaling filesystems will only guard the card catalog (metadata). Some, such as VxFS and ext3, can also be made to journal the books (data), but performance goes down because so much more goes through the log.

    Another feature to look for in journaling filesystems is dynamic inode creation. ext3 does not have this feature - you can only have so many card catalog entries, and when you exceed them, you can't add any more new books. XFS, for example, can create new inodes on the fly as long as you have disk space.

    For Sun people, it is always a surprise to find that Sun's UFS does journaling (you don't have to buy Veritas VxFS), but you have to turn it on with an option in /etc/vfstab.

  72. Re:Obligatory Post by afidel · · Score: 2

    While OSX may not carry the open group stamp of approval it is UNIX just as much as the BSD's and Linux. It has enough common herritage that most UNIX applications are trivial ports and for most people that is what matters.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  73. Better than NTFS how? by rabtech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I assume that this rumor means that the new FS will be "more extensive" in its journaling capabilities, not features.

    NTFS supports DACLs (Discretionary Access Control Lists. Grant rights specifically on files, folders, or both for any specific combination of rights. Yes, even includes things like execute, though most users don't get THAT granular.) It also supports Auditing via an ACL-like mechanism. Wanna see if user sally01 read file X? Add her with READ to the audit list. Who is renaming files in c:\docs? add Everyone with rename/modify to the Audit list.

    NTFS does quotas, junction points (links), and reparse points. Reparse points allow things like EFS to work without the app being aware of it. If I wanted to replace the word "microsoft" with BORK BORK BORK on the disk, I could write a parsing driver and install it. Then, any file with my driver's signature in its reparse point list would be handed off to my driver for processing before being saved to disk or read from disk to an application.

    There are plenty of other features as well, but the point is that to be a better filesystem than NTFS would take a huge amount of work on the filesystem itself, plus getting the OS to support it. However it is relatively easy to attack a specific point of NTFS (its journaling) and make your filesystem do that specific thing better.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    1. Re:Better than NTFS how? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You left out some other important features of MIcrosoft's NTFS:

      1. No published specifications so anyone wanting to access it from another OS is S.O.L. unless they want to try to reverse engineer the filesystem.

      2. Microsoft has threatened some Linux kernel contributors (who have had exposure to NTFS in a NDA context) with legal action for contributing to NTFS drivers for Linux.

      3. Potential for DCMA action against reverse engineering attempts.

      4. Gratuitous file system changes with the apparent intention of breaking previous open source NTFS drivers.

      5. Recent patent licensing activity aimed at preventing development of GPL code that is compatable with CIFS.

      All in all I would rather use ANYTHING ELSE.

    2. Re:Better than NTFS how? by spitzak · · Score: 2
      If you could please explain how to create a link on NTFS you will save me and everybody I work with a huge amount of work. However I have yet to see any way that works with the implementation of open() used by most programs. Notice also that we need the link to point to NFS mounted disks.

      Thank you for your time in helping us to use NT to it's full advantage.

    3. Re:Better than NTFS how? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2

      Try this.

    4. Re:Better than NTFS how? by rabtech · · Score: 2

      TWo things:

      1. Mounting a drive or folder as another drive/folder. This is done through junction points. You can find a good utility at http://www.sysinternals.com. This allows D:\ to be mounted as C:\Program Files (which is also a good way to expand a volume on a server without screwing up network users.)

      2. a regular "hard link". Here is the API call from something like VB:

      Private Declare Function CreateHardLink Lib "kernel32" Alias "CreateHardLinkA"
      (ByVal lpFileName As String, ByVal lpExistingFileName As String, lpSecurityAttributes As Any) As Long

      p_lngRtn = CreateHardLink(p_strFileName, _
      p_strExistingFileName, ByVal 0&)

      There are several utilities available to accomplish this.

      BOTH are completely transparent to ALL standard windows applications. In fact, Explorer won't be able to tell that anything is going on, nor will the standard Open/Save functions and dialog boxes. You have to use the specific junction/link APIs to do anything with them.

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    5. Re:Better than NTFS how? by spitzak · · Score: 2
      It sounds like "junction points" is MicroSoft-code for "symbolic link", with the (harmless imho) limitation that only drives can be linked to. Unfortunately I can't find any readable documentation, what I do find indicates it is at the level of "Explorer" which I already know does not affect how "open()" works. I would like to know what happened to the DOS "assign" command which did do the right thing.

      It also sounds like "hard link" is the same as Unix "hard link" which are actually a big mistake in Unix design and are pretty useless. Also the documentation indicates that this exists only in NT 5.0 and later.

      Anyway I am still stuck. Does anybody know why Cygwin does not use any of this stuff? I tried Win2K and it is obvious that "ln" just copies the files. Possibly my version is out of date.

    6. Re:Better than NTFS how? by spitzak · · Score: 2
      Looks like it makes sort of a symbolic link, though the syntax is backwards: junction . Unfortunatly on my NT5 systems it just says "Cannot create junction for \nThe parameter is incorrect". On Windows2000 it says "The data present in the reparse point buffer is invalid".

      Oh well, thanks for trying.

    7. Re:Better than NTFS how? by pHDNgell · · Score: 2

      It also sounds like "hard link" is the same as Unix "hard link" which are actually a big mistake in Unix design and are pretty useless. Also the documentation indicates that this exists only in NT 5.0 and later.

      *shrug* I find that having multiple hard links to a file is extremely useful. I guess it depends on your application.

      --
      -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
    8. Re:Better than NTFS how? by spitzak · · Score: 2
      I've found symbolic links to be more likely to do what I want. My only experience with hard links was early (1982) VAX Unix systems which I don't think had symbolic links, and we seemed to get in a lot of trouble with the creation of loops.

      Also it seems that symbolic links are easy to support on any file system as long as there is room for one bit to be stored with the file because the actual resolution can be done at a higher level. This is one reason why I am completely baffled as to why MicroSoft refuses to add them to NT.

      Then again hard links do have a certain appeal of being the "correct" way to do things, rather than kludges involving strings. I also think most of the stuff symbolic links are being used to solve could be fixed with Plan-9 type merge mounts.

    9. Re:Better than NTFS how? by LadyLucky · · Score: 2

      Here is a command line utility to make symlinks in NT. It works well.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    10. Re:Better than NTFS how? by g4dget · · Score: 2
      However it is relatively easy to attack a specific point of NTFS (its journaling) and make your filesystem do that specific thing better.

      That's because NTFS journaling sucks--it makes very few guarantees about the state of your file system after a crash.

      NTFS supports [blah blah blah]

      I think the fundamental problem that Microsoft and Microsoft users have is that they think more is better. It isn't. Software generally gets better as you figure out what features are not needed and remove them. Most of NTFS's features fall into that category.

    11. Re:Better than NTFS how? by spitzak · · Score: 2
      A whole lot of people sent me "junction.exe". Unfortunately I have been unable to get it to work. I either get "illegal parameter" or "malformed junction name" or something like that. It does appear to work for *local* disks but that is pretty useless, what I am trying to do is get *remote* disks to work so that filenames can be identical on all our NT and Linux machines.

      As far as I can tell there is a definate planned effort by MicroSoft to make this impossible. It could be solved trivially by adding a type of file to NTFS which is a "symbolic link" where the contents of the text are interpreted by the OS as a new file to alias to this original name. Because it is text it would allow *any* file that can be opened to be given a new name. It sould also be trivial to implement and is fairly easy to understand by moderate users and would be a major improvement to Windows. Instead we get all these programs with "junction points" and "hard links" where the target is seriously limited (ie to local disks, files on the same disk, and special services like the "Desktop").

      It is of course in MicroSoft's interest that we are forced to modify all filenames if we want our scripts and software to work on both Linux and NT. At work we have to add "z:" to every file that starts with a small set of names, and strip this off when typed in by the user before storing files. This is incredibly painful, probably causing more porting difficulties than the difference between X and GDI, despite the initial impression that this is trivial. It also means we cannot use any standard software that handles filenames as any part of our toolchain unless we modify the software to do this to the filenames.

    12. Re:Better than NTFS how? by LadyLucky · · Score: 2

      I see. Curious. I never tried it with anything other than local drives. My guess is that being a filesystem level thing, it only works when there is a local filesystem. Is mapping a network drive/ using the subst command inadequate?

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  74. Re:Obligatory Post by anti-drew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I've been super impressed by OS X having used it as my primary laptop for the last couple weeks. It really is a great unix box- and this is one of the important missing puzzle pieces."

    For the n'th time, OS X != UNIX!!!


    Tell Apple that.

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/unix.html

    While you're at it, tell ESR too. BSD = "a family of Unix versions".

    http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/BSD.h tml

    Lame.

  75. Doesn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that UNIX is a trademark, they obviously had to get someone's stamp of approval to use it.

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/unix.html

    1. Re:Doesn't it? by afidel · · Score: 1

      The Open Group holds the UNIX trademark, and I looked through every UNIX related standard (UNIX 98 being the current one) and did not find Apple listed anywhere. I noticed that they did not have the registered mark next to UNIX on the page you linked to.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  76. Great!!! by 2names · · Score: 1
    Now, when my Mac crashes, it won't take 20 minutes to fsck the disk!!! Oh, who am I kidding.....my Mac doesn't crash....

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  77. ElvisFS? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    When the word Elvis is used, the words bloat, dead, and clusters (like peanut clusters) come to mind. I think marketing could have picked a better name for the FS.

  78. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Rand+Race · · Score: 2, Informative

    It does in OS X... sorta.

    Window controls focus as they are moused over, but it does not switch to that window. The main problem with focus follows mouse on a Mac (X or Classic) is that the menu bar is not attatched to the window but is, rather, at the top of the screen. They would be impossible to use if the focus switched on your way up there.

    --
    Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
  79. Re:Apple Still Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's okay to rip off the look and feel of the OS?
    Gimme some cheese, assface. This rat is peckish.

  80. As your laptop? by d3xt3r · · Score: 1, Troll
    I've been super impressed by OS X having used it as my primary laptop for the last couple weeks.

    Wow Taco, I thought OS X was cool, but seeing that you've actually figured out a way to use an OS as a laptop, you've definitely uncoverd a cool hidden feature on OS X that no else knows about. Maybe that's why Jaguar costs $120 USD, you don't even need a computer to use it!!!

    I'm sorry, mod me down now, but it had to be said. :P

    1. Re:As your laptop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask your mom to look up "metonymy" in the dictionary for you.

    2. Re:As your laptop? by d3xt3r · · Score: 2

      Sorry I don't see how a laptop and an OS are closely associated. A "laptop" and a "notebook" are; a laptop and software are not.

  81. who cares if apple is pretty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    there are plenty of liquid like themes for linux
    linux is free as in speech and often as in beer!

    if you use apple and msoffice then you are delaying
    people getting off office and ms proprietary formats.

    linux is where it is at.
    just bcs all the movie and tv people sneak apple
    products into the scenes don't change the fact,
    apple is ersatz cool.

    if you want to change os ,use apple osx.
    if you want to change the world use linux.

    1. Re:who cares if apple is pretty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to change the world then volunteer to help someone or some Organization. Linux is software. It does nothing that can change the world. Linux will not even harm Microsoft.

  82. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Corvus9 · · Score: 1
    Won't touch OS X until window focus can follow the mouse.

    There is no way window focus will ever follow the mouse in OS X because all windows share the same menu bar.

    If window focus followed the mouse it would be impossible to use menu commands on window selections; the commands would disappear as soon as you moved the mouse out of the window.

  83. Carbon Copy Cloner by allotrope · · Score: 1

    I'm typing this on an iBook with an extenal firewire disk. I actually have bootable systems on the drive, one of which is a clone of my internal disk. (backup) When I boot off of the firewire, things can go bad if the cable accidentally gets pulled out. We'll have to look at the options and see how the performance hit works in practice before any real judgements can be made.

  84. Re:This is 100% PURE rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I found this in MacOSRumors' archives from 9/18/02:


    Commentary in new code submitted recently to the Darwin CVS repository hints at support for Journaling in future versions of OS X using the existing HFS filesystem. For those not familiar with it, Journaling is a technique that adds very significant protection against data loss at the file system level, and is a much-requested feature by advanced users who have seen its dramatic reliability improvements on file systems under BeOS, Linux, and many other operating systems.

    Although there is no hard evidence yet as to what releases of Darwin and OS X will feature Journaling HFS, sources at Apple believe that Mac OS X 10.3, code-name Panther, is the target for this feature. Panther is scheduled to ship in mid-2003.


    Anyone with Darwin CVS access care to share?
  85. HFS+ explained in detail by anarkhos · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.htm l

    --
    >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
    >life
  86. Add-on question... by awtbfb · · Score: 1

    Does journaling also keep track of what files have been copied?

    For example, if I wanted to see if someone copied files during an intrusion. (Yes, I am taking proper security precautions you trigger-happy troll.)

    1. Re:Add-on question... by fgodfrey · · Score: 2

      In general, no. I think what you are after is something called auditing, not journaling. The only goal of journaling is to maintain consistancy of the filesystem, not to keep a log of what has happened on the machine for security reasons. The way most journaled filesystems work, after the transaction has been completely written to disk, the journal entry is erased and reused. This won't help you. However, an audit log will. Any system intended as a "trusted" system (SGI has "Trusted Irix" and I think there's a trusted Solaris as well) will do such logging. It will also do a number of other things which you may or may not like to increase your security. I don't know of any open-source auditing packages out there, but one probably exists somewhere.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
  87. Invasion of the Body Snatchers, c2002.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Emmett Plant, now CmdrTaco. Who's next? And what's that big shipment of pods being sent to Michigan from Cupertino? Don't fall asleep...

  88. ouch by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2

    Wow, that was some horrible grammar. Sorry guys....next time I'll preview ;)

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  89. Laptop Users the Big Winners by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    Obviously this is going to roll out coincident with XServe RAID (the fiberchannel raid box) so sysadmins don't laugh the pretty rack systems out of the data center, but the real winners are laptop users. I've run the battery dry on OSX on more than once, and each time my file system has been fsck'd. (yes, I meant it both ways).

    OSX is bad about giving you enough warning to shut down, at least on my pismo, so it's like crashing the OS hard whenever the battery gets low. I've had to reformat twice in the past year and a half because of it.

    This is fantastic.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  90. Darwin and Reiserfs by CreamsicleSeventeen · · Score: 1

    Is this possible?

  91. Software RAID5 support in this fs? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    4 drives in the Xserve are kinda useless without it, less'n you don't mind RAID 0+1 (IIRC OSXS supports that)...

  92. Disk Warrior is Much Better by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
    Yep, you guessed it... B-tree was basically spaghetti: reformat and reinstall time. I've seen it happen a few times before: the most spectacular being a crash during a defrag. Basically, nothing pointed to the right file: all the icons were there, but the info in them was basically noise.
    Next time have them try DiskWarrior.

    "Instead of patching the original directory, it quickly builds a new replacement directory using data recovered from the original directory thereby recovering files and folders that you thought were lost and that no other program could recover."

    Sounds like it would have fixed your machine. It fixed an OS X boot disk of mine which NDD 7 had completely chewed. A few files ended up recovered to a "Recovered Files" directory, but at least I still had them. The damn thing booted right up.
    --
    It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

    -James Baldwin
  93. Siracusa article....wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So with a journaling file system, file metadata will be stored at the filesystem level, not as a component of the files themselves, right? If my understanding is correct, this kinda makes John Siracusa's whining rant about Apple's metadata in OS X being all wrong kind of...pointless. And dumb.

    Could it be that maybe, just maybe, Apple had an eye to the future when developing it's file metadata structure? That it's entirely possible that Apple has had this in development for some time and there is a reason they changed their metadata structure? Siracusa seems convinced that it's inconceivable that Macs would ever support a filesystem like the proposed Elvis system and therefore everything they've done to OS X (metadata-wise) is wrong.

    I love this new development simply for the reason that it spits in Siracusa's face. He's generally a pretty knowledgable guy, but his metadata article has rubbed me the wrong way for a while and it's good to see that, while accusing Apple of not being forward thinking, he was the one not using the old gray matter.

    1. Re:Siracusa article....wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I totally agree with you.

      This will lay the foundation for something very new. If Apple won't write the right front end, someone else will.

      Mmmh - Newton soup on my harddisk...

  94. So . . . was it free? by TQBrady · · Score: 1

    You all but begged a few weeks ago for a free Titanium. Did you get it, or did you actually buy one? If you got it free, shouldn't you give the vendor some love?

  95. Impatience by gabe · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's what the reaction will be. Because they'll be waiting for Mac OS X to finish booting. OSX fsck's the file systems itself while it boots up. first it fscks the main drive/partition and then after the boot process starts up (and you see the pretty OSX start up screen with the progress bar) it checks other drives/partitions.

    So, thankfully, AOL Grandmas running OSX all over the world would not ever have to see the command line.

    --
    Gabriel Ricard
    1. Re:Impatience by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 2

      Blockquoth gabe:

      OSX fsck's the file systems itself while it boots up.

      I don't think so. Why don't I think so? Because when I boot into OS 9, it thinks the filesystem is dirty if I boot it without running fsck in OS X before booting into OS 9. Why does OS 9 think the partition needs checking if OS X already ran a fsck?

      I've actually been quite unhappy with OS X's blase attitude toward fsck - every time I boot into OS 9, I run fsck first "just in case." That's pretty lame (fortunately, I boot into OS 9 about once a month).

      --
      --Matthew
    2. Re:Impatience by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mac OS 9 does it's startup check if there is an inviable file on the HD, it delets the iniviable file upon a proper shutdown. classic otoh, doesn't always delete that file (i don't think it has the permisions!) so, OS 9 thinks that it wasn't shut down properly. just do an rm -f /Shutdown\ Check before rebooting into 9 (alternitivly, you can disable the startup check in the General Controls)

      and yes, OS X does fsck upon a power failer, pull the plug and watch how much longer it takes to boot (or boot in verbose)

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    3. Re:Impatience by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 2

      Simple questions: if what you say is true, then why doesn't the automatic fsck that you say happens at boot remove this file? Why does running fsck manually report that the filesystem was modified, if it already ran when it booted? Why does running fsck guarantee that I won't have to check the filesystem in OS 9 (which is orders of magnitude slower)?

      --
      --Matthew
    4. Re:Impatience by stux · · Score: 2

      Simple answer :

      OSX uses a different method of detecting an improper shutdown to OS9.

      Thus, when OS9 shuts down it doesn't make it so the drive is 'clean' from OSX's perspective

      and when OSX shuts down it doesn't make the drive clean from OS9's perspective.

      Soooo, if you're in OS9, set your startup disk to OSX and force a reboot, OSX will probably boot fine, no fsck etc, and when you restart to 9, you'll get the Disk First Aid.

      I don't actually know how OSX tells that a volume is dirty :)

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
    5. Re:Impatience by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 2

      Blockquoth stux:

      OSX uses a different method of detecting an improper shutdown to OS9.

      Really? Think carefully before you answer. Why does running fsck in OS X convince OS 9 that the filesystem is not dirty, then?

      when OSX shuts down it doesn't make the drive clean from OS9's perspective.

      Really? Again, think carefully.

      When a filesystem is mounted read-write, it's also tagged as dirty. Part of cleanly unmounting it is tagging it clean. So if they really use different methods of tagging it dirty, then OS 9 would not be aware of improper shutdowns in OS X, and booting into OS 9 after an improper shutdown would not call up Disk First Aid. But my whole problem is booting into OS 9 after an improper shutdown in OS X (if I haven't run fsck since that improper shutdown).

      Soooo, if you're in OS9, set your startup disk to OSX and force a reboot, OSX will probably boot fine, no fsck etc, and when you restart to 9, you'll get the Disk First Aid.

      Not if I run fsck on the filesystem while I'm in OS X.

      The only conclusion I can draw is that OS X does not, in fact, run fsck on filesystems after a dirty shutdown.

      --
      --Matthew
    6. Re:Impatience by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      if what you say is true, then why doesn't the automatic fsck that you say happens at boot remove this file?

      because the file doesn't get removed until Mac OS 9 has had a clean shut down.

      sometimes that file can get currupted, and Mac OS 9 can't delete that file (i've seen it!) then your best bet is to disable the start up check...

      Mac OS X completely ignores the presance of that file, and uses the Unix method for determining weather or not the File System is clean. i don't know what that method is, but stux appears to :)

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    7. Re:Impatience by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 2

      Blockquoth Hes Nikke:

      because the file doesn't get removed until Mac OS 9 has had a clean shut down.

      Do I have to go through this again?

      1. OS X has a dirty shutdown.
      2. OS 9 will pop up Disk First Aid at next OS 9 boot, UNLESS
      3. I run fsck manually in OS X.
      Now, if OS 9 and OS X have different methods for marking a partition dirty, why would a dirty shutdown in OS X affect OS 9? Why would fsck - which is the "OS X" way of dealing with dirty filesystems - also affect OS 9's opinion of the dirtiness of the filesystem?

      OS X can make OS 9 think that the filesystem is dirty, and that the filesystem is clean. I don't see how this in any way suggests that OS X uses a different method than OS 9 for determining whether the filesystem is clean. This leads to the conclusion that there is no boot-time fsck in OS X.

      Truth is, looking at the man page for autodiskmount, which uses hfs.util to handle fscking, it looks like things got a little complicated and somewhere along the line, fscking stopped happening.

      Green? (also, given all that, I would recommend running fsck after a dirty shutdown yourself and seeing whether fsck thinks OS X already fixed all the problems :-)

      --
      --Matthew
  96. I don't know about that.... by Wee · · Score: 2
    OS X easy to use. Linux, not there yet, check back in a few years

    Red Hat 8.0 went on an old IBM Thinkpad without a hitch (of course, so did RH 7.x, and 6.2). Wireless NIC, wired NIC, APM, all that works fine. The desktop I could sit my mom in front of. It's not as easy as OS X, sure, but it's come a long way.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  97. Speaking of BFS... by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are there any *reliable* kernel modules for Linux 2.2 that will let you use bfs as your filesystem? I heard of a development/test module, but I also heard that it was more in the toy stage then alpha/beta quality.

    I really miss the fast, usable bfs from my old BeOS 4.5 box. I never really like 5.0, but 4.5 was awesome. It's unfortunate that they discontinued it, as with some support, it could easily have been wide spread desktop (probably around the popularity that the various BSD flavors are today).

  98. Megalong fscks? by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

    "there are better ways to recover from failures,"

    Please tell me these better ways, I've been thinking that avoiding a couple of hours FSCKing a RAID 5 300gb array for 30 seconds of journal checking was great! The performance hit doesn't really matter, since I'm not doing DV-streaming from raw capture over the network..

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:Megalong fscks? by g4dget · · Score: 2
      The "better ways" depend on your environment and application. Many high-end servers just don't crash haphazardly; when they do crash, time spent fscking is irrelevant since something else is wrong. For something like a web server farm, aggregate performance matters, and that is higher if you don't journal, even if individual machines are out longer when they reboot.

      If you run a flaky file server for a workgroup and users are breathing down your neck, then journaling may, of course, help you. But perhaps you should just upgrade to a collection of non-flaky file servers instead.

      Journaling is most useful for desktops and laptops, which are at risk of being turned off or crashed frequently, and where you actually sit in front waiting for it.

  99. It rurns out that... by RatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It turns out that what people really want is a non-MS desktop that actually works. Most people over the age of 14 don't give a rat's ass about the ideological aspects at all.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:It rurns out that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiiight, what with Apple threatening Microsoft's monopoly and all, right....

      Also in other news it turns out that most self-proclaimed "geeks" are just fat, unwashed slobs dying for infantile entertainment.

    2. Re:It rurns out that... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

      Also in other news it turns out that most self-proclaimed "geeks" are just fat, unwashed slobs dying for infantile entertainment.

      Hey! I'm NOT fat... I'm big-boned.

    3. Re:It rurns out that... by ronabop · · Score: 1

      non-MS?
      Nope. They don't give a damn who the vendor is.
      Not even the "non-MS desktop" ideology.
      What they want is an easy to use computer. MS made apple's life hard by making their OS/apps "harder" to use with Macs, and vice versa.
      Users don't care about about evil companies, when MS was found guilty, users didn't flee...
      -Bop

  100. 10 to 15% slower? by azav · · Score: 1

    The damn OS is slow enough already. We really need an extra 10 to 15% slower OS.

    Where is my TYPE and CREATOR? OS X is A nice aqua interface with all the user hositility of Unix.

    Unlike the old Os 9, where you could find your way and use it the way you like, you realyl have to use the OS the way it wants to be used. The friendly old (yet crash prone) mac os is gone and it REALLY sucks.

    File extensions are evil.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:10 to 15% slower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh get over it. im a long tiem mac user of 12 years and as much as i enjoyed the mac os, X and aqua are EASIER and FASTER to navigate than 9 ever was. especialy with spring loaded folders and the uninsaity lables hack.

    2. Re:10 to 15% slower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also, if you read the fucking article beforere shooting your fucking stupid mouth off, you would know that this is OPTIONAL and turned off by default.

  101. Mac OS X to Get Journaling FS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    And this is news because some idiot OSX user thinks that Linux doesn't have one?

  102. Re:This is 100% PURE rumor by gnuadam · · Score: 1

    Uhhhhh....everybody has access to the CVS repository. Look here

    --
    You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
  103. It is time to develop MACOSNE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MAC OS Not an Emulator API

    WINE rocks.

    Anyone want to comment on developing a graphical layer compatible with COCOA? Is that possible at all?

    I would like to see a free implementation on every i386 using darwing + MACOSNE (?)

    Comments?

  104. Versioning by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
    Actually, going from FAT32 to NTFS increases performance, not decrease. I don't know if that's a result of NTFS being so good or FAT32 being so bad. I'll take the latter.

    Same was true on VMS and come to that pretty much every log based file system I have used, speed increased on adoption.

    Now I suspect that is mainly a function of the age of the file systems being replaced. FAT32 was used for disks that were way bigger than were thought of when it was introduced as an interim hack to keep FAT going.

    The thing that is odd about apple is that they have taken so very long to catch up. Microsoft have had a journaling file system for almost 10 years now. NTFS is now supported in XP meaning that all their current O/S products are NTFS based.

    The article did not mention what 'above and beyond' might mean. What I want and just about the only O/S feature I would switch for is automatic file versioning a la VMS.

    On VMS the O/S would automatically keep backup copies of you files for you. So you edit a word document, save it out to disk and you have my.doc;1 and my.doc;2. This is emulated in some applications (e.g. emacs) but none of the mainstream O/S has the feature.

    It would be pretty easy to add as an option, NTFS already allows for folders to be encrypted or compressed. Verisioning could be another option, so you would turn on versioning for a folder and specify the number of copies of the files to keep. If you ran out of disk space (unlikely for me, I buy a new hard drive whenever I get to 50% capacity) you could run a purge command.

    WNT already reserves the ; character for use in versioning. All we need to do is to convince the Microsofties that Apple is planning to implement it and we would get it implemented in a service pack within 48 hours :-)

    This is not a substitute for a code manager but I used to use the same in combination. I did not commit new versions until the code actually ran (or a major change that almost ran). file level versioning you would use between compiles, so you try a modification, discover it was a disaster and back it out, or you have some finger trouble and delete a critical mod and you can back it out.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  105. "More modern framework"? by mcc · · Score: 2

    Won't there be performance and stability impacts from basing it on HFS+ instead of a more modern framework?

    HFS+ isn't "modern"? HFS+ was released along with Mac OS 8.1, in 1998. HFS+ is four years old. That doesn't exactly *seem* ancient.

    Honestly, this is a serious question-- i don't know very much about filesystem design. From what i do know, it does seem to make perfect sense that filesystem journaling could be implemented as an invisible, optional layer on top of an existing filesystem. But i could be wrong.

    What, exactly, is it that is not "modern" about the four-year-old HFS+? Have there been some new advances in the theory of filesystems since then? I notice there seems to have been a lot of work in the world of new linux filesystems (reiserfs, ext3, etc) but i for one don't know the differences between all this stuff.

    Would you like to explain what i missed?

    1. Re:"More modern framework"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using your logic, FAT32 is only 5 years old.

      See that plus? It means that HFS+ is a simple upgrade to the original HFS.

      How old is HFS exactly?

    2. Re:"More modern framework"? by aburnsio.com · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I mean by "modern" is "modern design, e.g. designed with modern features (such as journaling)", not necessarily "modern implementation". It seems that HFS+ was just an extension of HFS, not a complete rewrite for OSX, and so you're just hacking on top of a hack. It seems that integrity, reliability, and speed of the filesystem would be better if they started from scratch and designed a completely new, OSX-centered filesystem rather than extending HFS+ which is really MacOS9-legacy.

    3. Re:"More modern framework"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that HFS+ was just an extension of HFS, not a complete rewrite for OSX

      Actually it was a complete rewrite, however it was originally planned for Copland rather than Mac OS X (but clearly for some kind of post-traditional Mac OS).

      It improves on HFS by having multiple named forks (e.g., like NTFS), stores Unix permissions, stores file names as Unicode (255 chars), and a bunch of other improvements.

      Journalling is a nice feature to have (not sure I'd call it "modern" though - it's hardly new), but it doesn't necessarily require a change to the volume format.

      If you're looking for a hack on top of a hack, say hello to the legacy NeXT UFS...

    4. Re:"More modern framework"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HFS+ is not backward-compatible with HFS.

      Apple was under no obligation to support ANYTHING "legacy" when they made it.

      It seems that if you can't actually name any "legacy" features of the hfs+ filesystem, you shouldn't just be *assuming* the cruft is there becuase it is presented as the new version of really old and crufty.

      By your current logic, linux 2.4 is just an upgrade of linux 0.1, and linux 0.1 was designed in 1989 as an unportable, spaghetti-and-assembly-code x86-only OS, so why would anyone want to use linux 2.4 when they could use something with a more modern design?

      If you actually know of anything limiting, flawed, underperforming, or needing fixing in the hfs+ filesystem, i'll agree with you heartily it would make more sense for apple to overhaul it now that they have the chance. But it seems you don't actually know anything more about filesystem implementation and design than any of the rest of us, and are just working off of assumption. And remember: when you make an ASSUMPTION, you make an ASS out of U and MPTION.

  106. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Cadre · · Score: 2
    If window focus followed the mouse it would be impossible to use menu commands on window selections; the commands would disappear as soon as you moved the mouse out of the window.

    Frankly, I could care less about the menu items myself. Losing that is only small loss of functionality that sloppy cursor control has. You can still enter text in windows in the background and manipulate the widgets on that window. You can still hit key commands that correspond to menu items...

    Sloppy cursor controll will eventully make it into Mac OS X. It's just not clear whether Apple is going to do it or a 3rd party is going to write a hack for it.

    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
  107. I've got just the solution for you by jbridge21 · · Score: 1

    It's the Linux I started out with, and the one I still use on my desktop to this day: Slackware. More BSD than any of the other Linuxen.

  108. Whats wrong with you people? by extrasolar · · Score: 2

    Okay, I dig it, you like your computer. No, my bad, its not a computer--its a mac. Wow wee. I mean, anyone who has been reading the slashdot posts knows that you guys like your macs a lot.

    But this is insane. A post that says "Gee, I like macs and you should too" and it gets rated +4, Interesting. Its like slashdot has been invaded by Apple's marketing team, only these are people who at any other time can see through hype and bullshit. Its sad at how zealous you people can seem over some company's product.

    I say you people need to all get together with your favorite "Think Different" T-shirts and parade down some suburban street with signs and flyers singing in unison "I like macs; they are cool. We like macs because they rule!" Perhaps if you saw other people doing this, you'd have some idea how ridiculous you all seem.

    Please, leave the marketing to the folks who get paid for it. And then we can get back to talking about stuff that matters.

  109. Looks like he did use a search engine... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I just tried a search through google for "how to make PC video editing not suck" and the forth response down is:

    "Windows Movie Maker can't hold a digital candle to iMovie"

    Problem solved! That's how I solved my problem with the PC being incredibly touchy when editing video (dropping frames, software crashing, etc.), I bought a Powerbook. Now I can do whatever I like when editing or grabbing DV feeds.

    Now let's see, there's a guy who bought a computer that could do the task he wanted to do out of the box, and then there's you who would spend many hours pouring through web sites with the result that you might or might not have a working solution. Who's the moron?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Looks like he did use a search engine... by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      well, I suppose that Macs can do rudimentary video editing, but why in the world would anyone use Windows Movie Maker?!?

      I work for BorisFX(.com) and I have never heard of it or would understand why anyone would want to use Windows Movie Maker.

      I can understand the attraction for some to get a Mac to do some video editing. Again though, the default setup they ship is for very low end editing. I know a few folks who got an Imac to do editing and they all quickly outgrew Imovie and wanted to move onto FCP.

      Once they found out that they needed to pay an additional $999 for FCP, plus the fact that their original HD will very quickly run out of room (no room for an additional HD in an IMAC, but you can get fisted and purchase an external Firewire drive) for another few hundred bucks.

      Suddenly buying a cheaper PC to begin with with room for the extra drive they need, a firewire (or analog capture) card that comes with Premiere (certainly no FCP of choice, but still good) so that they aren't stuck with a system that can't grow with their hobby.

      In the end, Mac is good, Imacs for playing with movies for more than a week is bad.

    2. Re:Looks like he did use a search engine... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      The default setup does do mostly low-end editing, but it does that really well. I have a Powerbook and it beat my attempts at low end editing on the PC by a mile. It doesn't drop frames or need babysitting to work properly, and there's not as much worry about system compatibility. I love it because so far for the things I've done I don't even use film, I just stream right to the PB.

      As for the HD on an iMac, there are always external Firewire drives...

      Most people will never need to pay that $999, or they could also buy the Mac Premiere for about half as much (not needing to buy a card in the first place) - or cheaper solutions like plugins for iMovie (to do things like bluescreen effects) or cheap video editing packages (which I'm not too sure about myself). I'm sure at some point I'll be moving into a higher end video editing package, but for the moment iMovie has just enough features to be usable for many applications by an average prosumer (though I wish there was something like an "iAudio" app to mix sounds with, to make more of the two extra audio tracks iMovie supports).

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Looks like he did use a search engine... by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      Having previously worked for a music software company, I could recommend Steinberg stuff to you. If you find it is a bit more than you wanted to pay, try this link. Though I have never used it myself, I have heard good things. SRP is $199, so I'd imagine the street price to be $150 to $160.

      Bias-Inc.

  110. why start another project? by mountain_penguin · · Score: 1

    With the availiability of fast open source journeling file systems like jfs xfs reiserfs ext3 etc. Why go to the bother of developing a new one?
    what extra benifits does it have apart from being slower?
    Meta data is suported in xfs (and reiserfs4 i think)
    The translation from hfs+ to xfs could done as a mach service(this being the entire point of microkernels you can add support for things like new disk types without touching the kernel space). or is this why its slow? The system has to do yet another context switch to run the translation service?

    So why are apple just reinventing the wheel given all the existing oss projects?

  111. Tell me WHY we need this by moosesocks · · Score: 2

    Tell me why journaling is exactly good for OSX and HFS+. As long as i've used it, i've never experienced any huge amount of data corruption on it. I've used the same HFS+ partition for about 4 years without a problem (needless to say, i'm abusive of it, and frequently cut the power without properly shutting down).

    Most of the comments here are refrencing journaling to Ext2, and other unix filesystems which DO have data-loss problems in the absence of journaling. But, for the most part, I've never seen massive data loss with HFS+ and FAT32.

    It also has been brought up that storing the journal on another disk can eliminate the performance decrease. Personally, I could see apple moving to standardize RAID on its high(er) end systems and servers(they've already standardized SMP); or even possibly adding like 256mb of non-volitile memory to store the journal (a small hard disk would also work).

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Tell me WHY we need this by Ghengis · · Score: 1

      Mac, with their XServ machines, is trying to break into the server market, and a Journaling Filesystem is one of those buzzwords that IT managers are going to require (even though there are many who will never know what a jfs is... see dilbert).

      --

      "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

  112. Re:Disk Space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Journalling filesystems are the way to go, but if you do any work on your computer, you should still keep backups.

  113. HISTORICAL VIEW??? CVS FOR FREE?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this mean?

    That I can tell a file in finder that i will keep a version of each day it was changed?

    Somethink like CVS for free? On every file I want with a decent interface in Finder?

    THAT would be cool!

    Using the transaction mechanism not only on the filesystem, but FILES THEMSELVES, and setting up timers when small changes will be "added" into larger ones... GREAT!

    Hopefully that wasn't a typo in eWeeks report. Can't wait for it.

  114. from opensource.apple.com: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/documenta tion/howto/html/Building_Darwin_HOWTO.html

    Before running the buildall script, you should setup your anoncvs environment, as discussed earlier. Also, your build location (specified in the BUILDIT_DIR environment variable, defaulting to /tmp/roots) should be a UFS filesystem, otherwise some packages will not build correctly (because of HFS+'s case insensitivity). To run the buildall script execute the following as root:

  115. Get GNUStep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With some additions it could be up to par to Cocoa.

    But I think you want Quartz (Extreme) for free. Forget about that. Won't happen anytime soon. Apples programmers aren't that bad that it could be copied that easy. It might be easiert to
    - write a PPC emulator for x86 and run darwin native on x86
    - convince Apple to make Cocoa/Quartz for x86 (maybe even Linux) without the hassle-free magic of MacOS X.

    The last thing would be very clever: This would broaden the sales base for MacOS X applications and those how tried some of the apps might think that it IS worth to buy the real thing... . And Apple doesn't have to fear that GNUStep will try catch up really hard. Most x86/Linux users will pay some bucks for something like this if they could run some really cool applications. BTW: I call this set of binaries "Lucy".

  116. Elvis owned BeOS files by Frankus · · Score: 1
    For a while, IIRC, the user 'elvis' owned all of the files on a BeOS system. At some point it was changed to (or from, I'm a little foggy here) 'baron'.

    Anyone remember? One of these days I'm going to install one of the really ghetto early versions of BeOS on my BeBox. One of the versions where the Pulse app could turn off both processors :).

  117. Re:even more performace hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im on 350 mhz g4, and OS X hasnt been sluggish since 10.2. try a new one at your local apple store

  118. Re:Disk Space. by Kalak · · Score: 1

    Last I checked NTFS support in Linux was unreliable and so FAT is the only useable alternative for dual booters. (No flames on that, I boot Linux i386 and ppc, Mac OS X, and only when I have to Windows.) I don't want to waste disk space on an OS I hardly use and format it into a read only filesystem.

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  119. Ahh OK, OS-X just got 15% slower, hmm too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for you.

  120. Why AOL Grandmas need journaling by dmoen · · Score: 4, Informative
    Most people (as in AOL Grandmas) don't need it

    I know of one AOL Grandma who has only one troubleshooting strategy: she power cycles her iMac whenever she has a computer problem.

    Doug Moen

    --
    I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
    1. Re:Why AOL Grandmas need journaling by toupsie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I know of one AOL Grandma who has only one troubleshooting strategy: she power cycles her iMac whenever she has a computer problem.

      Unless she is yanking the cord out of the wall, that will not happen. The power switch on the front of the iMac will prompt her on the screen if she wants to shutdown, restart or cancel. That's the nice part of owning a machine where the OS and the hardware come from the same company. Little things like that are thought of and integrated. If you are really worried about Grandma's iMac, just put a note on the bottom of the 15" LCD screen that says, "Grandma, don't yank out the power plug or I won't come over to Thanksgiving!!!" and she'll be set.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    2. Re:Why AOL Grandmas need journaling by 73 · · Score: 1

      Unless she is yanking the cord out of the wall, that will not happen. The power switch on the front of the iMac will prompt her on the screen if she wants to shutdown, restart or cancel

      Hold down the button until that annoying question goes away. About 5 seconds.

      73 'cause it's prime

  121. Re:Siracusa article NOT wrong by Alderete · · Score: 1
    Actually, you're confusing the journaling part with the metadata part. A journaling file system only cares about the file system data -- what file fragments are where on the disk. Nothing else.

    The metadata that John Siracusa is asking for is actually very different. He's interested in seeing additional attributes added for files -- things like the file's MIME type, preferred handler, etc.

    Be's BFS had all of these things, but not just as part of the journal. There was a lot more to BFS than just the journaling part!

  122. Re:even more performace hit by jamwt · · Score: 1

    woudl kill for an apple,

    Jeez. What would you do for an orange?

  123. Re:This is 100% PURE rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe somebody who will decide to help out and investigate instead of just being a smart-ass?

  124. Stop yer whining by T.Hobbes · · Score: 2
    "Apple: Mac OS X rumored to get a JFS in 10.2.2" - which is what your report is - would be far more acurate, and acceptable of a title.

    The same complaint you make about the slashdot headline can be made about the eWeek headline, which is "Look Out Enterprise: Mac OS X to Get Journaling".

    The first three words of the slashdot story are 'According to eWeek'. In fact, the eWeek article only mentions that Apple Computer hasn't confirmed the announcment in the second paragraph.

    What's more, the slashdot headline makes no indication either way about whether the announcement is official; all slashdot headlines in the Apple category are preceded by "Apple:"

    If you feel that eWeeks handleing of unconfirmed nature of this story is appropriate, you must also feel that slashdot's handleing is appropriate. Posting complaints about slashdot's shoddy journalism is about as original as remarking on the potential of beowulf clusters. Get over it.

  125. Elvis Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!

  126. Did I read this right? by myov · · Score: 2

    Mac OS X to get Journaling FS
    Posted by CmdrTaco ...

    GET A %*&#^*@ 3-BUTTON... oh, wait a minute

    I've been super impressed by OS X having used it as my primary laptop for the last couple weeks...
    No 1-button mouse joke?

    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    1. Re:Did I read this right? by larryappleton · · Score: 1

      Yo, you can get 3 button mice for macs. Logitech sells a couple of them.

      here's one

      I've been using one for a while. Contextual menus (you can set the 2nd mouse button to --control-click--) and the scroll wheel both work!

    2. Re:Did I read this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe becuase it simply isnt a funny joke. and besides you can buy a 3 button mouse, dont need spoecial drivers for it and plenty of pc people buy 3rd party mice anyways. whats there to joke about? making fun of a the one button mosue was jsut a way for smug pc /linux bigots to make them feel superior. its lame

  127. Computer Waiting Games by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2

    If you buy a copy of Computer Waiting Games and give Power Strip Russian Roulette a try, journaling might be very nice thing to have.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  128. AmigaOS, sure by Marc2k · · Score: 1

    ..but what about Windows XP Home edition?

    --
    --- What
  129. How can a system die? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    An O/S dies very easily, all that is required is for its kernel developer to is stop working on it. No driver -> stops working on new hardware -> no developer -> no user.

  130. You don't need the source code for Aqua by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2

    I understand the importance of having the source code for something so I can modify it to meet my needs.

    However, as long as the open source community doesn't "get" the concept of user interface usability, they really can't be trusted with something like the source code for Apple's GUI layer. If they were allowed to have the code, they would turn Apple's UI into some completely unusable piece of trash that deprives end-users of a valuable freedom: the freedom to get work done with a minimum of fuss. In other words, they would turn Apple's GUI layer into something resembling the mess that is GNOME and KDE.

    It's really a lot like Star Trek's Prime Directive. Until a civilization has reached a state of evolution where they are intelligent and moral enough to not misuse and abuse a piece of advanced technology, it is critical to keep that piece of technology out of their hands. When the open source community has evolved to the point where they no longer have religious problems with spaces in filenames, when they can understand why "System Preferences" is preferable to "etc", when they can use the word "folder" instead of "directory", when they stop expressing derision and hostility towards usability professionals, and when they leave their command-line anti-newbie rtfm baggage out of the GUI design, then and only then should they be given the source code to Apples GUI layer.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  131. I would just like to congratulate Dominic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...on being the first member of the ex-SGI thursday poker crowd to get a headline on /.

    1. Re:I would just like to congratulate Dominic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, knowing a moderator rocks!

      Could I have extra karma with this post please?

  132. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are *very* good examples of how Apple, while being a for-profit company, does some GREAT things for keeping with standards.

  133. Think Secret's Record Speaks for Itself by Nick+dePlume · · Score: 3, Interesting

    gsfprez,

    It might be worth your time to give a closer look to some of Think Secret's exclusive Mac insider news from this past year. As you indicated, circa 2000 we did indeed transition from an opinion/speculation site to a publication resembling what we are today. Not only have we broken some of the biggest Apple stories out there, but I'm proud of our accuracy.

    I think our record for the past two years speaks for itself, and I invite others to examine our archives to reach their own conclusion.

    If you truly believe that every news article drawing on facts not officially released from Apple is "rumor," then I suppose we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

    Thanks for reading,

    Nick dePlume
    Publisher and Editor in Chief, Think Secret
    http://www.thinksecret.com

  134. Better to use robust filesystems by SignoffTheSourcerer · · Score: 1

    If you are totaly paranoid about dataloss use a really robust filesystem (Amiga OFS/FFS linked-list type filesystems comes to mind, where even with 90% of your disk gone you could still recover the rest, these systems are horribly slow though),or a better, faster but more expensive solution is to have minimal ram cache and have a caching raid controller with large battery-backed'up cache, like the Compaq SMART controllers.

    --
    Ordo Militum Unix.
    1. Re:Better to use robust filesystems by Caktus · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the amiga filesystem has been very slow and unreliable.

      It used linked lists for metadata. Directories and "file inodes" used linked lists when they occupied more than one block. At that time files weren't very big, so the fact that they used linked lists shouldn't have had an important performance hit. In the other hand, it was very slow, specially on floppies. Directories just contained a hash table of pointers to the "inode" of each file or directory. I guess it was so slow because the directory didn't have the names of the files in it. Instead, every name was in its file "inode". The result is that the disk head went mad every time you needed a directory listing. And, in case it wasn't still slow enough, some metadata was stored in ".info" files. This metadata included protections (rwxa), filetype (app, script, datafile), icon image, tool used to open the file (if it was a data file) and an additional list of textual properties for data files. When you opened a directory in the file manager (workbench), the system had to read lots of non contiguous blocks which slowed the system a lot. Also, not related to the filesystem but to the feel of it, the icon layout system wasn't scallable in speed. I guess it was quadratic at least.

      In the reliability front my experience has been disastrous. After rebooting during hard disk activity, many times the disk checking tool (diskdoctor) couldn't repair the partition that was being writen at the time of reboot. I guess it was a problem with write ordering.

  135. Journaled File system a welcomed step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I welcome the Journaled File System to OSX and certainly hope they are able to improve performance on machines. I'll gladly give up HFS+ for a good file system that has all the benefits of XFS. I'd like to see it make improvements over the much touted BFS and I hope it will be a 64-bit Journaled File System that allows attributes to be searched quickly much like BeOS and if possible clustering like SGI does with their XFS disks in CXFS.

    Here is a great article by Wilfredo Sánchez on Mac OS and Unix. In it is an extensive explanation on HFS, HFS+ and UFS.

    http://www.mit.edu/people/wsanchez/papers/USENIX _2 000/

    -Diganta

  136. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by SlamMan · · Score: 2

    But if moving your mouse to the menue bar always triggers you to go back to the finder on the way there, how the hell do you find out what the command keys for any specific program are, much less use the functions that don't have command keys? I'd like to see this implimented in the finder itself maybe, but I don't see Apple ever putting it in for applications as aa whole.

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
  137. Re: Quadra?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you mean Power Mac? Apple stopped selling Quadras in 1995.

    So, with apologies to Sergeant Hulka, "Uh, son... there ain't no Quadras no more." :-)

  138. I felt uncomfortable peeking... by mtec · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...but I had to know.

    I hesitated and nearly turned around - but, I decided - I had to know. In the end, I, gave in to my curiosity. So I looked around to see if she had come back from from the Platters concert. She'd gone with a scuzzy looking friend who'd twisted her arm to get her to go - to 'decompress' he said. I think the guy has a one track mind, after all, she was really stacked. Slowly I opened the cover and read the words... "Dear Journal..." it went on ..."I've been seeking and not finding. I've got to get my head on straight and fly right... No more fragmented block-head behavior... Life goes so smoothly when I remember where I put things... No more crashing and burning on weekends ... take writing class..."

    My suspicions were for naught. Her mind was on work - not him. Guess I won't have to give him the boot. The magnetic attraction I thought was there was a bad read on my part... I closed the book and walked away - humming a little tune.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  139. Blah blah BeOS blah blah. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Dominic is a good guy, but... WHY THE HELL DOES THIS NEED TO GET DONE?!?!?! All they need to do is use BSD's very own UFS with SoftUpdates!!! That code has been perfected ages ago in BSD and it WORKS GREAT, with NO performance penalty!!! 10%-15% performance penalty... Bah, humbug. At least in BFS the disk access was such that you could barely hear the hard disk head jumping around. (I am still convinced that hard disks holding a BFS filesystem will last MUCH longer than one holding a crappy DOS or HFS+ or whatever.) Unlike in Windows where it practically wakes up the whole neighborhood.

    Oh yeah. And BeOS still rocks, even though it is LONG DEAD! LONG LIVE THE DEAD!

  140. Re: FileSystem != Framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To paraphrase FlavorFlav: get your terminology correct, slashdot geek.

    A filesystem (HFS+) is in no sense a framework.

    HFS+ is a relatively modern filesystem developed in the mid-to-late 90's for Maxwell, making it as "modern" (in terms of "performance and stability") as necessary.

    A useful filesystem---on any platform---is more than a simple compile. Try it sometime.

    Journaling should be a nifty addition to Mac OS.

  141. The Little Poet Who Could[n't] by Feral+Bueller · · Score: 1

    Your iambic pentameter needs a little work. Keep trying.

    --
    - learn to swim.
  142. Any other journaling advantage- beyond fsck issue? by KH2002 · · Score: 2
    Trying to learn here... Of course there's the unclean shutdown scenario where a journaling file system means you don't have to wait for a lengthy fsck.

    My question is, what other advantages are there? E.g. would a journaling file system mean that general, ongoing file system maintenance is somehow better? Or, if you can afford to wait for fsck once in a while, are you pretty much just as well off?

  143. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Cadre · · Score: 2
    But if moving your mouse to the menue bar always triggers you to go back to the finder on the way there, how the hell do you find out what the command keys for any specific program are, much less use the functions that don't have command keys?

    Actually, the whole jumping back to the Finder could probably be moot. The algorithm should look at where the cursor is going. If it's moving rapidly towards the top of the screen then don't change the menu bar. If the mouse isn't moving in the general direction to the top of the screen or has since slowed down from heading to the top of the screen then change the focus as necessary.

    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
  144. there is no clear winner by g4dget · · Score: 2
    And I love how on every point OS X wins.

    It doesn't, really.

    • From a user's point of view, once it's installed, KDE or Gnome are no harder to use than OS X. Or, to put it differently, the OS X GUI has plenty of pitfalls, which you would discover if you actually tried to support novice OS X users.
    • OS X has far fewer drivers available for it than Linux.
    • While there is more commercial OS X software, OS X runs considerably less free and research software than Linux.
    • The OS X GUI is an key part of OS X, and it is not a universal win. While it is pretty, it is also proprietary, requires a complete rewrite for most software to be ported to it, and it's slow.
    • Software installation, packaging, and maintenance on OS X is a mess compared to Linux.

    There are many nice things about OS X, and there are many not so nice things about it as well. Overall, there is no clear winner between OS X or Linux--it really depends on the application and the user. For many current Linux users, OS X simply is is not a workable alternative. For home users, however, OS X is an excellent choice, not because of any technical differences, but simply because it comes pre-packaged with its hardware and because lots of stores carry it.

    1. Re:there is no clear winner by MonsterChicharo · · Score: 1
      Software installation, packaging, and maintenance on OS X is a mess compared to Linux.

      As in "I drag the application to the hard disk and it just works?." Right. Truly a mess compared to Linux.

    2. Re:there is no clear winner by g4dget · · Score: 2
      As in: you need to keep track of whether a new version of the software exists, you download it, you end up with three weird looking files on your desktop, you open one of them up (if you double click on the wrong one, you get more weird looking files on your desktop), you need to figure out where you put the old version of the software, you drag it there, you get rid of the junk on your desktop--but in the right order please, or OS X will complain.

      Well, or maybe not. Maybe the software came as an installable bundle, in which case you will still end up with lots of junk on your desktop but some wizard will also ask you bizarre questions, like "which of these drives do you want to install it on" when there is only one. Or maybe it's being updated through Apple's update system.

      Software installation on the Mac is a mess. I have talked enough novice users through it to know.

  145. Mac OS X not ready for primetime. by @madeus · · Score: 2

    Apart from the current lack of JFS support - no Mandatory Access Controls, no Access Control Lists and no process control (i.e. it's not possible to limit process to ports, or to limit what data they can read, write and append to) and the fact that anyone with the root user id can totally control the system uninhibited mean OS X that will stay on my PowerBook and GNU/Linux will stay on our server farm.

    It's the same reason that I just junked FreeBSD (installed by the previous project lead) for GNU/Linux (which is able to do all of these things, with the appropriate kernel patches).

    It's just not up to it for Serious Serving (TM) (though I'll admit that most installations are half assed and done by professionaly incompetant goofballs and don't use many, or indeed any of these features [I should say this is a general point and not aimed at the previous project lead, lol - in fact it's based more around the many overpaid luser consultants I've met]).

    GNU/Linux is only only hard to use if your not a competant Unix Systems Engineer, infact I find it easier than *BSD, HP-UP, AIX, IRIX, GNU/HURD, and Solaris. Though I run Debian on the desktop much of this improved easy of use is primarily due to the work Red Hat have done in making their distribution much more suited to a coporate environment.

  146. Ain't always so by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, full data journaling is not really practical for most user applications. If you journal to the same physical device that the main filesystem is on, there's a big performance penalty because you essentially have to write everything twice.

    Not always so. Full data journalling can speed up situations where you rapidly read and write the same file or many small files - because you are reading and writing directly to/from the journal (a small area of disk). Hence shorter seek times.

  147. Wrong! Two different kinds of meta-data by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

    No the journaling file system is keeping track of the file systems meta data - where a file exists on the disk. This is completely unrelated to what Siracusa has been complaining about.

    Siracusa is complaining about the lack of richness in a file's metadata and the fact that some of the most important meta-data is stored messily and unnecessarily as part of another unrelated bit of meta-data (the file type being stored as part of the file name). His ideal would be files that stored a lot more useful metadata in a logical well designed and extensible way.

  148. It isn't crashes that lead to my fscks. by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

    POWER OUTAGE! You have no control over them. Even with the 1500VA UPS I use, if the power is out long enuogh, my systems will suddenly find the floor dropped out from below them into the void of not-running-land. I haven't setup auto-shutdown based on UPS feedback, either, so it would be a crash-like situation.

    I don't want to recover from a 4-hour power outage (and comensurate loss of service) with a 3-hour fsck, nor do I have the money to buy a generator and redo the electricity setup for the server room for the megalong power outage problem.

    Plus, for my RAID5 array, the journalling does batch up writes (allowing the RAID card to keep more spindles active).

    Sacrificing stability, better consistency in the worst-case scenario, and a general faster startup time in case of problems for a slighly faster best-case scenario (which evaporates in most common server configs, since the VFS cache layer does most of the work anyways on my gig-ram fileservers, webservers, and so on), is not a win. The choice between speed and quality is no choice at all.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:It isn't crashes that lead to my fscks. by g4dget · · Score: 2
      POWER OUTAGE! You have no control over them. Even with the 1500VA UPS I use, if the power is out long enuogh, my systems will suddenly find the floor dropped out from below them into the void of not-running-land. I haven't setup auto-shutdown based on UPS feedback, either, so it would be a crash-like situation.

      Well, as I was saying: if you don't set up your servers properly, then journaling may be for you. The correct action on power failure is to shut down before the batteries run out.

  149. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the stupidest thing I have heard all day.

  150. cmdrtaco by daveman_1 · · Score: 1
    "I've been super impressed by OS X having used it as my primary laptop for the last couple weeks. It really is a great unix box- and this is one of the important missing puzzle pieces."

    Make OS X run on X86 hardware and you'd really have something there!

    --
    Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
  151. Re:Any other journaling advantage- beyond fsck iss by daveman_1 · · Score: 1

    Without a journalling filesystem, online defrag is pretty much impossible. Unless of course you try to defrag the way Win98 did...

    --
    Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
  152. Usually, MoneyT is a jerk, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have to absolutely agree with him here. A HOUSE is the same as a house. When I talk to someone over the phone, I don't have to indicate if I'm talking in uppercase or lowercase. What's next? Filenames that depend on a specific font?

    The OS provides language-specific functions to convert from lowercase to uppercase. Use them.

    Instead of
    if (stringA == stringB)
    just use
    if (ucase(stringA)==ucase(stringB))


    If the OS doesn't provide these functions, then the OS needs to be improved. It's the programmer's job to make the user's life easier, not the other way around. Once upon a time developers actually knew that.

    1. Re:Usually, MoneyT is a jerk, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A HOUSE is the same as a house.

      REALLY? yOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM READING THIS SENTENCE AND BEING OKAY WITH IT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT FOR YEARS TYPING IN allcaps HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BAD MANNERS BECAUSE IT EQUATES WITH SHOUTING? hOW ODD.

      > When I talk to someone over the phone, I don't
      > have to indicate if I'm talking in uppercase or
      > lowercase.

      tHAT'S BECAUSE ... That's because when you talk you don't type at all - unless you're deaf and have to use a terminal for your voice communications.

      In Isaac Asmiov's "Caves Of Steel" there was a distinction between a city and a City - the former being a regular city like we have today, the latter being a "super" very large sized center. Caps denotes importance.

      tO THINK THAT CASE DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN HOW YOUR COMMUNICATION IS PERCEIVED IS WRONG.

    2. Re:Usually, MoneyT is a jerk, but... by King+of+the+World · · Score: 1
      That just makes a case for the filename case being preserved, not that filenames should be case-sensitive.

      By this I mean that you shouldn't be able to store both "BECAUSE" and "because" but whatever casing you give should be retained.

  153. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by SlamMan · · Score: 2

    I have to actually agree with that anonymous coward here. Having the finder determing when you atomatically switch to a differnt program based on what the finder thinks you want to do is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Try explaining that one to grandma.

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
  154. Re:This is 100% PURE rumor by gnuadam · · Score: 1

    Actually, I did get it, and greped extensively. No dice. Don't be so damned quick to judge, git-brained coward.

    --
    You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
  155. Re:Any other journaling advantage- beyond fsck iss by KH2002 · · Score: 1

    Why? - I'm trying to understand how much of an advance the journaling filesystem will be. As an OS X user, I'm also curious about how much benefit I would get in exchange for the "10-15%" disk performance hit.

    Online defrag sounds good. But I'm not running any UFS filesystems- just HFS+. I'm not entirely clear on the importance of defragging on UFS vs. HFS+. Sigh- so much to learn- but I'm loving being a part of the UNIX world...

  156. Thanks!!! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Actually both those links look like great tools and exactly what I want, I'll take a look! The price seems decent too for either one.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  157. Re:Any other journaling advantage- beyond fsck iss by sdeath · · Score: 1

    I dunno. Waiting for a lengthy fsck can be very satisfying at times. Other times, I just want to get a quick fsck and go on about my business. (Typically around noon.) Depends on the day, I guess.

    The advantages to such a system? Well, like you said, if you can afford to wait for a lengthy fsck once in a while, you're okay. If you just can't contain yourself, though, it might be worthwhile to go ahead and get it over with. The only problem with this is that if you absolutely cannot make it all the way through a slow fsck, you might pick up a reputation and/or an unflattering nickname ("Minuteman", for example.) It all depends on what you want; if instant gratification is important to you, you should be fine, modulo the occasional heckling and snickering by coworkers who are plugged into the office rumor mill. (But see touch(3); it may be more worth your while if you're all about speed as opposed to endurance, and might help with the problem of other people's cruel tendencies.)

    Hope this helps.

    -SD

    --
    I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
  158. Re:This is 100% PURE rumor by ixache · · Score: 1

    Since then he's been co-writing articles every now and then with dePlume (that's a pen name, who knows that the guy's real name).

    Nick as in nickname and dePlume as in "nom de plume" (French for pen name)? I think you're right.

    Xavier

    --
    Do I make sense? Please report if not.
  159. Re:Focus Follows Mouse by Cadre · · Score: 2
    Try explaining that one to grandma.

    If your grandma wants to use sloppy cursor control then chances are she won't need it explained to her. Sloppy cursor control would be an option. I don't think anyone ever suggested it be on by default...

    Anyway, this type of prediction is already done in the interface too so you can still hit submenus easily. It's not something new.

    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
  160. Re:Is that gay??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matter-of-fact i 'eard its the other way round, according to a documentary i saw, roughly 90% of PC users are homosexual, whereas a mere 0.5% of mac users are gay.