Apple Confirms No (Default) ZFS In Leopard

javipas writes "Despite recent rumors about the possible inclusion of ZFS as the filesystem of choice for MacOS X 10.5 'Leopard', an Apple executive has denied this possibility. Brian Croll, senior director of product marketing for the Mac OS has as much as said 'ZFS is not happening ... Croll declined to comment on statements made last week by Sun Chief Executive Jonathan Schwartz, who said the use of ZFS would be announced at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Upon further questioning, Croll would only confirm that Apple had never said ZFS would be a part of Leopard. A representative with Sun did not have any immediate comment.' Users of the future operating system will have to keep working with HFS+, a filesystem that is almost ten years old now." Update: 06/12 19:57 GMT by KD : An Apple spokesman contacted InformationWeek with a correction, which they ran as a comment on their original story: What Apple meant to say was, "ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system."

Comments

Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[dthirteen]

Nobody scoops Steve Jobs...

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Raindance]

I agree.

Jonathan *had* to know he might get burned for spilling the beans before Steve. Jobs has a track record of being harsh, almost vindictive in his dealings with companies which betray his trust.

Exhibit A: Samsung runs their mouth about being selected to supply software to drive the next-gen iPod Nano. Apple turns around and drops them.

Exhibit B: ATI runs their mouth about some specs for new macs before Macworld. Apple removes ATI boards from their computers and refuses to offer them as a build-to-order.

Simply put, don't try to scoop The Steve.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[TheWizardTim]

When I worked for Apple, at 6am ATI let slip that they were making cards for The PowerMac and "something else". That "something else" was the cube. My boss got a call about 5 minutes later from Steve telling us to remove all references to ATI on all web pages, in 17 languages, by 9am.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like any Mac user.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Black-Man]

Just makes the doubters of him as CEO material all the more relevant. He should of known better.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Reality Master 101]

ATI runs their mouth about some specs for new macs before Macworld. Apple removes ATI boards from their computers and refuses to offer them as a build-to-order.

Which really underscores the stupidity of Steve's arrogance. I'm sure ATI wanted that contract, it was a nice contract, but Apple is NOTHING in the great scheme of the PC market. And there aren't that many major players in the high-end graphic chip game. Why play the prima donna, when he might have to deal with them in the future?

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[rainman_bc]

Wow, the fanboi zealots are out in full swing today modding down anything that's anti-mac eh?

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Abcd1234]

No, they're modding down posts that are clearly nothing more than contentless flamebait. But you just keep on fightin' the good fight against "the man".

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[cptnapalm]

In a parallel announcement, Apple announced that Leopard would be delayed by an additional two months. While the immediate cause is presumed to be the ordered removal of ZFS from Leopard, insiders claim that the root cause was "a hissy fit."

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. I am German. But even I do know that it should be "have" instead of "of". Where do you come from?

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, even for a german (no offense I'm 1/4 german)...

'should of' happens to sounds like 'should've'... so unless you've seen it written down you might never know the correct spelling.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[fizzup]

Which really underscores the stupidity of Steve's arrogance. I'm sure ATI wanted that contract, it was a nice contract, but Apple is NOTHING in the great scheme of the PC market. And there aren't that many major players in the high-end graphic chip game. Why play the prima donna, when he might have to deal with them in the future?

If you want suppliers to behave in a certain way, you have to squish their nuts when they don't. I'm sure ATI wanted the deal, but thought that Apple was small enough to push around. Turns out, nope.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[jeffasselin]

Probably from where there's "No child left behind".

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Which really underscores the stupidity of Steve's arrogance.

Yeah, because Apple stock is so low compared to when he took charge.

I'm sure ATI wanted that contract, it was a nice contract, but Apple is NOTHING in the great scheme of the PC market.

Let's see, Apple is about 5% of the graphics card market share. ATI has about 25% of the market right now, so they would represent a 20% increase in sales for ATI, hmmm, I think that might be worth a little bit of work to get the contract. Gee what do we have to do to manage such a contract... not violate our confidentiality agreement, that does sound pretty hard.

And there aren't that many major players in the high-end graphic chip game.

There are enough so that Apple has a few choices.

Why play the prima donna, when he might have to deal with them in the future?

If people violate your trust and undermine your market position, why would you keep doing business with them? If, at some point in the future Apple does do business with ATI again, do you think ATI will take keeping things confidential seriously or do you think they'll stupidly lose a giant contract while gaining nothing again? What about all of Apple's other suppliers for components? Do you think they will take confidentiality seriously? By punishing ATI, Apple showed they were serious and would not put up with that kind of stupidity. Now their statements to suppliers are credible instead of hot air.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[adisakp]

I predicted this a week ago:

PREVIOUS POST

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

And we get modded flamebait, irrelevant to the fact that the person I replied to made several comments discussing how Steve Jobs changes his decisions based on the fact that someone else announced something before he did. Granted there may have been reasons for these changes in plan, but the criticism is probably valid.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Genevish]

Not exactly true. Apple is one of the largest PC manufacturers (and was when they dropped ATI as well). Their OS share may be low, but they are a big hardware maker. (Fourth largest in the September quarter last year: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6127255.html?ta g=nl).

For an OS comparison, a Dell is the same as an Acer is the same a HP. But as for hardware, these are all different.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[ehrichweiss]

This is true however, IIRC, the stockholders also expect their CEO to act in a certain way and if they think that the CEO's contrariness is affecting their stocks then it opens Jobs up for lawsuits. It's why GoDaddy couldn't simply turn down all the free stuff from Micro$loth; doing so would be like turning down free money and would have been the end of Bob Parsons as CEO. While the ATI/Apple deal wasn't free stuff, it still makes Jobs look like a spoiled brat; a brat with power but a brat none-the-less.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[ahg]

Sun Micro probably does not have the same motivation as the other two companies you mentioned above to keep things secret. Afterall, with ZFS being open source, Apple doesn't have to pay royalties or licensing fees to them. They may have some sort of consulting contract with Apple, as they have the most knowledgable people on ZFS working for them. That and bragging rights may be good for Sun, but it's not likely a major contract will be lost.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[ehrichweiss]

"If, at some point in the future Apple does do business with ATI again, do you think ATI will take keeping things confidential seriously or do you think they'll stupidly lose a giant contract while gaining nothing again?"

I think the bigger question would be whether ATI would bother doing business with Apple again. Companies sue one another all the time and yet while the lawsuit is in court they'll still manage to conduct their daily business with one another mostly amicably so why a mature company would want to do business with one run by a fickle CEO is beyond me.

Seriously, it reads like a bad play written by kids on a playground: "Stevie's using my bat to hit his ball in this game" "Waaaaaah!! I told you not to tell, I'm taking my ball home now so you can't play with it...Waaaaaah!!!".

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although it's more like Apple holds 2% market share and Ati 50%.

70% of all statistics are made up...

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[moderatorrater]

Yeah, because Apple stock is so low compared to when he took charge. Nice fallacious argument. Jobs has done well with the company, but that doesn't mean his arrogance hasn't hurt the company or that the arrogance is stupid. There's no doubt that Steve Jobs has been a great asset, but that doesn't mean he's above criticism (or SEC regulations).

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[rainman_bc]

meh I have karma to burn :)

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[garbletext]

wow. that's kind of eerie.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[htakashiro]

I think Jobs kinda knows what he's doing. We're the ones posting on Slashdot.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Although it's more like Apple holds 2% market share and Ati 50%.

Do a quick Google search for their relative market shares. Apple has 4-7% of the US market sales. ATI has 22-26% of US market sales. If you want to look at global market sales, Apple drops to 3% and ATI drops to 8%, since globally the high end market makes up a much smaller chunk of that market then it does in the US, with on the board solutions predominating.

Now before you waste my time with redefining the market definition to exclude on the board solutions, remember that is the percentage computers we're discussing since that provides the relative size of Apple as a customer. Getting the 5th largest computer maker in the US to sign on to include your product and not to include your competitors (as most large manufacturers do) would be big win for any of the players. Losing it through a move that does not even make any money is sheer idiocy.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Jobs has done well with the company, but that doesn't mean his arrogance hasn't hurt the company or that the arrogance is stupid.

One of Jobs major methods of promoting the company is through secrecy and well timed manipulation of the press. Anyone can claim that the move he made hurt the company, but there is no easy way to show it on paper, since it was a long-term strategic move. Thus, you have to judge based upon the overall results.

There's no doubt that Steve Jobs has been a great asset, but that doesn't mean he's above criticism (or SEC regulations).

Of course he can be criticized and should be, but I've seen no convincing argument he should be criticized for this particular move. He stood behind his agreement and his partner did not, so he dumped them. I applaud such action. Too often people are willing to sell their reputation for expedience.

What does the SEC have to do with this?

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[sootman]

The first rule of ZFS is... you do not talk about ZFS!

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[PygmySurfer]

Jonathan *had* to know he might get burned for spilling the beans before Steve.

I'm not sure how Jonathan got burned. Sure, it'd look good for Sun to have ZFS integrated into Mac OS X, but at the end of the day it doesn't really do much for them. If anyone got screwed, it's the end-users. That's if Steve really did decide to pull it based on Jonathan's comments.

I'm not convinced ZFS support is far enough along to be included in Leopard.

Apparently, the work they've done is still in the WWDC beta build.

The way they point to the full read/write kext at developer.apple.com makes me think maybe Apple will ship it flagged as experimental or something (similar to FreeBSD).

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Utopia]

Actually the plan is to unscoop Sun by issuing a denial.
Then scoop when the OS is finally released.

See I scooped Apple's plan.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[PygmySurfer]

If, at some point in the future Apple does do business with ATI again, do you think ATI will take keeping things confidential seriously or do you think they'll stupidly lose a giant contract while gaining nothing again?

If? The issue with Jobs dropping ATI occurred in 2000. Apple has been dealing with ATI for several years now (though since the AMD/ATI merger, Apple seems to be using NVidia GPUs in new products).

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think the bigger question would be whether ATI would bother doing business with Apple again.

I think that would be "yes" since they are doing business with Apple again, just less of it on less favorable terms that don't require Apple to trust them. From a business point of view ATI knows what they need to do to make money on such a deal. They have to honor their confidentiality agreement seriously, something which does not actually cost them any more money. They know what they have to do, because they know they can trust Apple to keep their word, just like they kept their word and dumped them when ATI screwed up.

Apple, on the other hand, does not know they can trust ATI and neither does anyone else. Maybe they'll honor their agreements and maybe they won't, so if you need a partner you can trust, maybe you should look elsewhere.

Companies sue one another all the time and yet while the lawsuit is in court they'll still manage to conduct their daily business with one another mostly amicably so why a mature company would want to do business with one run by a fickle CEO is beyond me.

It is all about reputation. Some companies, especially older, well establish companies will go a long way to maintain a reputation for doing what they say and passing on business with those that cross them. Some tech companies don't get that yet and value their reputation less. Instead of suing over the issue, like so many litigious institutions, Apple simply ended the partnership. I find that laudable.

You seem to be assuming Jobs acted emotionally in this instance. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Either way, he made sure everyone knew he was serious about leaks and all Apple's suppliers know it. Part of the cost of doing business with Apple is actually honoring the agreements in regard to secrecy. Now all Apple's suppliers know that you are never too big to get dumped. You think the Intel customer manager does not know that and consider it in their negotiations? Ignoring for a moment Apple and ATI, if you were running a business who would you partner with, a company with a reputation for doing what they say, even if it is not expedient at the moment, or a company that you know has ignored their contract terms and screwed over one of their larger customers, by blabbing secrets to the press?

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[squiggleslash]

Yeah yeah, except for the small fact that ZFS support for Mac OS X benefits Mac users and Apple, not Sun. Sun is the developer of the technology, but they're giving it away for free. Jobs would be an idiot to reject ZFS simply because Sun "pre-announced" it.

The reality is more likely to be that the Mac OS X/XNU implementation of ZFS just wasn't ready yet. It's a powerful, complex, system. Even without UI work to abstract things like drive pools to the user in a friendly way, the basic implementation requires heavier testing than usual.

The current Leopard beta has a read-only ZFS implementation built-in. Looks like it's still under development to me.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[duffbeer703]

Yeah, because Apple stock is so low compared to when he took charge.

Hubris often leads to poor decisions. An arrogant prick who is always right is a hero -- until he's wrong.

Jobs has done alot of great stuff -- he's a visionary who has beaten cancer and grown an amazing company at the same time. That doesn't mean that he's infallible. The obsession with secrecy costs Apple alot of business -- there are today enterprises that would purchase thousands of Macs, but the needless obsession with secrecy and refusal to listen to some customer desires hurts the company in the long run.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Lars T.]

Ahh, but you forgot that just 3 weeks earlier an Nvidia rep in Germany had announced that nVidia Strikes Deal With Apple. Of course they then replaced all Nvidia chips with ATIs. Also that 6 weeks later at Apple Expo Paris, the Radeons were in, with demos how great they were.

But of course the possibility that the Nvidia guy just talked about the inclusion of GeForce 2s in the following generation (Jan 2001), or that the Radeons simply were not ready yet is just too slim to get in the way of another "Jobs kills family of somebody who pre-announced something" story. Just like all those people saying how unlikely it was that ZFS would be "the" file system of Leopard (and gave reasons) were obviously wrong, and that instead Apple quickly removed all traces of ZFS from the Leopard betas.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Thorkytel Ant-Head]

What does secrecy within Apple have to do with the Mac being a good machine for a company? If someone is really refusing to purchase Macs solely because of Apple's obsession with secrecy, that decision is idiotic. If it is the right tool for the job, who cares about the corporate policy?

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[ehrichweiss]

"Ignoring for a moment Apple and ATI, if you were running a business who would you partner with, a company with a reputation for doing what they say, even if it is not expedient at the moment, or a company that you know has ignored their contract terms and screwed over one of their larger customers, by blabbing secrets to the press?"

You mean like would I choose Apple's "reputation" over Microsoft's cash flow? That's easy, I might hate M$ but cash talks and a good reputation don't pay the rent. I learned long ago that it's better to have many projects of which only a few see the light of day rather than only work on a couple that all make it to the light of day because even if the percentage is lower, 12 successful projects out of 100 is still more than 3 out of 3.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You mean like would I choose Apple's "reputation" over Microsoft's cash flow? That's easy, I might hate M$ but cash talks and a good reputation don't pay the rent.

I think you need to reconsider your position. Take a look at the historical partners of Apple and MS. Notice how MS, while having a larger cash flow also screwed over a lot more of their partners and drove them out of business. They're not someone anyone in their right mind wants to do business with.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[aichpvee]

Simply put, don't try to scoop The Steve.

In that case, I'd like to announce that The Apple will be releasing a version of The OSX after The Leopard and that The Steve will be announcing it at The Macworld.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[daybot]

I think Jobs kinda knows what he's doing. We're the ones posting on Slashdot.

Where do you think all those pro-Apple AC posts are coming from?

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Magic5Ball]

In real IT and business shops, a reliable roadmap is a requirement of any product of which you plan to buy and support thousands of units. Architecture switches and products going end of life in 18 months matters a lot if you're working with a 3-year roll-out plan, especially if there are complex platform dependencies.

Corporate policy pertains to things surrounding predictable inputs and desired outputs. If the continued availability of a product line is unpredictable, my policies are suddenly less valuable and the business risk of going with that product has increased. For that reason, suppliers like Dell have multiple product tracks, with the consumer version having no promises of configuration or support security, and the corporate version being available in the presently available standard configuration for 18 to 36 months into the future.

That is how secrecy could hurt sales.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[aliquis]

You don't know how correct you are. A guy I talked to bought a quad core G5 16 months ago and now he was upset that EAs mac games would be Intel only because they used Transgaming Cider. And other applications where going Intel only aswell.

Sure his machine are PPC, but it's not outdated, and already some companies/individual developers are leaving it.

If you are a company who bought thousand of Pro macs with quad core G5s just to see Apple switch to Intel and the developer of whatever program you used left you I'm sure you would be quite upset.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[wild_berry]

Afterall, with ZFS being open source, Apple doesn't have to pay royalties or licensing fees to them.
The CDDL isn't acknowledged as a 'free' copyright license in the same way that the GPL or BSD license are. Additionally, there are elements of ZFS which are patented by Sun Microsysytems. I don't think it's at no cost to Apple Inc.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[NMerriam]

the stockholders also expect their CEO to act in a certain way and if they think that the CEO's contrariness is affecting their stocks ... it still makes Jobs look like a spoiled brat;

Yeah, it's definitely affecting shareholder confidence. I mean, Apple is only repeatedly considered one of the most effective companies of any industry anywhere on Earth at marketing.

I think the disconnect is that you're thinking like a geek who took psych 101. Jobs is thinking like a CEO who has marketed some of the most successful products in the history of modern industry, and he has done so precisely by controlling the message 100%. You'll forgive the stockholders if his actual financial and market success trumps your theories about him shooting from the hip rather than thinking through the ramifications of every deal he makes.

The fact that it is even possible for Apple to get news coverage on an almost daily basis (hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising, in a format that people consider more trustworthy than actual advertising!) is due entirely to Apple controlling the timing of every product they announce down to the hour of day. Kicking an easily replaceable vendor to the curb for a year to ensure you keep those hundreds of millions in free advertising is hardly a net financial loss.

It probably cost Apple a few hundred hours of unexpected labor to change advertising/documentation when the ATI deal was canceled, but I'm sure ATI had some 'splainin to do to THEIR stockholders as to why they had a warehouse full of components that were gathering cobwebs because some employee nullified a multi-million dollar contract by violating a simple confidentiality clause.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be a relevant point but for one thing. GoDaddy isn't a publicly traded company. Therefore, no shareholders.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Lars T.]

In real IT and business shops, a reliable roadmap is a requirement of any product of which you plan to buy and support thousands of units. Architecture switches and products going end of life in 18 months matters a lot if you're working with a 3-year roll-out plan, especially if there are complex platform dependencies.
Translation: Dell sells well to business, because they know that Dell will be able to ship them a similar, dull, overpriced machine in 3 years. Unless the death spiral continues, of course. The fact that Dell often changes components in their computers without telling anybody just proves your point.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Lars T.]

You don't know how correct you are. A guy I talked to bought a quad core G5 16 months ago and now he was upset that EAs mac games would be Intel only because they used Transgaming Cider. And other applications where going Intel only aswell.

Sure his machine are PPC, but it's not outdated, and already some companies/individual developers are leaving it.

If you are a company who bought thousand of Pro macs with quad core G5s just to see Apple switch to Intel and the developer of whatever program you used left you I'm sure you would be quite upset. Yeah, that company must be really pissed that those thousand G5s can't run Madden.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Lars T.]

I think Jobs kinda knows what he's doing. We're the ones posting on Slashdot.

Where do you think all those pro-Apple AC posts are coming from?

Microsoft's MBU. And the Zune department.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Lars T.]

Jonathan *had* to know he might get burned for spilling the beans before Steve.

I'm not sure how Jonathan got burned. Sure as hell he didn't get burned. He made a ridiculous claim, and got a lot of press from it. Apart from that nothing much changed: ZFS is still a supported file system in Leopard, and not needed for Time Machine in any way.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two questions:

1) How do you know how many projects Apple has developed over the last ten years that have never seen the light of day?

2) What do you know about Apple's cash flow? Last I checked, it was pretty respectable.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[GuyverDH]

Apple's just not that big of a slice of the pie. If I were ATI, I'd say good riddance. Please remember, each time Apple has opened the gates and *allowed* clones to be made, the clones have outsold, outperformed and outlasted the original Apple hardware, to the point that Apple had to *close the gates* as it were. So now that Apple is using intel hardware, and commodity PC hardware for graphics, etc... how far are we from Apple only selling the OS, and not the hardware? Possibly a bios change to the boot sequence, maybe even a bios options "UNIX/MACOS/WINDOWS" to set certain key features to the optimal for that OS variety. Apple has come up with some glitzy designs, then hired out the lowest bidders to make them, resulting in sub-standard pieces of hardware in some cases.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Magic5Ball]

Translation: The point that planning and being able to plan for changes in IT infrastructure is desirable in general has been lost on you.

It's no secret that consumer Dells are like SPAM (it's a x86 computer, but the specific components which go into any particular batch can be highly variable). However, with non-trivial workstations like Optiplexes and above, it's easy to ask and pay for consistency in the product.

Generalizing toward the business need a bit, and to point out the silliness of the other G5/Madden comment, continuity and reliability of supply obviously has deeper consequences than hardware acquisition alone. AMD and Intel both offer some CPUs and other components with absurdly long (10-15 year) availability so that customers can feel safe investing in designs and embedded infrastructures wrapping those components. Continuity of support and roadmaps are critically important when mass upgrading/deploying deeply interdependent hardware/software pieces with regulatory influences (think video cards and openGL in CAD, RTOS in health care, data storage and retention for accounting/infrastructure networks), or when you need to decide if it is worthwhile to acquire a product (and to train support staff and users) if its replacement with 3x the power is due to be released Y months.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[A_Non_Moose]

Yeah, with all the feline named OS's it's only a matter of time before someone lets the cat out of the bag.

(/ducks and runs)

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[macmastery]

At this point, I think anyone that invests in Apple should understand what they're getting and how Apple operates. If not, then you can't fault a company or CEO for continuing to follow its precedents just because you weren't aware of them.

I decided to err on the side of Steve Jobs some time ago and it's worked out pretty well for me.

Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

You state that on-board solutions are a large percentage of the total market (which I completely agree with), but then state ATI is so low. Every HP nee Compaq server I've ever seen for the last 7 years I've been using them has an ATI chip. HP alone is a sizable chunk of the global market, and I'm sure that they aren't the only company to use built-in ATI chips.

Wow, 10 years old?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad NTFS is almost 15, and I heard FAT stopped counting (because of a technical limitation).

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[bark]

but seriously, what does age have anything to do with the suitability of the os? Linux has used ext2fs for a long time, and only in the last 4 or 5 years migrated to ext3fs.

Certain filesystems have been around forever, gaining incremental improvements with the years.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[rainman_bc]

I'm with you on that too - UFS has been around forever as well, only seeing incremental updates from Sun and BSD - adding stuff like journaling and support for larger drives. Why go with a whole new fs?

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[Crazy Taco]

And ext3 actually is just ext2 with journaling. Hence the reason the Linux command for formatting a partition with ext2 is "mk2fs", and ext3 is "mk2fs -j".

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[buysse]

Ah, but UFS on a larger than 1TB filesystem sucks. The inode size becomes fixed at one inode per MB of disk. So, if you have small files on the disk, you're at 8% space used and a full disk because there are no free inodes.

It's an ugly hack, and it doesn't count.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[Megane]

...and HFS+ is just an incremental update from HFS - adding stuff like journaling and support for larger drives, long unicode file names, and some unixisms like inodes and /dev and hard links and case sensitivity.

So you can really say that HFS+ is almost 22 years old now.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[jafac]

heh.

I'm working with a developer right now, who just learned "the hard way" that NTFS paths can't exceed 256 characters in length. (oh, they can EXCEED that length, you just can't DO anything to them with any tools; like explorer.exe, or dir, etc.) - not being a fan of Windows to begin with, this poor guy was pretty steamed. I had a laugh - but I'm a little surprised that Microsoft hasn't fixed this problem yet, since I remembered it back from the NT 4.0 days.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[guruevi]

The difference is that HFS was good to begin with. Although it comes all the way from 1985 (and incidentally close to my first experience with Mac), it was way superior to the limits DOS had back then (FAT-12?).

Although HFS was upgraded to HFS+, NTFS and later incarnations up till today don't have journaling, something you should expect in just about any OS now.

In my opinion, just about any operating system vendor should switch to an open, posix-compatible, journaling file system.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[bheading]

Why is the fact that it is "old" considered to be a problem ? Anyone who thinks new=good, old=bad is way out of step.

Far better to talk about what features it lacks. Or if you're trying to defend it, talk about its stability record. Have filesystems really advanced, since journalling became the standard way to do things, in any specific way that benefits regular users ?

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[cnettel]

That has (theoretically) nothing to do with NTFS. Using an ext2 driver in Windows will give you the same result, as the limitation is in the user space apps, not the filesystem or the kernel handling of paths.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[yeremein]

Although HFS was upgraded to HFS+, NTFS and later incarnations up till today don't have journaling, something you should expect in just about any OS now.

Maybe I'm parsing that wrong, but NTFS is journaled. Has been since its introduction in Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. HFS+ didn't acquire journaling until Mac OS 10.2 in 2002.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[drsmithy]

In my opinion, just about any operating system vendor should switch to an open, posix-compatible, journaling file system.

Like, say, NTFS has been since 1993, you mean ?

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[guruevi]

NTFS has only journaling on the file system level, not on the file level. It's not a transactional system on each file as what is understood under journaling these days.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[Bert64]

NTFS is not open...

The journaling support was introduced in version 5, which shipped with windows 2000...

Can't speak for posix compatibility tho

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[jafac]

Well; thanks for that info.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[drsmithy]

NTFS has only journaling on the file system level, not on the file level.

Functionally, it ssentially does, since a file's "data" is, by the architecture, considered metadata, and NTFS journals metadata.

It's not a transactional system on each file as what is understood under journaling these days.

Most "journaling filesystems" - especially in their default configuration - only journal metadata.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[drsmithy]

NTFS is not open...

That, I'll grant. I ignored it since it's an idealistic, not technical, issue.

The journaling support was introduced in version 5, which shipped with windows 2000...

NTFS journals metadata and always has. It's important to realise, however, that in the architecture of NTFS the file "data" is itself considered metadata, so the end result is very similar to full block journaling.

Can't speak for posix compatibility tho

NTFS has been fully POSIX compliant since its first relase.

Re:Wow, 10 years old?!

[Bert64]

Being open is not just an idealistic issue, it's also a valid technical and business concern.
If your data is stuck on a proprietary filesystem, you may find yourself in a situation where you cannot read your own data, even if the data itself is stored in standard formats.
I would never risk my business to a proprietary filesystem for this reason. I will only use an FS that's openly documented and supported by several os's.

Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has beaten the world's most popular desktop operating system and the world's most popular Unixalike to the punch with multi-platform support. At Monday's WWDC07 Apple, Inc. CEO Steve Jobs revealed that, when Leopard ships, it will install and run on every one of its supported architectures from one DVD without bothering the user. And the more featured your system is, the more features Leopard will automatically enable.

For example, a user can use the same DVD to install Mac OS X on a dual 533 MHz Power Mac G4, a 32-bit Core Solo Mac mini, a 64-bit Power Mac G5 Quad, and a 64-bit Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. It even goes so far as to allow 64-bit apps without a 32-bit binary to run in 32-bit mode transparently, which is unprecedented thus far.

Windows, on the other hand, requires a different 32- or 64-bit version for each of its six flavors. So once you decide you want, say, Windows Professional Enterprise, you need to make sure it comes with 64-bit support. Otherwise, you'll be stuck booting your chip in 32-bit mode. Apps must be written and released for 32- or 64-bit and can't run otherwise. This limits users of older systems with Pentium III processors, for example, from running a 64-bit version of a popular game.

Linux eats dust in the race for 64-bit desktopedness too. With Ubuntu 7.05, the latest stable release, things have gotten simpler but still don't stack up to Leopard. So while you can download one version of Ubuntu for both 32- and 64-bit x86, if you want to run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit system you have to download a compatibility layer, check library dependencies, and compile it yourself. 64-bit programs won't work on a 32-bit arch, simply returning an error code and quitting.

That only counts for Intel and AMD, however. Other architectures supported by Linux, which number in the dozens and include 68k, ARM, Power, and SPARC among others, are one-at-a-time installs only and don't have any compatibility between 32- and 64-bit versions. So a user wanting to install on a 32-bit SPARC system from Sun will have to go out and purchase another completely different disc for installation on a 64-bit UltraSPARC system even tho both processors use the same instruction set.

At most, when counting Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server as two different "versions" of the operating system, you still have only to choose one and are then done with it. Each installs on all four architectures seamlessly and silently.

Windows comes to a total of twelves versions: 32- and 64-bit for each six editions. The number jumps to twenty-four when you consider that you must also choose whether to buy the retail or upgrade versions. This is simply too much work for most people whether they're doing personal use or IT.

Linux does little better, as above with the old download/compile scheme for legacy support. The kicker is that most other distributions of Linux don't even do that well. A user with Fedora Core 7 will still need to hunt down a different ISO for each and every nuance of processor, a real shame since Linux developers sit and scratch their heads over why Linux is still not ready for the desktop.

Come October, Mac OS X will serve everyone with one price, one version, one install: one vision of simple 64-bit desktop goodness.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[u-bend]

My friend, my friend, though I agree with much of what you say, do you not realize that ./ will now tear you to shreds as a rabid Mac "advertisement-in-a-post" fanboi? What? You're posting anonymously, you say? Oh, carry on, and don't look back at the carnage you left here...
;)

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[sprag]

64-bit apps on 32 bit cpus? Got a source for that? Sounds a bit far-fetched since it would basically mean a pile of emulation that'd make the app slow as molasses.

As far as Fedora 7 goes, I had a single rescue CD I installed from and then everything else just comes in as needed from the net. No "hunting down a different ISO for each and every nuance of processor". I haven't had to compile anything (including getting MP3s, DVDs and other non-free things working).

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[smartin]

Linux does little better, as above with the old download/compile scheme for legacy support. The kicker is that most other distributions of Linux don't even do that well. A user with Fedora Core 7 will still need to hunt down a different ISO for each and every nuance of processor, a real shame since Linux developers sit and scratch their heads over why Linux is still not ready for the desktop.

For each nuance of processor? hmm, 32 vs 64 bit not really what i would call a nuance.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[hoggoth]

> Mac OS X will serve everyone with one price, one version, one install: one vision of simple 64-bit desktop goodness

Microsoft could take some tips from Apple to make their OS more global. First they should declare Windows will no longer on Dells, HPs, eMachines, SONYs, Toshibas and several hundred other vendors. It will only run on Microsoft's branded machines that will have nice features but cost a little more than they used to.
That should make it easier to make Windows compatible with as many machines as Apple.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[CrackedButter]

I can agree on your point to a degree because of the different ways the OS is distributed, but from all accounts people have been managing to get OSX installed on Dells, Toshiba's, tablets and even those UMPC's for a while now.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Sketch]

Linux does little better, as above with the old download/compile scheme for legacy support. The kicker is that most other distributions of Linux don't even do that well. A user with Fedora Core 7 will still need to hunt down a different ISO for each and every nuance of processor I like how a "different architecture" is now a "nuance of a processor".

By the way, there are only 3 versions of Fedora. i386, x86_64, and PPC. So Leopard only has Fedora beat by 1 edition.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Trillan]

I agree it's doubtful and would have an impact on performance. In fact, I believe I saw the source for this statement, and interpreted it the same way (with some skepticism) at first. The skepticism was eventually rewarded, and I figured out it wasn't meant to be read this way...

However, it seems that if 64 bit operations were implemented as calls to a global table, the cost wouldn't be unreasonably high. It would certainly be slower than code actually tuned for 32-bit CPUs, and it would also have some impact on the performance on 64-bit code running on 64-bit CPUs.

Again, unlikely. Just barely possible, though.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Slashcrap]

It even goes so far as to allow 64-bit apps without a 32-bit binary to run in 32-bit mode transparently, which is unprecedented thus far.

Almost as unprecedented as a Mac zealot making hilariously inaccurate technical claims because they simply don't understand what they're talking about, but don't see that a justification for keeping their mouths shut.

Come October, Mac OS X will serve everyone with one price, one version, one install: one vision of simple 64-bit desktop goodness.

I made a deal with a hitman. If I ever fall in love with a company to that extent he's going to come round and shoot me in the face. I find it a more palatable option than allowing myself to become a PR spewing corporate cocksucker.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[FishWithAHammer]

With custom, unsupported drivers.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

The source for the 64-bit and 32-bit integration, whatever its extent, is probably the keynote itself: http://apple.com/quicktime/qtv/keynote/

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Come October, Mac OS X will serve everyone with one price, one version, one install: one vision of simple 64-bit desktop goodness.

Ein volk, ein reich, ein OSX?

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

I made a deal with a hitman. If I ever fall in love with a company to that extent he's going to come round and shoot me in the face. I find it a more palatable option than allowing myself to become a PR spewing corporate cocksucker.

What do you think you're doing by posting on Slashdot?

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[rainman_bc]

Microsoft could take some tips from Apple to make their OS more global.

Good idea - let's go after the business model which holds 5% market share and try to be more like them... Honestly, hate or love Microsoft, their model's worked for them so far. Apple might be nibbling at their heels, but there's certain price barriers that Apple just doesn't understand. I can drop $500 and get a pretty kick-ass Windows box. I think $500 gets me an iPhone.

But my post will never see the light of day as I'll be seen as anti-Apple and Pro-Microsoft which isn't the case. I run Linux on my laptop and despise Microsoft, but like it or not they are a dominant force in the desktop OS.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[kanweg]

As I understand it, you should distinguish between hardware and software. Macs (i.e. hardware) are shipping for several years now capable of 64 bit. However, 64 bit has twice as much byte requirements, so it isn't always more efficient. Leopard will be capable of running both 64 bit apps and 32 bit apps at the same time.

So, this has nothing to do with running apps on 32 bit hardware. There's plenty 64 bit Mac hardware out there.

Bert

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[cHiphead]

Last time I checked the majority of the drivers I install on Windows come back as 'unsigned' with a big ugly warning message.

Unsupported drivers is not a good excuse, WORKING drivers is what matters.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Bearpaw]

I can drop $500 and get a pretty kick-ass Windows box. I think $500 gets me an iPhone.

"I'm thinking! I'm thinking!"

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[MsGeek]

Ein volk, ein reich, ein OSX?

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!

Achtung, baby... ;-)

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[dfghjk]

Microsoft has 2 versions of Vista, not 24. The rest is bundling and pricing which Apple has chosen not to do. There are no technical reasons to produce 12 different variations of each.

Microsoft could make its 32 and 64 bit versions the same if it wanted to. It has chosen to separate the two because it wants to enforce different rules for 64 bit versions than it can get away with in 32 bit mode. Microsoft has legacy issues to deal with, coming from its massive market share, that Apple does not have to deal with.

While Leopard's "one version for everything" approach is certainly appealing, it isn't "unprecedented thus far". Many OSes, including versions of OS X before it, offer precedent. Likewise, "And the more featured your system is, the more features Leopard will automatically enable." is not unusual, it is how we expect products to work. If Vista were restricted to supporting a dozen machines it would work like Leopard, too. The fact that Vista doesn't arguably support that many is beside the point!

Yours is nothing but an Apple ad.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[UncleTogie]

Last time I checked the majority of the drivers I install on Windows come back as 'unsigned' with a big ugly warning message. Unsupported drivers is not a good excuse, WORKING drivers is what matters.
Unsigned != unsupported != non-working...

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Stewie241]

I think you missed the sarcasm there... Either that, or the reply seemed so ridiculous I concluded it was sarcasm.

The price on the iPhone is $500, I think... but that is $500 plus a service contract, IIRC.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[colmore]

What was that? I couldn't hear you... maybe you should take the cock out of your mouth first next time.

Holy jeebus, I mean I like Macs OK, I'm typing on an old G3 iBook right now, but good lord son, they're a private company making money for themselves. You need to fall out of love or just go ahead and grant them joint status on your bank account, it would be more dignified.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is a publicly traded company, not a private one.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, part way through his post I almost added him to my foes list. AC, too bad. The part that got me was the "every one of its architectures". What, like all 2 of them? Then he clarified he's talking about 64-bit. Whatever. Vista Ultimate comes with both 32/64-bit anyway, if I had any inclination to get a new OS.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[EastCoastSurfer]

I looked at the MS site and there seems to be a minimum of 3 versions (Home Premium, Business, Ultimate) if you ignore 32bit vs. 64bit and Home Starter. And since you have to buy 32 bit separately from the 64 bit version I think it's acceptable to say at minimum there are 6 different flavors of Vista that anyone building a computer today will have to decide between.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Kuciwalker]

Windows, on the other hand, requires a different 32- or 64-bit version for each of its six flavors. So once you decide you want, say, Windows Professional Enterprise, you need to make sure it comes with 64-bit support. Otherwise, you'll be stuck booting your chip in 32-bit mode. Apps must be written and released for 32- or 64-bit and can't run otherwise. This limits users of older systems with Pentium III processors, for example, from running a 64-bit version of a popular game.

Actually, the fact that a Pentium III is ancient and slow prevents it from running the either version of a popular game.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[DNeoMatrix]

Yeah, but at least you're allowed to install linux and windows on all their supported systems. If i pull out a random computer from the garbage and want to load it as a thin-client, vnc or rdesktop only - you think it will run mac os? ...yea, sometimes...but the kicker - it's illegal - You can walk into the store, get the disc off the shelf - pop it in the computer, load it up - all with no hitches - and it's still illegal because it's not "apple hardware". - Yeah - therefore I will never buy any mac hardware or software - it's not worth the hassle. Especially considering mac hardware is about 3 times the price of normal hardware you can just walk into a bestbuy and get.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

This limits users of older systems with Pentium III processors, for example, from running a 64-bit version of a popular game.

Huh? People with 32-bit Pentium III processors can't run a 64-bit game. No shit Sherlock? What does that have to do with anything. I heard that the Apple IIc can't run 32-bit versions of Photoshop. When is Apple going to address that issue? Or is 32-bit support on 10+ year old hardware not important to them? =)

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[janrinok]

In which case its a good job this isn't ./ .......

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[edwdig]

However, it seems that if 64 bit operations were implemented as calls to a global table, the cost wouldn't be unreasonably high. It would certainly be slower than code actually tuned for 32-bit CPUs, and it would also have some impact on the performance on 64-bit code running on 64-bit CPUs.

When running 64 bit code, it typically means you're doing (mostly) 32 bit math and using 64 bit memory addresses. You're going to be accessing a memory address at least once every couple of instructions. All you can do to run that on a 32 bit system is emulate the code, which will be brutal on speed.

And if you're doing mostly 64 bit math and using 64 bit memory, you know you need 64 bit and don't even want to think about trying to force it to run on a 32 bit system.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

they're a private company making money for themselves

They're a public company making money for their shareholders.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[u-bend]

Hahahaha!! And I make fun of people for doing that--that's outstanding!

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[16K Ram Pack]

This limits users of older systems with Pentium III processors, for example, from running a 64-bit version of a popular game.

Or alternatively, buy a Mac and find yourself limited from the vast majority of popular games.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Sparks23]

Not having heard the keynote itself but just poking through summaries, as I understand it the /underlying frameworks/ and various tools have been made both 32-bit and 64-bit. Thus, if you have 64-bit hardware, then you can use 64-bit addressing and thus handle a great deal more memory without issue, while hybrid binaries would still work on 32-bit.

So it sounds to me like what they are giving is one install for all the different hardware, which will take advantage of 64-bit stuff if you have it (for allowing media programs to work with far more memory than they can if kept purely 32-bit) without making the consumers worry about which version of Leopard or which version of a binary they need. I've seen nothing to imply that binaries built for a purely 64-bit-architecture will magically work on 32-bit hardware.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

HTF did this fool get modded up?

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[spiderbitendeath]

You must have missed the EA announcement of full Mac support from now on. Or id showing off their new game engine on a Mac.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but that's a marketing decision.

The sneaky truth, from what I've heard, is that at least withing 32 bit etc... they're all pretty much the same DVD.

Its only the activation code/etc that determines which "version" gets installed.

Microsoft wants to slowly upsale everyone to the Ultimate version, and its 400 some price tag. But they can do it, if they choose, with the death of a thousand cuts, and a string of activations online, rather than beat you over the head with the price right away.

Of course, we can talk about Leopard being a better value at 140 than Ultimate is at 400, but that's not the technical issue this particular thread is spazzing over.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. They call it the X-Box. 8-)

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

So a user wanting to install on a 32-bit SPARC system from Sun will have to go out and purchase another completely different disc for installation on a 64-bit UltraSPARC system even tho both processors use the same instruction set.

Purchase a completely different blank DVD? That'll break the bank.

Whereas if you wanted to run OS X server on a Mac running the client version, you're going to have to pay nearly three figures for it. Or you'd do the sensible thing and "purchase another completely different disc for installation", with Solaris, BSD or Linux on it.

Do you also wear black turtlenecks and scruffy jeans and drink Smart Water with the label ripped off?

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

So a user wanting to install on a 32-bit SPARC system from Sun will have to go out and purchase another completely different disc for installation on a 64-bit UltraSPARC system even tho both processors use the same instruction set.

You have installation media for SPARC and for x86, that's it. 32- and 64-bit is automatically detected.

Actually, Sun has stopped making 32-bit SPARCs quite a while ago, and support for them (sun4m) has stopped as of Solaris 10 (initially released about two years ago). So if you have any recent SPARC machine you're using a 64-bit kernel.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has beaten the world's most popular desktop operating system and the world's most popular Unixalike to the punch with multi-platform support. At Monday's WWDC07 Apple, Inc. CEO Steve Jobs revealed that, when Leopard ships, it will install and run on every one of its supported architectures from one DVD without bothering the user. And the more featured your system is, the more features Leopard will automatically enable. Eh, Solaris has done this for something like 10 years 32-bit/64 bit. the 64 bit kernel even executes 32 bit binaries without any strange issues.
Nothing innovative or new here. move along....

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[jZnat]

Just like on Windows! Wow!

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Delkster]

Troll, troll, troll your thread... Parent should be modded as -1 Misinformative (or perhaps +1 Funny, depending on the point of view). I don't know who mods that kind of stuff informative.

It's not that parent has a bias -- that's quite normal and, I think, acceptable (although whether it should be modded informative is a different matter). It's that it can't get its basic facts right, extends the bias so far that it won't even tell how other operating systems really handle the issue, and that it even contradicts itself.

I can't speak much for Windows because I know little about its 64-bit support. However, on Linux we have these things called package managers which generally take care of library dependencies for you. And yes, it can work with third-party (non-distro-provided) software as well, and even pretty easily if the third-party package has been built for your distribution. Since Ubuntu was provided as an example, let's just say that it's not an entirely uncommon target for packagers of third-party software.

The "compatibility layer" mentioned by parent is also a package which other packages can depend on; assuming that a network connection is available, it will be automagically installed when needed. Not to mention that with all this it isn't necessary to compile stuff yourself if someone else has already packaged it for you. Yes, it's possible to package things like that. No, it hasn't been done to every piece of software there is. Are bad third-party packages (or an entire lack of them) a technical deficiency of the operating system platform which, after all, provides all needed tools for third parties to build such packages for their software? Hell, no.

But the really funny part is the Alpha/SPARC/whatever support. So you can't have a mixed environment on them? Might that have something to do with the fact that Alpha has been 64-bit for quite a while by now? Oh, and at least you can run Ubuntu on an UltraSPARC. Not that anyone who doesn't know what he's doing would be doing that anyway, so there's probably not much of a problem anyway.

I'll also be willing to buy a G3 when you provide proof that it'll run the latest 64-bit Mac version of a popular new game. I assume that must be the case -- after all, otherwise there would be no point in saying that a Pentium III can't do that, right?

Oh, and "desktopedness" is a pretty damn funny word.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[jZnat]

You can say the same thing about Windows. The vast majority of games are for consoles. You know, the things people actually buy to play games on. Yeah, those things. I heard Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are all major players there right now. Maybe you should check them out.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux eats dust in the race for 64-bit desktopedness too.

I installed a 64-bit Linux on my Core2Duo, and it works great. Everything is compiled for 64-bit. I would argue that "having everything 64-bit" is even better than "being able to run obsolete versions of programs".

Now you're going to claim that it's in the name of backwards compatibility. But then, if you want to get into hardcore backwards-compatibility, my brand-new Linux install can still compile/run Linux apps I was running back in 1995. Can your new Mac run Mac apps from 1995? Nope: with Intel processors, Apple dropped compatibility with all pre-OS X apps.

That only counts for Intel and AMD, however.

That's true. For the 9 architectures that Apple doesn't even support, Linux isn't quite as seamless as Apple is for theirs. I suppose we could port every app to some architecture-independent bytecode, just so ARM users can run PA-RISC apps without recompiling, but that would suck, and be completely pointless because the vast majority of Linux apps are simply distributed as source code, anyway.

At most, when counting Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server as two different "versions" of the operating system, you still have only to choose one and are then done with it. Each installs on all four architectures seamlessly and silently.

It wouldn't be hard to make a install-on-all-11-platforms DVD, but since most people do net-installs, it would be pointless. You'd be downloading a ton of code you'll never use.

...Linux developers sit and scratch their heads over why Linux is still not ready for the desktop.

And we scratch our heads over why Mac users are snobby.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[16K Ram Pack]

amazon.co.uk says otherwise. Over 7,000 PC games for sale. 1700 PS2 games, 1900 Xbox games. Not a whole lot of PS3 or Xbox 360 games.

Then there's the whole indie scene to consider.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[jonesy16]

Things aren't quite as clear cut as you're trying to make them sound. First off, your random computer from the trash may be simple to install linux on (assuming it's modern enough to support bootable CD's, but let's not make Windows out to be perfect here. First, a home license of Windows will allow you to install it on a single computer, and even then only once. Want to remove it and install it on a different computer? Guess what, you'll be talking to Microsoft about that. Want to rdesktop into Windows? Well it only allows one connection at a time. Windows supports only two platforms for general consumption, that being the 64 and 32bit x86 varieties and even there your driver situation may or may not be satisfied for your hardware. Linux? Well while we're on the topic of illegal . . . let's point out that for the population in US it is illegal to use play MP3's and DVD's freely in linux, but you may be ok in the driver arena if your hardware isn't too obscure and you don't mind a little hunting. You say that mac hardware and software are not "worth the hassle" when I think most people would agree that the point to choosing Mac is to avoid hassles. No driver hunting, very little sofware hunting, and hell it's preinstalled on the computer when you get it. Lastly, let's take a look at your last sentence, regarding price. I don't care to do the searching but comparable systems are definitely not separated by a 3x price gap.

To stay on topic a bit, ZFS, while feature laden, is, as most people have described, not yet ready for primetime installation on 22 million computers as the default filesystem. Though Apple has made no comments thus far to exclude or include the possibility of it becoming that in the near future.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Trillan]

This is what I'm expecting as well. The idea of solving running 64 bit code on 32 bit CPUs instead of just requiring a 32 bit binary is almost insane.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

Cider, bitch. Cider. None of the games demoed at WWDC were native Mac games.

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[FishWithAHammer]

Those "unsupported" drivers on Windows are supported by their manufacturers. Does the Great Monolith of Superiority Complexes support drivers for your nonstandard hardware?

Re:Mac OS X Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

...I find it a more palatable option than allowing myself to become a PR spewing corporate cocksucker.

So would you say he's using a fellatious argument? (is that even a word?)

Ooookaaaay...

[gentlemen_loser]

"Users of the future operating system will have to keep working with HFS+, a filesystem that is almost ten years old now."

Yes, because a file system is something that should definitely be re-designed every two years or so. You know, just to stay "current"...

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[seebs]

Oh, come on. It's Zonk. Of course the comment at the end of the story is painfully stupid.

He'll eventually die from trying to upgrade to a more modern metabolism instead of this crappy carbon/oxygen system, a system MUCH older than HFS+.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[drinkypoo]

Yes, because a file system is something that should definitely be re-designed every two years or so. You know, just to stay "current"...

Is there any doubt that ZFS would provide superior functionality as compared to HFS+?

Are there any drawbacks to using ZFS as a replacement for HFS+?

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[gEvil (beta)]

Oh, come on. It's Zonk. Of course the comment at the end of the story is painfully stupid.

Too bad it was javipas that wrote that and not Zonk, otherwise your rant might have meant something. I find it very sad that someone who's been here for so long still can't figure out which parts of the summary are user-submitted and which parts are editorial commentary.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[seebs]

You have a point. I guess I'm just used to assuming that the thing at the end which makes no sense comes from Zonk. :)

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Touche

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[rhavenn]

Are there any drawbacks to using ZFS as a replacement for HFS+? Yeap. It's new. It hasn't been fully tested and may or may not cause instability. In addition, for most people it isn't going to help them or offer them anything new.

The large movie houses, animation studios and ad agencies might want this, but that's about it.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any doubt that ZFS would provide superior functionality as compared to HFS+?

Nope.

Are there any drawbacks to using ZFS as a replacement for HFS+?

Umm ... not working yet, perhaps? *tongue-in-cheek

The priceless thing about this announcement is having all the Macheads that went "Leopard will be so hip, full of advanced filesystem goodness - all you other lusers will have to play catch-up" now rationalize why ZFS was not a good choice for Leopard anyway. Myself, I'd say this is beginning to feel like WinFS, only in an Apple-twisted kind of way where the hype is carried by the fan-base rumor-mill instead of the official company line. Uh, and Sun's Schwartz, although I'm not sure whether that one is counted in the fan-base population or not. *grin

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Scudsucker]

The priceless thing about this announcement is having all the Macheads that went "Leopard will be so hip, full of advanced filesystem goodness - all you other lusers will have to play catch-up" now rationalize why ZFS was not a good choice for Leopard anyway.

Which Macheads, exactly.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[kithrup]

The advantages of ZFS are the built-in volume management (or "volume-like management," depending on your perspective), and the data integrity.

The disadvantage is... the data integrity. Every byte of data gets checksummed. This is going to affect performance -- HFS+ will normally write large chunks of data with as little copying as possible, and there are non-standard ways to get no copying (other than to/from the disk). ZFS doesn't have that; the data are always examined. And this slows things down. Sun doesn't have so much of a problem with this, as their machines have enough CPUs, and enough bus, to effectively dedicate a CPU to the filesystem. Macs, not so much.

Don't get me wrong... ZFS is really cool, and I'd love to see it on Mac OS X. But it's not a panacaea.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only does it need to remain "current", the filesystem needs to be tricked out with all the latest styles. "d00d! My filesystem has these wicked ground effects every time it finds a detached inode! You gotta see this!"

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Trillan]

Yes, I have doubts. Not long term doubts, though, just short term doubts.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[jeffasselin]

At first, when we heard the more serious info about ZFS last week, I found it interesting, but when I read the comments here on /. and went to look for info on ZFS, I realized it's a powerful filesystem but which might not be ready for prime-time. I suspect Apple is looking or looked at using it, but realized it wasn't ready for integration -- especially not as the default FS in a consumer OS. I'd certainly like to see it as an optional supported format to play and experiment with, but such a switch would probably cause more trouble than it'd be worth right now.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[poopdeville]

Microsoft had to play catch up with Vista. Once Leopard comes out, they'll have to do it again.

In any event, I was looking forward to using ZFS. But since Apple has been confirmed to be porting ZFS, it's either not ready yet or a Steve Jobs style secret. If not this release, probably the next.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least two CPUs and often 4 are already standard in every desktop PC. Within two years it'll be 4/8. We've already got enough CPUs. I appreciate the bus may need looking at but The advantages of ZFS are so worth it.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Fweeky]

"The disadvantage is... the data integrity. Every byte of data gets checksummed."

zfs set checksum=off tank

Happy now? ... What do you mean you didn't notice a difference?

"Sun doesn't have so much of a problem with this, as their machines have enough CPUs, and enough bus, to effectively dedicate a CPU to the filesystem"

You overestimate the expense of IO. Even fairly high end RAID cards usually rely on some crappy 300MHz Intel RISC chip or so. If anything, memory is more the resource ZFS likes to suck down, and this can be a significant problem on 32bit systems (the lack of VM space makes it tricky to fit the ZFS buffer cache in kernel memory along with everything else).

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[drinkypoo]

such a switch would probably cause more trouble than it'd be worth right now.

Well, comments I've seen around suggest that it is present, but read-only. Which is pretty well useless. There are simply not going to be many people trying to, say, recover data from a ZFS volume from a Sun that died on their Mac. (But there may be some! Anything is possible.)

But Sun seems to be able to make it work [with Solaris] so I'd say it's not an unachievable goal...

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to stay on topic, "I don't think you've got that right"...

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Blakey Rat]

Consider the editors frequently change text and links inside the quote marks, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[kithrup]

If you disable the data checksumming, you have removed one of the main advantages of ZFS. You also can't (yet, anyway) disable metadata checksumming. (Not all of the advantages, of course -- the volume management is very well done, and it's got more space available than HFS+ does. But most home users don't run into those limits.)

People doing video editing on the Mac tend to suck up every single bit of bandwidth available; Apple has done a lot of work to give them that. And they continue to want more bandwidth. HFS+ lets you do pre-allocation of files, and direct-to-disk I/O. ZFS doesn't.

Of course, most home users won't run into that, either. So it's largely a wash. Except for the data integrity, which you're suggesting be turned off, and the volume management.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Kristoph]

Apple has already integrated it. It's part of Leopard. The story is not accurate. The marketing guy they interviewed was supposed to say it was not the default OS for this release not that it was 'not happening'.

Actually it looks like InformationWeek has posted a correction (in the comments of the article). Check it out...

]{

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[acidrain]

Yes, because a file system is something that should definitely be re-designed every two years or so. You know, just to stay "current"...

Fine, I'll bite. The explosion in HD size relative to I/O bandwidth means that the file system designs we had 10 years ago are not really ready to take on terrabyte drives. Things like keeping multiple and even versioned copies of your data, doing consistency checks in less than a few *days* and automatically writing recently read data back in a defragmented layout need to be considered.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly will it fix?

128bits is nice but overflowing HFS+ isn't a common problem today.

Is it faster? I tend to think that it's not.

Is it more reliable? This is a really hard thing to establish or demonstrate.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome a new filesystem and if ZFS is supported widely enough it might be an interesting filesystem for backup DVDs and all sorts of things that I'd like to last a long time. I don't see what the geekgasm is all about though, it's a filesystem afterall. Will you even notice it on OS X?

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[Fweeky]

I never suggested turning off anything, I just demonstrated it was possible, and then suggested it was pointless to do so.

Good point on IO bandwidth; ZFS does seem to be more aimed at heavier randomized IO as opposed to individual serial access, thus the reduced emphesis on trying to keep blocks together. It should still do pretty well with writes, since it's not trying to seek to "optimal" positions on the disk to do so, and of course it's much easier to just throw more platters at it.

Also, note you can put other filesystems on top of zpool; about a week into the FreeBSD ZFS porting effort you could put a UFS filesystem on top of zpool to benefit from the volume management features. The VFS bits are by far the trickiest bits of ZFS to integrate.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[larry bagina]

It's very easy to demonstrate reliability. You overwrite your HFS+ disk with /dev/random and I'll overwrite my zfs disk with /dev/random.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[larry bagina]

ZFS supports file preallocation. No support for direct-to-disk io, but if you're using multiple disks, it can stagger/interleave blocks across disks and read/write faster than using 1 physical disk for large io.

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[zsau]

What, the editors edit?

(I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or honest surprise, given /.'s rep.)

Re:Ooookaaaay...

[westyx]

Sure, you want to base everything on something stable, rock solid with a pedigree and much use, but the problems with those attributes is that you end up with limitations, design flaws that must be worked around with ugly hacks that cause yet more limitations.

In the end, it boils down to what you want X to do, how you want to do it, and how you're gonna support it. 10 years? yeah, I don't see an issue with that. Once you get into the twenties and over, I don't think that many things are going to be flexible enough unless your product focus is narrow (and already covered by the product).

Yeah. So?

[iknownuttin]

Users of the future operating system will have to keep working with HFS+, a filesystem that is almost ten years old now.

Is that a problem? I would think the fs would be pretty damned solid by now.

Re:Yeah. So?

[linefeed0]

You'd think so. You'd be wrong. Ever seen an "invalid sibling link"? I did, oh, in 1996, with the original HFS. Also this past year on a Tiger server. I suspect there was something wrong with the RAID controller, but a filesystem that relies on b-trees really should be able to at least try to repair them. HFS+ has good company, though. XFS from SGI (on Linux) has tons of stupid bugs, omissions, and corner cases; NTFS certainly has its share of "fun"; and I haven't used reiserfs enough to really know how stable it is. I do like JFS, though, even though it's not the fastest in the world.

Re:Yeah. So?

[jeffasselin]

Journaled HFS+ is reasonably stable. Most file system problems are one of three types:

- Easily repaired on reboot from the journal info (common and cause negligible trouble)
- Caused by a hardware failure (fairly common)
- Totally screwed up, making the drive unmountable but the data usually rescuable through specialized software (quite rare)

Before journaling, we used to see a LOT of screwed up filesystems that had to be repaired regularly. Crashing would often cause slight errors which would then breed more errors, cause more crashings (and more errors), until the corruption would make the system unbootable.

In my experience, journaled HFS+ seems about as stable as NTFS or ext3, maybe a bit more prone to problems but not by much. On the other hand, there are more efficient tools to work with and repair HFS+ than these other file systems.

Re:Yeah. So?

[bill_mcgonigle]

You'd think so. You'd be wrong. Ever seen an "invalid sibling link"?

He's not kidding - the computer next to me is recovering an HFS+ disk for a client with an invalid sibling link. The only tool that can even see the disk is DiskWarrior. Yeah, this machine probably also had a drive controller error. But these things happen in The Real World, so filesystems should be designed to survive despite hardware failures. You know, kind of like ZFS.

Re:Yeah. So?

[edwdig]

The old old Apple Disk First Aid program was interesting...

Invalid File System Entry. [Fix] [Ignore]
-> Fix
Unable to fix problem. [Try Again] [Ignore]
-> Try Again
Problem fixed.

And then there was Norton Disk Doctor. You got the nice animations of the doctor looking at your disk, and even got his recommendations on what to do when a problem was found. Of course, I never saw a recommendation other than "You should choose to fix this problem."

Senior Director of Product Marketing

[lbmouse]

Why do reporters insist on interviewing marketing goons to uncover tech specs? This guy probably thought the reporter was asking if Leopard was going to include Zurich Financial Services.

Re:Senior Director of Product Marketing

[AndyboyH]

I used all my mod points this morning, but I'd have modded you up :)

Re:Senior Director of Product Marketing

[BosstonesOwn]

Probably because those are the people who have all the extra time to talk to them. The engineers are busy trying to get the OS on the shelves.

Re:Senior Director of Product Marketing

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

Why do reporters insist on interviewing marketing goons to uncover tech specs?

Marketing goons have fresher breath.

Thou shalt not leak apple secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that ZFS was in Leopard but they removed it to punish Sun for the leak.

In internet years---

[Anonymous Coward]

it's positively ancient, but it's not as old as ext2/ext3.

Better switch to something new before parts start rotting and falling off.

*BSD's ufs is how old? I wouldn't trust that if my life depended on it.

Re:In internet years---

[moranar]

Ext3 was introduced in 2001, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3 . Three years after HFS+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS_Plus Ext2 and Ext3 are compatible, but not the same thing.

Re:In internet years---

[N3WBI3]

Ext3 is nothing but ext2 with journaling so if we find a major improvement to hfs between 2000 and now will we call that a new release? HFS+ is pretty much superior to ext2/3 in every way, so what if apple had it better before ext3 was out.

Retribution

[earnest murderer]

I'm not saying this is retailatory... But this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish partners for making preemptive announcements about Apples products. One may recall not too many years ago ATI making a show about Apple using their video cards just before another WWDC (maybe it was Macworld, I forget). Apple proceeded to spend the night pulling ATI's cards from their ready to ship Macs. In keynote the following morning Steve Jobs announced (surely with ATI execs in the front row) that nVidia was their premier partner for Mac video. It has been said that it was 6 monts before ATI execs could get even an executive secretary on the phone.

Re:Retribution

[SocietyoftheFist]

It sounds retaliatory. Seriously, Apple doesn't like things to be pre-announced and I'm sure that they had a contingency in place just in case of such things.

Re:Retribution

[Trillan]

For the sake of argument, how would it have sounded different if Apple just had never planned on shipping ZFS as the defualt file system?

Re:Retribution

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an article here. I believe the shipped Macs still went with ATI, but they removed all references to ATI from the keynote and exhibit hall and gave ATI the cold shoulder for a while.

Re:Retribution

[Bassman59]

I'm not saying this is retailatory... But this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish partners for making preemptive announcements about Apples products. One may recall not too many years ago ATI making a show about Apple using their video cards just before another WWDC (maybe it was Macworld, I forget). Apple proceeded to spend the night pulling ATI's cards from their ready to ship Macs.

This really doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple have had tens of thousands of nVidia cards, something that otherwise they wouldn't be using, just sitting around?

Re:Retribution

[danpsmith]

I'm not saying this is retailatory... But this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish partners for making preemptive announcements about Apples products. One may recall not too many years ago ATI making a show about Apple using their video cards just before another WWDC (maybe it was Macworld, I forget). Apple proceeded to spend the night pulling ATI's cards from their ready to ship Macs. In keynote the following morning Steve Jobs announced (surely with ATI execs in the front row) that nVidia was their premier partner for Mac video. It has been said that it was 6 monts before ATI execs could get even an executive secretary on the phone.

If this is simply retaliatory and not a readiness issue, then Apple is seriously undermining its own products in favor of PR. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't much matter if Samsung coded solutions for Apple or someone else did it, and it didn't particularly matter if ATI made the video cards or Nvidia, these companies can be switched out rather interchangeably. However, ZFS is a giant step forward in file systems and has loads more features than anything else, ripping it out just because they "spilled the beans" would be babyish and hostile. Any logical mind would reason that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison of retaliation as there's no similar vendor. It's most likely a readiness issue.

Re:Retribution

[earnest murderer]

It's not like they only sold ATI cards. They just made due with what they had for a few days and from what I read they were well able to meet demand. The incident is well documented, look it up.

Re:Retribution

[earnest murderer]

Sun wouldn't have made the announcement.

What I mean is their statement was very strong, the CEO of Sun Microsystems wouldn't have said that "ZFS is the standard FS for OS X 10.5" if the agreement hadn't already been made. They've been partnering on this for a long while now and this would be directly in Jonathan Schwartz's purview. Jonathan even knew it was going to be featured in the keynote address. Apple has also been including ZFS for some time as an option, but now appears to not be including it at all. I think that's pretty telling to go from Jonathan Schwartz proudly announcing that ZFS is the default FS for OS X to Apple saying "Pfft... not in my OS".

Re:Retribution

[FauxPasIII]

> this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish its customers for preemptive announcements about Apples products made by vendors.

Fixed.

Re:Retribution

[qbwiz]

> this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of its way to punish itself for preemptive announcements about Apple's products made by vendors.

Fixed. Remember, these are just announced products, so if the customers don't like them, then they won't buy them.

Re:Retribution

[earnest murderer]

Well, it'd be pretty damn hard to take one back that was already either paid for or out the door.

Re:Retribution

[earnest murderer]

Actually ZFS was never announced. Not by the one company that mattered.

And as for ZFS absence punishing customers, how so? It doesn't appear to have affected any of their products in any meaningful way. Long term being well known for ditching partners that spill the beans so to speak has been hugely beneficial to Apple. The iPhone is pleanty proof of that.

Re:Retribution

[Trillan]

Schwartz did not say "default." He said "the." Obviously, there is support for more than one file system, so we can already say he spoke incorrectly. Why assume he meant "the default" as opposed to "the most advanced?"

Re:Retribution

[SocietyoftheFist]

I think that Apple would have acted the same either way. Jobs doesn't like to get upstaged.

Re:Retribution

[Trillan]

That's kind of my point. There are two possibilities here: 1. Apple knows ZFS is not ready, and Apple wasn't planning on shipping it as the default file system. Sun's CEO announced otherwise, and Apple corrected him. 2. Apple knows ZFS is not ready, but planned on shipping it as the default system anyway, but now isn't going to solely because they don't like Sun's CEO early announcement. You have to believe in black helicopters to believe the second. It's freaking insane.

Re:Retribution

[Lars T.]

I'm not saying this is retailatory... But this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish partners for making preemptive announcements about Apples products. One may recall not too many years ago ATI making a show about Apple using their video cards just before another WWDC (maybe it was Macworld, I forget). Apple proceeded to spend the night pulling ATI's cards from their ready to ship Macs. In keynote the following morning Steve Jobs announced (surely with ATI execs in the front row) that nVidia was their premier partner for Mac video. It has been said that it was 6 monts before ATI execs could get even an executive secretary on the phone. One may recall that, but one wouldn't be right.

What actually happened:

1. July 2000: Some Nvidia guy announced they were OEM partners of Apple
2. shortly after, Nvidia said: not true, Apple said nothing
3. 3 weeks later, ATI pre-announces features of Macs (including that some would use Radeons), 2 days before keynote of
4. Jobs doesn't mention ATI in the keynote - the machines still ship with ATI Rages, no Nvidias anywhere
5. "Sources" tell ZDNet that Apple had removed the Radeons
6. 6 weeks later at Mac Expo Paris, Jobs announces that Radeons were now ready to ship, spending some time showing how much faster they are than the old Rage
7. half a year later: Jobs announces all but the lowest of the new G4s now comes with a Geforce2

To sum up, Apple neither dumped Nvidia nor ATI for pre-announcing something, instead they shipped the new chips when they were ready.

Err...no he didn't.

[mccalli]

The TFA says:

"Croll declined to comment on statements made last week by Sun Chief Executive Jonathan Schwartz, who said the use of ZFS would be announced at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Upon further questioning, Croll would only confirm that Apple had never said ZFS would be a part of Leopard."

That reads like "would neither confirm nor deny to our reporter" to me, not "has denied".

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Err...no he didn't.

[Overly Critical Guy]

From the article:

During an interview with InformationWeek, Brian Croll, senior director of product marketing for the Mac OS, said, "ZFS is not happening," when asked whether Sun's Zettabyte File System would be in Leopard. Instead, Leopard would use Apple's current hierarchical file system, called HFS+. The Apple file system was first introduced in 1998 in Mac OS 8.0.

What he declined to comment on was the comment made by the Sun executive, but he did comment on ZFS itself.

What the cat said

[Rakshasa Taisab]

"Upon further questioning, Croll would only confirm that Apple had never said ZFS would be a part of Leopard."

Obviously they haven't said anything about ZFS being included, but that doesn't imply they aren't including it. Sun might just have said something they weren't supposed to, or ZFS might just have been considered for inclusion. Who knows...

ZFS looks great but.

[LWATCDR]

It is really better for servers than a Workstation. It uses a lot of CPU power and adds features that no Workstation is likely to need for a while. It would be ideal for a NAS so maybe we will see it as an option on storage product from Apple.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[casualsax3]

And what are you doing with your 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo? What's more important - 2% of your dual core CPU, or 100% of your normally non-redundant data?

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several features that make ZFS useful in workstations as well as servers. ZFS has a lot to offer. Personally, after having a Mac for a while and then selling it, I'm waiting for ZFS before I buy another. That's how important ZFS on the Mac is to me.

For another opinion, see: http://mtrr.org/blog/?p=83
Or you can Google for other reasons that ZFS is useful in workstations. It's not just for servers.

For one thing, the near free snapshot capability is extremely useful. Admittedly, in laptops with just one drive, you lose the benefits of what ZFS can do with multiple drives.

I'd also like to see a comparison between HFS+ and ZFS within Macs. I bet the CPU hit would be reasonable.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Anonymous Coward]

On a laptop on battery power I'd rather it lasts longer than take the redundancy. Particularly since with something as prone to being stolen as a new shiny laptop only an idiot doesn't back up their data elsewhere anyway.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[laffer1]

I won't argue benefits, but I'd like to point out the FreeBSD 7-current implementation uses a lot of RAM. Apple doesn't ship enough RAM in their products as it is. I don't see this working well out of the box on desktops. Now, we might see it in OS X server and it may be in the client, but not pushed. Regardless, a serious RAM upgrade is needed. I think Sun even recommends at least 1GB of RAM to use ZFS on Solaris.

The other issue people aren't thinking about is making older Mac apps work on the new file system. Not all Mac apps work on UFS which is an option in OS X. Apple might have to wait on this until more people run on intel Macs.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[drinkypoo]

The other issue people aren't thinking about is making older Mac apps work on the new file system. Not all Mac apps work on UFS which is an option in OS X. Apple might have to wait on this until more people run on intel Macs.

My understanding is that not all apps work on UFS because it's case-sensitive. You can set HFS+ up to be case-sensitive (not just case-preserving, which is what it normally is) but some apps won't work on THAT, either. However, some Unix software won't work without case-sensitivity because there are files with the same names but different case - mind you, only software written by schmucks. But I have been bitten by this problem trying to port Unix software to Windows (Cygwin) before, since NTFS is only case-preserving.

Can you make ZFS case-preserving instead of case-sensitive? Because if you can, I can't think of good reasons for OSX software not to work on it in that case.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Otterley]

Have you actually *used* ZFS? It is not CPU intensive in the least. I've run it on a 700MHz PIII with no problems. From the developer's mouth: "Assume 1 2GHz Opteron for every 200 MB/s, including ZFS *and* the NFS stack". 200 MB/s is an order of magnitude (10x) faster than any hard disk installed in a desktop or laptop. And, that's for a continuous I/O load, which most users never see.

If you're having CPU issues with ZFS, you're in the HD video business, in which case you'll have a dual CPU machine anyway.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[LWATCDR]

"I'd also like to see a comparison between HFS+ and ZFS within Macs. I bet the CPU hit would be reasonable."
Depends on what is reasonable. Lots of high end mac users need every cycle of CPU that they have to encode HD video, render, and or run Photoshop filters.
Then you have notebooks where every cycle means less battery life.
For the casual home user with an iMac or mini they may have plenty of cycles left but would they even understand the features of ZFS? After all that is the just works crowd.
Yes ZFS is a great file system but the $10,000 question is it that much better the HFS+.
The other question is could it be make an option for OS/X? Is there already a module that lets you use ZFS under OS/X. If so then the users that want the features of ZFS can just add it.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Sancho]

The recent product upgrades means that the Macbook Pro doesn't ship with less than 2GB of RAM. My guess is that as they upgrade the rest of their product lines (plenty of time before October) you'll start to see the base configurations of their high-end equipment (Mac Pro and the larger iMacs) ship with 2GB standard, and probably a bump up to 1GB standard for the Mini and Macbook.

As I understand it, 2GB on FreeBSD 7 is plenty to run the OS very comfortably with ZFS. Also, the people who are likely to use ZFS right now are power users, so they'll be getting more RAM anyway. Before it becomes standard in the OS, Apple will probably have 4GB/2GB in their pro/commodity lines, which will allow them to maintain the current level of performance while using ZFS.

If it takes nearly 2 years for the next release of OS X to come out, I'm confident that ZFS will be the default OS (barring a decision to avoid this due to case sensitivity issues)

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only PHBs and schoolgirls use laptops. Seriously dude, grow up.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[TheRaven64]

ZFS is built in three layers. The bottom layer is akin to a volume manager. The middle layer is a transactional I/O interface. The top presents something to the user. Sun have two implementations of the top layer; one which looks like UFS and one which looks like a block device (I expect one which looks like an SQL database will show up soon).

The easiest way for Apple to use ZFS would be to simply use the interface that appears to be a block device and pop HFS+ on top of it. This would let them take advantage of most of the features of ZFS, without many changes to higher-level code. Another solution would be to modify the POSIX interface to support the same extensions that HFS+ supports (i.e. forks and Apple metadata).

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Anonymous Coward]

It uses a lot of CPU power and adds features that no Workstation is likely to need for a while.

Yeah, like guarantteed data integrity via checksums / Merkle (hash) trees, compression, and unlimited, no-cost snapshots. Who'd want those things ....

And of course our CPUs are being hammerred right now with things like Facebook, and e-mail, and Youtube.

(If you're so worried about CPU usage you can even turn off or not use any of those features.)

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, logic games! You must be a schoolgirl, since you're too much of an idiot to be a PHB and you clearly need to grow up.

Re:ZFS looks great but.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm confident that ZFS will be the default OS"

Default OS? Hnmm an interesting confidence.

What's wrong with HFS+?

[wiredog]

Fat32 isn't exactly young, it's used in many places. NTFS has been around for years. Ext2 likewise. They all work acceptably in the arenas they are designed for.

Re:What's wrong with HFS+?

[Anonymous Coward]

NTFS is an annoyance for the fact that a single process locks a file.

No matter what happened...

[cyfer2000]

"hurrah, bravo, genius..."

Re:reminds me of something

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm yes. I can see the parallels. In one case, Microsoft started development on WinFS and then dropped it. In the other case, Apple NEVER intended to use ZFS, and still don't. No wait, what are the parallels again?

Problems with old file systems

[Anonymous Coward]

FAT stopped counting after a stroke. FAT can still write down a number, but can no longer verbalize them.

Old file systems also have other problem. They are always repeating themselves and losing things, they get cranky all the time, and telling stories that go nowhere instead of simply reading and writing. And they start to get this weird smell.

Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon

[hkb]

ZFS is in the WWDC Leopard build. It's currently configured for read-only, although full functionality is in there. Write ability is disabled for stability/integrity issues. /System/Library/Extensions:

drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 Jun 4 20:48 zfs.readonly.kext

Re:Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon

[Trillan]

Read only NTFS support is in the Tiger build, yet I haven't read any speculation that it will become the default file system in Leopard.

Re:Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon

[VWJedi]

Considering all the talk about how Apple retalliates against people who cross them, don't you think you out to abide by the Non-Disclosure Agreement you entered into when you received that Leopard build?

Re:Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon

[moosesocks]

I'd bet that ZFS is in there for some future version of their XServe NAS product, not as a boot partition.

Granted, I am somewhat disappointed by this announcement. HFS+ isn't terrible, but as far as modern file systems go, it's pretty unremarkable (and every bit as poorly supported as NTFS).

Re:Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon

[Anonymous Coward]

No, NDAs are BS. Full disclosure forever. And, ZFS is also interesting for workstations and desktops because of its fault tolerance. A workstation with a RAID-1 setup and ZFS is, in theory, very robust and powerful. I say in theory because ZFS has hardly any credentials yet, but there is no doubt those will come.

Re:Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon

[hkb]

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: f00fc7c8.

Re:Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon

[VWJedi]

No, NDAs are BS. Full disclosure forever.

Apple provides information and "preview software" for free as long as you agree not to publically disclose the information. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it!

Apple could choose not to release any information at all. If you think they don't have a right to control (or forbid) the disclosure of their "trade secrets", then I have to insist that you fully disclose all of your bank account numbers, social security number, credit card numbers, PIN number, and all usernames and passwords you use on various computer systems.

HFS is older though

[toby]

HFS+ may date only from System 8.1, but HFS is considerably older - nearly 22 years now. It's very mature and stable code, even the POSIX stuff they bolted on later for HFS+.

Well, we can wait a bit longer for ZFS. If you can't wait, grab a Solaris 10, Solaris Express, or OpenSolaris distribution and start playing today! I'm not comfortable committing precious data to anything else.

One day most of our day-to-day filesystems will incorporate the ideas in ZFS - one or two have been seen before, but never in such a devastating ensemble. The 'Z' may as well stand for 'Zen': Grokking why ZFS is revolutionary seems to be a Zen-like enlightenment :) Many people still wonder "huh? what's the fuss?", as happens with any generational change...

Re:HFS is older though

[Winckle]

I hope Sun are paying you well Toby.

Same 10 year old file system

[Anonymous Coward]

... but new iChat. Mac users everywhere, rejoice.

Re:reminds me of something

[monomania]

...Leopard dropping ZFS ...

Why do you assume Leopard ever had ZFS?

Linux

[javilon]

If sun is moving OpenSolaris to the GPL3 from their current license ZFS will be a high profile case where incompatibilities between GPL v2 and v3 are causing big trouble to Linux, the kernel.

Unless Linus and everyone else decide to move to v3

Re:Linux

[EvilRyry]

I'm pretty sure this has been well covered on Slashdot before, but I'll say it again: GPLv2 and v3 will play nicely together.

It's not ready!

[ElephanTS]

Fascinating as it is to guess the workings of his Steveness I still think it's because ZFS is not ready for primetime yet. It's too large a change just to drop in but I do expect to see it in a couple of years. Journalled HFS is not that bad anyway.

It probably WAS in Leopard until June 6th...

[dpbsmith]

Steve Jobs just hates people spoiling his surprises.

My first thought when Jonathan Schwartz announced that ZFS would be the file system in Leopard was that now there was a really danger that Jobs might cancel it, just out of spite... and the prove the leaker wrong.

Re:It probably WAS in Leopard until June 6th...

[despisethesun]

That, in my mind, would be a compelling reason not to ever buy an Apple. If the company is so ready to remove features that would be useful to users and advance the state of the art just to get back at someone for leaking word of that feature, they clearly don't have the customer's best interests at heart.

What's more likely is that there were technical troubles getting it to work with the rest of the OS that couldn't be fixed or worked around before the release date. As others have noted, the support for ZFS is there (read-only at the moment), but even Sun has had some issues with it in the current version of Solaris. I don't doubt that Schwartz jumped the gun on the announcement, but I think he's got egg on his face for different reasons than you do.

Re:It probably WAS in Leopard until June 6th...

[Sancho]

I don't expect that ZFS would be a major announcement from Apple. It's too techie. The keynotes tend to focus on whiz-bang interface features. ZFS might have been the driving file system behind Time Machine, but when the announcement came, it would be all about Time Machine, not ZFS.

Re:It probably WAS in Leopard until June 6th...

[LionMage]

I don't expect that ZFS would be a major announcement from Apple. It's too techie. The keynotes tend to focus on whiz-bang interface features.

Yes, but this is WWDC, not MacWorld. Different audience, different expectations. Jobs' keynotes, even at MacWorld, have in the past delved into technical details that many would consider "too techie," so I'm just not buying that excuse. For the WWDC audience, there's no reason not to talk about ZFS if it's a major new feature, especially considering the tie-in with Sun.

Re:It probably WAS in Leopard until June 6th...

[Sancho]

Maybe in the past, they've had more technical discussions. Monday's keynote was primarily a feature breakdown of Leopard, an announcement that games are coming to OS X, and a note that 3rd party development on the iPhone will be through Safari. I don't remember them mentioning anything so technological as filesystem choices, etc. In fact, given the recent redaction from TFA (that ZFS will be available in Leopard just not the default), my point holds even more. Steve could have announced the option of ZFS for secondary disks, but didn't.

Re:Err...yes he did

[IronyChef]

TFA first says:

During an interview with InformationWeek, Brian Croll, senior director of product marketing for the Mac OS, said, "ZFS is not happening," when asked whether Sun's Zettabyte File System would be in Leopard.

The followup you quoted regards Croll not choosing to explain Schwartz' contradictory claim (hence the "retaliation" speculation.)

Ten years old? So what?

[Crazy Taco]

I fail to see the reason why the article poster is complaining that HFS+ is nearly 10 years old. Age really doesn't matter. If something is a good product, why not use it for 50 years. I'm not saying HFS+ is necessarilly such a product, but heck, even ext2 is 15 years old. People still use that, and no one complains about the age.

Re:Ten years old? So what?

[UnknowingFool]

See, crazy attitudes like that is the primary reason I don't have my jet pack and flying car by now. Usefulness, stability, bah! That's so 20th century, man. :P

Re:Ten years old? So what?

[the_greywolf]

I fail to see the reason why the article poster is complaining that HFS+ is nearly 10 years old. Age really doesn't matter. If something is a good product, why not use it for 50 years.

Indeed. But, as we all know, HFS+ blows donkey balls. Yes, age doesn't matter. It was a good idea 10 years ago, but it's a stupid one now.

Re:reminds me of something

[0racle]

It was in (though I don't know if it was usable) several developer seeds. Also it looks like ZFS related tools are included with Leopard.

Sun is shipping it

[Nicolas MONNET]

Sun is shipping it for use in "enterprise" setups.

Their core business is very expensive hardware and software for demanding users: banks and the likes.

If you've gotta give the benefit of the doubt to someone in this area, it's gotta be Sun.

Re:reminds me of something

[UnknowingFool]

On the one hand, MS was telling everyone for years about their new filesystem named WinFS. Actually if you consider the capabilities of WinFS and not just the name, MS promised that type of technology in Cairo over 10 years ago. On the other, Apple never said it was experimenting with ZFS much less that it was going to use it. A Sun exec said Apple would use it in Leopard based on the fact that Apple entered into an agreement to use ZFS. My viewpoint is that although Apple got rights to use it, that doesn't mean that they were going to base Leopard on it. I'm sure they experiment with all sorts of software including filesystems. Maybe in the future, Apple might replace HFS+ with ZFS but not right now.

You're right, it's not the age, it's the suckage.

[argent]

HFS+ is the only file system I have used on ANY UNIX system in the past quarter of a century where I have had to resort to third-party tools to fix corruption, and where you can corrupt it to that point just by letting it fill up.

Sometimes I really hate it when I'm right. I suggested that this was too good to be true when it was originally posted here. Alas, we're stuck with HFS+ until Apple gets over their NIH issues.

Considering ATI's drivers...

[MsGeek]

...for Linux bite the bag, and at least NVidia's and Intel's are worth using, this is a blessing in disguise for all those who intend to use Linux with their MacIntels. No big loss.

Re:Considering ATI's drivers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that those two guys are happy, what about the rest of us?

Re:Considering ATI's drivers...

[Mongoose]

ATi for OpenGL? --> DO NOT WANT --

ATi is such a joke, and the unified GLSL on OS X is a joke of a joke. Wake me when OS X gets GLSL support on par with Nvidia on Linux at least. Apple should drop ATi for horrible performance, and let Nvidia write a better driver for their own GPUs. I quit using any apple product, so I have no idea if they're even addressing this issue. It is a joke when Linux has better commercial graphics support.

Re:Considering ATI's drivers...

[doh123]

really? funny the ATI cards seem to run better than nvidia cards right now on OSX, though I'm sure its just driver issues.

Re:Considering ATI's drivers...

[Mongoose]

Yes, that is my point-- Apple currently makes a unified GLSL driver for both, and it's not worth a shit for either. I guess I have to spell it out for you. Also your "run better" comment is bullshit. I'll call you out on that too. :0

A new iChat??

[Disoriented]

Not sure if anyone noticed, but a major feature that was promised for iChat in Leopard has somehow disappeared.

From the Leopard Sneak Peak, still in Google's cache here

Share and share alike

Remote control takes on a whole new meaning with iChat in Leopard. Thanks to iChat Screen Sharing, you and your buddy can observe and control a single desktop via iChat, making it a cinch to collaborate with colleagues, browse the Web with a friend, or pick the perfect plane seats with your spouse. Share your own desktop or share your buddy's -- you both have complete control at all times. And when you start a Screen Sharing session, iChat automatically initiates an audio chat so you can talk things through while you're at it.

However, there is no mention of iChat Desktop sharing on Apple's new iChat for Leopard page:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/ichat .html

This sucks. I was really hoping to replace my kludgy VNC setups and NAT tables with a clean, elegant, and free remote desktop solution. Thanks a lot Apple!

Re:A new iChat??

[eddy]

Honestly, unleashing that kind of easy remote-control power on the unwashed masses seems like security hell waiting to happen.

Re:A new iChat??

[aftk2]

First off, screen sharing appears to still be supported in the OS:

Image here

Additionally, the button for screen sharing is still present in the ichat screenshots:

Image here
(bottom right in the buddy list window)

Re:A new iChat??

[AccUser]

I'm pretty sure that screen sharing is alive and well in Leopard, and I have used it in place of Remote Desktop, but IIRC, I have never used it via iChat.

Re:A new iChat??

[Gilmoure]

So, I won't be able to allow cam girls to take over my Mac? D'oh! Why do put so many Submit buttons out there?

Re:reminds me of something

[Crazy Taco]

It was in the Leapord beta. I think that's a fairly good reason to make that assumption.

Apple Confirms No Confirmation of ZFS in Leopard

[Sketch]

So basically, Apple confirmed that it did not confirm ZFS in Leopard.

Also, they have no comment on what that other guy said.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Leopard, now with 299 new features.

Correction Coming: ZFS to be available (sort of)

[Dotnaught]

I was one of the two reporters in that interview and we both were surprised by Croll's comment. We were just contacted by Apple to say that what we heard (or what we both thought we heard) was not the fully story. The real story is:

An Apple spokesperson seeking to clarify Croll's statement indicated that ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system."

Further detail:
It's only available as a read only option from the command line.

We're still trying to find out what this means, but a correction is coming.

I seriously question

[N3WBI3]

if any of these 'doubters' you talk about are Apple shareholders.

Re:I seriously question

[PygmySurfer]

I think he/she was referring to Jonathan Schwartz, CEO of Sun, not Steve Jobs.

I don't think there are many doubters of Steve Jobs' worthiness as CEO of Apple. There were many who questioned whether Schwartz could succeed McNealy, however.

Re:You're right, it's not the age, it's the suckag

[jeffasselin]

Before journaling, HFS+ wasn't great, but since its introduction, it's not bad at all in my experience.

Re:reminds me of something

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me clarify what you said:

"Hmm yes. I can see the parallels. In one case, Microsoft started development on WinFS and announced it in 1991 and then dropped it repeatedly. In the other case, Apple NEVER intended to use ZFS as far as we know, and still don't. No wait, what are the parallels again?"

WinFS is kind of like Linux's "year of the desktop", always soon, but never here.

Looking for exoplanet large enough for Jobs ego

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs ego is too large for any planet in this solar system. When he ran the hugely successful NeXT Computer company (yeah, right), his mfg line in Fremont was all black. When part of the frak'n line came in a color other than black (I think it was white) Jobs ranted and blew up at the employee in front of everyone and threatened to fire him, if it wasn't taken care of immediately. It was the frak'n mfg. line, Steve, chill dude. Also, he had the orange and white tape removed to alert people near the line there were hot rails exposed. He also drove his black carrera with no license plates and was constantly pulled over and ticketed.

Nope, I could never see Steve retaliating. Just not in his nature. Sweet guy.

The guy is good at hype and fads. Oh yeah, I forgot, he invented the MP3 player too.. right?

Still there

[smurfsurf]

Its description has been moved to the "Finder" page at http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/finde r.html in the "Closer connections" paragraph.

"By clicking on a connected Mac, you can see and control that computer (if authorized, of course) as if you were sitting in front of it. "

It's still there - just not in iChat

[log0n]

It's now integrated into the Finder (Closer Connections on the Finder page).

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/finde r.html

Are you sure about your data?

[YesIAmAScript]

My understanding is that Samsung did score the contract for the chip in the 2nd Gen Nano. Wikipedia says so, for whatever that's worth.

Additionally, I think people are getting crazy reactionary, assuming that the gaffe by SUN was responsible for ZFS not making Leopard.

There's no way to know if it was even in there before anyway.

And besides, Leopard was delayed by 6 months back in March. When you delay a product, you don't go adding new features to it, it'll just make the schedule longer. You might in fact defer features you were thinking of adding, like ZFS. It reduces the work to be done and helps shorten the schedule, keeping you closer to the original date.

Re:Are you sure about your data?

[PygmySurfer]

Preliminary ZFS support showed up in a Leopard build in April of 2006. Now, there's nothing to say it was ever going to ship, or if they were laying the groundwork for OS X 10.6 or what, but the bits were there (and apparently still are).

I'm still not convinced Apple has dropped it because of Schwartz' comments, however.

Re:Are you sure about your data?

[mgv]

Additionally, I think people are getting crazy reactionary, assuming that the gaffe by SUN was responsible for ZFS not making Leopard.

There's no way to know if it was even in there before anyway.

Actually I don't think that Steve Jobs would have had time to remove it - after all they did have 5000 developer copies of Lepoard and Lepoard Server ready to pick up the moment the keynote finished.

It would have taken a bit of time to redo all of those, and the sun announcement was close to the meeting.

Having said that, I wouldn't be totally shocked if there were 10 000 DVD's in a dumpster in Cupertino right now. Steve is kind of known for being like that, if you get him seriously annoyed.

Michael

Re:Are you sure about your data?

[aliquis]

It was there in the betas, atleast according to screenshots. Anyway it's still there but as read-only so the issue are probably just that Apple haven't been able to port it all over and make it work yet, so no ZFS in Leopard. It's not an issue with Schwartz saying it would be there.

Racial Slurs Get Modded Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF Mods?

Had to revert...

[psydeshow]

Well it WAS going to be ZFS, but now they're going to use rdiff-backup instead.

Big deal?

[Ayanami Rei]

I mean, I could set up the Mach-O interpreter on Fedora and run fat binaries too... but why would I want to? I mean all the repositories are already architecture-labeled and its all pretty automatic so why do I care?

And if you're going to distribute binaries, just use 32-bit. If you want to be "transparent", ship a /lib64 directory and a shell script that launches your_binary_32 or your_binary_64 or your_binary_ia64 ala Matlab, Mathematica, Oracle ... a lot of people who know how to package software. It's not rocket science.

ZFS was simply was not ready to ship.

[ChrisA90278]

It's pretty clear the ZFS simply was not ready to ship. Leopard was to be "Feature Complete" by yesterday and ZFS was not ready, so it gets cut. Even Sun can't make it so that ZFS is bootable on a production version of Solaris. Also the "user land" utilities are not quite what a typical Mac user would want.

When you are in the software biz. There are two ways to release a produt (1) You set a date. Then you ship what ever you have at that date and don't ship what's not yet working. Or (2) You make a feature list and ship when everything on the list is working,when ever that might be.

The biggest mistake is to try and combine 1 and 2 and ship a fixed set of features on a given date.

Re:ZFS was simply was not ready to ship.

[CapeBretonBarbarian]

It's pretty clear the ZFS simply was not ready to ship. Leopard was to be "Feature Complete" by yesterday and ZFS was not ready, so it gets cut. Even Sun can't make it so that ZFS is bootable on a production version of Solaris. Also the "user land" utilities are not quite what a typical Mac user would want.

ZFS is bootable in recent OpenSolaris builds http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/. It may not be in Solaris 10 production systems yet, but it is clearly coming soon.

Speaking of Solaris 10 and ZFS, I've started moving a number of my servers over to Solaris 10 with ZFS. ZFS is probably going to keep us on Solaris for some time to come.

The story is not accurate.

[Kristoph]

The InformationWeek editor has posted this ...

As to the news, it seems that Croll mispoke a couple of times when asked about ZFS in Leopard. Despite direct questions about Sun CEO Schwartz's claims that ZFS is there, Croll flatly denied the reports to two of our reporters in a 1:1 interview.

An Apple spokesperson called us Tuesday seeking to clarify Croll's statement. Croll was apparently supposed to indicate that ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system."

We are now writing a separate story to note Apple's mis-statement and hopefully to reveal more about how ZFS would work in Leopard.

We'll update you here when that story is live.

Michael Singer

InformationWeek - West Coast Editor

Re:The story is not accurate.

[randomjohndoe]

Link to the comments section:
http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticl e.jhtml?articleID=199903281#comments
FYI the NoScript Firefox extension blocked the comments from appearing

well

[sentientbrendan]

Fat32 isn't exactly *good* either. That "32" means that you have a 32 bit address space, i.e. no file on the file system can exceed 4 GB in size.

The main advantage that FAT32 has is that it is *old* and well documented so drivers are available for every platform, so it's good for transferring files. However, recently userspace (using fuse) read/write NTFS drivers have become available for linux and OSX, so FAT32 may be thoroughly supplanted.

FAT32 also has performance problems when finding free disk space since there's no bitmap of free space, or equivalent finding empty space on the disk to write to requires an expensive linear scan.

Thus ends my FAT32 rant.

Re:well

[Jesus_666]

Cool, where can I get my 100.00% reliable NTFS read/write support for FUSE? By the way, are we talking NTFS v3.0, NTVS v3.1 (XP/2003) or NTVS v3.1 (Vista)?

I'd like Apple to include ext2 support in OS X - ext2 actually has bigger chances of being the new FAT32, running out of the box on Linux and having an IFS for Windows NT4/2k/XP/2k3. NTFS is a moving target and utterly proprietary, making it an extremely bad choice for a generic file system - after all you don't want a disk formatted with Vista to not work properly when put into a 2000 or Linux box because that pretty much defeats the use of a generic FS.

Alternatively, UDF might be the thing - all major OSes more or less read it and with packet writing it can be used like a regular FS. The downside is that most OSes prefer leaving packet writing to third-party drivers and stuff like VAT and sparing don't work well with most OSes.

Re:Leopard is like vista, all the good has been cu

[janrinok]

I hope the medication begins to work soon .....

FAT Filesystem

[C_Kode]

Users of the future operating system will have to keep working with HFS+, a filesystem that is almost ten years old now.

They should be using a more mature filesystem like FAT which is thirty one (1976) years old rather than an immature youngster like HFS+ that is only ten years old. ;)

Not 7.05

[Benanov]

Ubuntu 7.05? Get your facts straight, it's 7.04 Feisty Fawn.

meh-hole

[Gary W. Longsine]

Not to pick on you, (really) but I have noticed a pattern. For some reason, any post which starts with "meh" is pretty much useless. Brief investigation indicates that most posts by most people who start some posts with "meh" tend to be content free, and sometimes vaguely hostile. I wonder if Slashdot could implement a new rule in the lameness filter for this, or perhaps some type of filtering system, so that the rest of us don't even need to know these people exist. Like, if somebody starts a post with "meh" they get added to a list that I can subscribe to, and then I can set a preference to a "-5, meh-hole" mod. or something. The regular mod system should have "-1, meh-hole" added to it, too.

Re:meh-hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if Slashdot could just improve their system so we don't have to listen to idiots like GP. For someone with 'karma to burn' it sure has a lot of flamebait posts. Block, anyone?

Re:meh-hole

[inca34]

Nah... I do like the sounds of user-defined content filters with regular expressions syntax.

Now for some pseudo example.

filter expresion: ^[Mm][Ee][Hh]
modifier: -5

Re:meh-hole

[minus9]

Only if we can filter out posts that begin with BZZT Wrong! as well, actually I pretty effectively filter those out anyway.

Re:meh-hole

[rainman_bc]

Meh it isn't a problem - :)

( couldn't resist )

Seriously though, the OP in this thread - the fanbois really had it it. We don't dare on /. write anything other than Windows sucks, OSX rules, and Linux is l337, and FreeBSD is dead, Netcraft confirms it :)

Want ZFS on macos?

[kwerle]

MACFuse
http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/
"beta"

ZFS on Fuse
http://www.wizy.org/wiki/ZFS_on_FUSE
"beta"

sshfs on macfuse is pretty slick, lemme tell ya.

Jives with editorial comments on TFA

[LionMage]

Apparently, one of the editors at InformationWeek (Michael Singer, West Coast Editor) saw several perplexed comments left by readers and added similar commentary to yours, which I thought would be germane:

As to the news, it seems that Croll mispoke [sic] a couple of times when asked about ZFS in Leopard. Despite direct questions about Sun CEO Schwartz's claims that ZFS is there, Croll flatly denied the reports to two of our reporters in a 1:1 interview.

An Apple spokesperson called us Tuesday seeking to clarify Croll's statement. Croll was apparently supposed to indicate that ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system."

We are now writing a separate story to note Apple's mis-statement and hopefully to reveal more about how ZFS would work in Leopard.

We'll update you here when that story is live.

Glad to see there's an effort underway to get the facts out to people.

Told ya so

[TopSpin]

No, really, I did. Where's my cookie? The odds are they really will bring ZFS in eventually, but Schwartz has managed to set that back beyond Leopard. Good job Jonathan!

That's the best OS X feature???

[ricegf]

Well, it's nice, I suppose, but I don't believe this is a compelling "feature" in the grand scheme of operating system history.

it will install and run on every one of its supported architectures from one DVD

OS X runs on what, 3 architectures? Impressive. Linux runs on over 50 architectures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_portabil ity_and_supported_architectures, and I can choose from hundreds of different distributions tailored for various market niches. Why in the world would I want to pack all of those architectures and distros onto a single DVD? Think of the wasted bandwidth when I download my free copy!

Now, if you want to count support for existing peripherals and chip sets... well, that hypothetical "universal Linux DVD" is starting to look quite crowded.

The reason Apple can do this is because OS X is limited to a few architectures and a single "take it or leave it" distribution. Choice is a virtue, not a flaw. Try it sometime!

BTW, does OS X boot into the OS directly from the install DVD so I can test it live, then install in the background with a single click during which I can continue working? Honest question, I don't have a Mac, but "the world's most popular Unixalike" does. That's a feature worth touting, IMHO.

Mac OS X will serve everyone with one price

The price of my OS is "free", as in beer as well as in speech. Yours? That's another feature worth touting, IMHO.

I like OS X and all from what I've seen, very clean and nicely presented. Mac OS X has some good features going for it, but if having all of its rather severely limited architecture and peripheral support on a single DVD is the best you can crow about, you need to crow very quietly indeed.

spelling

[Gary W. Longsine]

The larger pattern of which this is one example seems to indicate that many people don't read, except Slashdot and other geek discussion forums, blogs, etc., In turn, this leads to a self-perpetuating defect. A meme, if you will, mutates, and replicates in this pool because the corrective mechanisms are weak. It then may rise to dominance in a limited domain of Slashdot, for example, if people don't spend enough time reading outside materials. (We already know the articles are often not read.) People see these things misspelled more often than not. If they don't read sources from literature or properly edited magazines or newspapers then they pick up the wrong spelling or usage, and add to the noise. The feedback loop builds as other people are then more likely to encounter the incorrect usages or spellings more frequently than they otherwise would.

Re:spelling

[toadlife]

The larger pattern of which this is one example seems to indicate that many people don't read, except Slashdot and other geek discussion forums, blogs, etc., In turn, this leads to a self-perpetuating defect. A meme, if you will... Their seems to be some merit to you're theory. The internet is causing us to loose a grip on the English language. It's to bad.

Re:spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it comes from people using speech wreck ignition soft wear like I'm using write now.

Re:spelling

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I could care less about the English language.

Re:spelling

[zsau]

I hate to be a spelling/grammar Nazi, but you spelt "two" wrong.

Re:spelling

[True Vox]

He also seems to have the improper spelling for "there", with a "their" instead. As well as the wrong your ("you're" instead of "your"). And to top it off, he misspelled "lose" "loose"! What a childish mistake! My god, if I didn't know better, I'd say he was jesting us with comedic exaggeration! Naw, this is teh interwebs. Such a thing as massive, intentional, example-setting mistakes could NEVER happen around these parts, that's crazy talk.... :D

Re:spelling

[zsau]

Just to point what I thought was bleedingly obvious, there wasn't a single case of a word that is correctly spelt "two" in his entire post. So ... I think you missed the perhaps not so massive, but certainly intentional mistake in my post.

Re:spelling

[moracity]

How much less could you care? And if you could care less, what exactly could you care less about?

Certainly, what you to meant to say was, "I couldn't care less about the English language.".

Re:spelling

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

That whooshing was the sound of the joke going over your head. Which is sad, because it's a pretty simple joke.

Re:spelling

[True Vox]

Do'h! You win. I bow before your glaring errors. :D

Truce?

Re:spelling

[zsau]

Thankyou, and certainly!

case sensitivity

[e**(i pi)-1]

I actually hoped that Leopard would have case sensitivity by default. Case insensitivity, files like "makefile" and "Makefile" are considered the same is a pain, when using OS X together with other OS. I lost many files due to case insensitivity (i.e. back up a directory on OSX, then move things back). While it is possible to enable case sensitivity, there are still too many things which break when doing the switch on the boot drive and this is no surprise because many applications depend on insensitive FS. What about allowing the user to have certain folders to be case sensitive?

Re:case sensitivity

[castanaveras]

Make a DMG with hdituil and set it to be case-sensitive. Then you have have a stanza in your makefile that checks to see if /Volumes/YourDMGsVolumeName/foo is a file, and mount the dmg if it isn't.

I know, it's a kludge, but it makes building a lot easier.

Re:case sensitivity

[Anonymous Coward]

You should never have two files with the same name but different case. Think about it: filenames are only for human interface purposes. The computer doesn't care, and can reference files by number or id or whatever. Filenames were invented purely so we wouldn't have to memorize a bunch of file numbers when interacting with our computers.

When you're speaking to someone and telling them the name of something, do you specify the exact case? Does it make a difference? "Turn right on HollyWood Blvd - capital H, capital W. Not the one with the lower-case w, that's the famous one a few streets over." How ridiculous would that be?

Sounds like HFS+

[bill_mcgonigle]

I suspect Apple is looking or looked at using it, but realized it wasn't ready for integration -- especially not as the default FS in a consumer OS.

The same could be said of HFS+. I'm typing this on one computer while the other is chewing through an HFS+ filesystem for a client that ate itself. Neither fsck no TechTool could even start into it. DiskWarrior is having some problems.

ZFS, on the other hand, is written more like an ACID database - either the file is on disk and good or it never made it. Even if the disk is bad, it'll work around it. HFS+ has some nice semantics, but it really stinks for reliability.

Just a thought...

[madsenj37]

From what I know of ZFS, it requires 2 new partitions (when one is using HFS+). Apple has always gone the simple route as far as usability of its products. 2 new partitions is not the simple route for those who upgrade only their software. Perhaps they are waiting to make it easier to move to ZFS by having users become familiar with Time Machine first. Once they have everything properly backed up and are used to backing up, partitioning for ZFS will be more feasible. Apple has often released new features in its .5 releases, ZFS could be one of them.

Re:Just a thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

God you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you realise that old world macs barely even used the Open Firmware to boot, relying on a completely different ROM? And even the partition scheme of a New World Mac consists of about four different boot necessary partitions. Setup yaboot or quick and you'll understand.

Maybe not simple from a developer's stand point, but none of this really needs to be visible to the user anyway. The real problem here is that Apple hasn't pulled its shit together to implement ZFS on schedule. It will shop with read only support because of this.

Re:Correction Coming: ZFS to be available (sort of

[jafac]

What good is snapshotting on a read-only file system?

Re:Haven't you learned anything?

[Gary W. Longsine]

The five year history of Apple's share price indicates that Apple's strictly enforced policies regarding secrecy of their product plans is probably not hurting the company in any way. Considering the lackluster performance of other companies that blabber on and on and on about their half-baked plans that never mature, one might well conclude that this policy is helping Apple shareholders, even if it comes at the expense of occasional inconvenience.

That said, ZFS is probably not important enough for Apple to punish Sun over a set of flapping gums. If you want a better conspiracy theory, perhaps Apple was testing Sun to see if they could keep a secret. The answer is "No."

Really, though, everybody knows ZFS is interesting, and Apple is porting it to Mac OS X. It's quite likely that nobody at Apple knows when or if ZFS on Mac OS X will be mature enough to become a candidate for replacing the default filesystem. It probably won't happen before October, but that's not to say it will never happen.

Re:You're right, it's not the age, it's the suckag

[radarsat1]

Sorry for my ignorance, but at least isn't there a way to use ext3 partitions for your data?
Maybe not. I'd be surprised if it hasn't been ported yet.

Age matters

[bill_mcgonigle]

Age really doesn't matter.

It does matter when you're talking about computers.

See, computers ten years ago were [insert Moore's law calculation here] slower. So, when it comes to designing a filesystem, you make certain trade-offs about safety, reliability, speed, because you just don't have a CPU or I/O fast enough to do everything you want to do - you can't run your CPU at 75% just to write a file.

Fast forward 10 years, and you have a CPU that can handle that same workload in, say, 3% of one of its cores. Suddenly you can get all that reliability and safety without causing any problems. And when you're a system integrator, passing on that capability to spite a partner is bad for your customers.

This seriously has me considering switching to Nexenta instead of Leopard for my next work machine upgrade, because if ZFS isn't in Leopard it won't be on Mac for a couple years, at least. There's not even a decent backup tool for HFS+. :(

OS X != Leopard

[sriggins]

The rumors/news sites made the big gaff here. When Sun mentioned ZFS for "OS X" he never, ever mentioned Leopard. People just made that assumption. Silly people.

Information Week is going to print a retraction

[NoPhD]

Information Week is going to print a retraction. See the comments on this article.... Michael Singer commented on Jun 12, 2007 2:16:12 PM Akie, ylon and all, Thanks first of all for the posts. It's good to see you've found our new comment section for regular news stories. We've had them available on our blogs for some time. As to the news, it seems that Croll mispoke a couple of times when asked about ZFS in Leopard. Despite direct questions about Sun CEO Schwartz's claims that ZFS is there, Croll flatly denied the reports to two of our reporters in a 1:1 interview. An Apple spokesperson called us Tuesday seeking to clarify Croll's statement. Croll was apparently supposed to indicate that ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system." We are now writing a separate story to note Apple's mis-statement and hopefully to reveal more about how ZFS would work in Leopard. We'll update you here when that story is live. Michael Singer InformationWeek - West Coast Editor

Re: EFI and ZFS

[Mr Hoffman]

EFI makes it fairly easy to boot from an arbitrary file system. This in terms of the relative difficulties of creating bootstraps.

You cross-boot into whatever file system you want, and the FAT file system (from the EFI boot partition) and the EFI callbacks mean you're not dealing with the device primitive boot drivers or the file system issues until you're ready.

Diagnostics and other such can also be available at the EFI Shell, and there is an execution environment available for these tools.

There are certainly downstream issues that can and will arise with adding ZFS support, as simply dealing with a 128-bit block ZFS address space is not something many user-land applications can be expecting. But as for the bootstrap itself, you're in the full run-time environment, and not debugging the gnarly bits of the bootstrap.

Various other console platforms require substantially more coding and customization around the bootstrap environment.

Won't hurt Leopard at all

[Anonymous Coward]

It still has a dock that shows reflections when you move files close to it!

32-bit hardware... like Core and the iPhone...

[Gary W. Longsine]

The Intel transition introduced 32-bit hardware into the mix again, for a while before the Core 2 Duo shipped, so Apple actually has both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of both PowerPC and Intel Core hardware in the installed customer base. The really nifty thing is that for applications that work on large amounts of data, even the older 64-bit PowerPC hardware will get a serious performance boost with Leopard for a mere $129. The newest member of that hardware pool will be two years old by the time Leopard ships, but some of those machines are still pretty nice. Their owners will be happy that Leopard treats them as full 64-bit citizens.

What Apple is accomplishing with seamless support for those four machine architectures from one build of Mac OS X is quite impressive. It also preserves Apple's ability to adopt new CPU architectures as needed. Suppose Apple came up with an idea for an appliance for which the Cell processor would be an ideal choice? Apple could certainly ship such a device without breaking a sweat.

Furthermore, suppose Apple wanted to use OS X as the operating system on a new bit of hardware that required, say, a low power CPU like the ARM that happened to be 32-bit, say a cell pone or something. If the OS is designed to cleanly handle both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, then the same version of the OS could be used across all five architectures.

revised statement from apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple claified its going to be available as a limited option.

precedent: 4 architectures NeXTSTEP / OPENSTEP

[Gary W. Longsine]

You are so right! NeXT supported four different machine architectures at one time in the early 1990s: intel, m68k, sparc, and pa-risc. This recent Leopard development is not entirely without precedent in the industry. It was possible to produce one build of an application that ran just fine on all four architectures, too, although the install CD would only hold two architectures (m68k and intel on a single cd for example) so you had to get a separate install CD for sparc and pa-risc.

economics and the cost of Linux, Windows, Mac OS X

[Gary W. Longsine]

Not to quibble, but the price of Linux isn't really free as in beer, nor free as in speech. Starting with the latter, GPL is more restrictive, not less restrictive, than BSD/MIT style licenses. There may well be good reasons for that in terms of the viral ability of the GPL and the community building positive social value that it provides, but it is clearly more restrictive, not less restrictive, than these other licenses. BSD is the Rodney Dangerfield of operating systems. Linux fans should really give BSD distributions a little credit for being even more free, they deserve it. For example, Linux can borrow code from BSD distributions, but the converse is not necessarily true. Commercial companies can modify BSD for special, proprietary purposes, perhaps to the benefit of their customers, and keep their technology secret. That is not true for Linux. So Linux is not the be-all and end-all of free as in speech. BSD pretty much is the gold standard. Do whatever the heck you want with it, its free.

Regarding the beer, the cost of Linux and the cost of Windows are different, but perhaps equivalent, in terms of hours spent learning arcane and useless trivia. Mac OS X, at $129, and valuing one's time at about $100, or even $5 per hour, is clearly cheaper than either of those alternatives, due to the near complete and utter freedom from futzing that it provides.

I hope my karma can withstand the drubbing it's about to get.

Re: EFI and ZFS

[ChrisA90278]

None of the PPC Macs have EFI. Apple needs to handle both PPC and Intel and who knws if Apple is not working on yet another processor in the back room.

Sun has not quite gotten ZFS out the door all the way yet. So it's no surprize that Apple hasn't. And I'm not following BSD closely enough to know the status there but I don't think ZFS is ready on BSD yet either.
But in 6 months to a year I think we will see it.

Re:You're right, it's not the age, it's the suckag

[argent]

Sorry for my ignorance, but at least isn't there a way to use ext3 partitions for your data?

I don't know, and unfortunately it really doesn't matter... it's basically equivalent to UFS. UFS is far more reliable than HFS+ and Mac OS X has a good version of that. The problem is that the emulation layer Apple uses to get the HFS+ extensions on top of other file systems is incomplete. Unless Apple completes that or changes the software that depends on them so it runs cleanly on standard UNIX file systems we're stuck with HFS+.

Re:You're right, it's not the age, it's the suckag

[argent]

Journalling is actually part of the problem. If the catalog is damaged it can't replay the journal, and Disk Utility refuses to rebuild the catalog if the file system is journalled... a catch-22 situation. The way out is to boot single-user and run fsck_hfs with the -rf (or -rdf) options explicitly.

I had this happen to my backup disk for my Macbook Pro just by getting it "too full", so this is still a problem in 10.4.9!

Re:reminds me of something

[Gilmoure]

You mean, Apple might just develop alternative technology in the background, but not use it, for years and years, until they get fed up with their current tech and make a quick, business pleasing jump, thanks to their foresight and planning?

Re:precedent: 4 architectures NeXTSTEP / OPENSTEP

[Anonymous Coward]

Word is bond, they also had a PPC version which wasn't released (until Rhapsody :)

1.9 million vs. 39 million

[charnov]

Dell shipped 39 million PC's versus Apples 1.9 last quarter and it was a declining quarter for Dell. On the whole "a Dell is the same as an Acer is the same as an HP", you do know that Apple manufactures pretty much nothing and whiteboxes Asus and Acer just like Dell?

Re:1.9 million vs. 39 million

[NMerriam]

you do know that Apple manufactures pretty much nothing and whiteboxes Asus and Acer just like Dell?

...said the person who has obviously never opened up an Acer, a Mac, and a Dell.

having things manufactured overseas is quite different from saying "oh, they're just selling the same box everyone else is!"

So how does does Time Machine work??

[slyborg]

I thought that the features in ZFS were needed to implement Time Machine?

Re:reminds me of something

[jcr]

The difference is that WinFS was touted as a key reason to move to Longhorn. Apple's never promised ZFS at all, let alone claimed it as a competitive advantage.

-jcr

your stupid sig

[Anonymous Coward]

no, if that analogy were at all apt, which it isn't, piracy would be the same as going into a store with broken locks, then making a duplicate of any items you felt like and either selling them down a dark alley for less money, or just dumping them out in the park with a sign saying "duplicate me".

the store would still have all their stock, just some heavy competition. perhaps they should reduce their overinflated prices so that people are still happy to get their items from the reputable legal store, rather then deal with dark alley merchants or picking shit up in the park.

not quite so simplistic and black and white now, is it?

Yes & No for ZFS on Mac OS X

[MacTechnic]

There is no confirmed use of ZFS file system on Mac OS X client but the same may not be true in the future for Server, but as of now there is no full implementation of ZFS on Mac OS X Server, but one cannot say the same for the future. Suffice it to say that ZFS is a resource hungry file system with many features that are very helpful on Servers, but would be inefficient on Client systems. Those who say there is no ZFS announced for Mac OS X would be correct, but it would break several NDA for someone to discuss all the possibilities for the future. I am sure Apple will clarify these issues in the future, perhaps with the release to Leopard. Time will tell

Re:Yes & No for ZFS on Mac OS X

[dangitman]

Suffice it to say that ZFS is a resource hungry file system with many features that are very helpful on Servers, but would be inefficient on Client systems.

Why did you capitalize the words 'client' and 'servers'? They are just normal nouns, they should not be capitalized.

"Free" Depends on Who You Value

[ricegf]

Not to quibble, but the price of Linux isn't really free as in beer, nor free as in speech.

Well, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point (though flame wars are such fun).

I believe the GPL is "more free" as in speech, because it protects the freedom of end users. My guess is that you consider BSD "more free" as in speech because it give more freedom to developers, even if those developers are building non-free products. Since I care more about end users, I release all of my projects under GPL. C'est la vie.

I have no idea how you would claim that Gnu/Linux costs money. My Ubuntu distribution cost me nothing to download, required no special hardware, and if anything is much easier and more efficient to use for the tasks I do everyday than Windows XP (haven't used Vista or a recent Mac). I suffer through many more "hours spent learning arcane and useless trivia" to keep XP running than I ever do with Linux, which I find much more logical and less bloated. But my guess is that you find a brown "Applications" menu at the top of your screen hopelessly confusing compared to a green "Start" menu at the bottom of your screen, and thus consider Linux "too hard" for "normal" people to understand. My grandmother would disagree, but again, c'est la vie.

If my guesses are wrong, feel free to elaborate.

Hmmpth. No drubbing from me on your karma! :-)

Re:"Free" Depends on Who You Value

[QNXtreme]

Actually the GPL is less Free for both end-users and developers. Since the GPL dictates the possibility and type of interface between Free and non-Free software, end-users will often find potential solutions impossible when using something released under the GPL. What the GPL actually benefits is the code itself as well as Richard Stallman's idea of "Free," each of which requires several restrictions on use. The BSD license, while not perfect, has no such restrictions and allows developers to use source code in any situation they deem appropriate and allows end-users powerful solutions - such as Apple's Mac OS X - that aren't possible under the GPL.

No, age doesn't matter. :)

[argent]

It was a good idea 10 years ago, but it's a stupid one now.

HFS+ wasn't even a good idea 10 years ago. :(

Re:reminds me of something

[drsmithy]

On the one hand, MS was telling everyone for years about their new filesystem named WinFS.

No, they weren't. WinFS is not - and never has been - a filesystem.

ZFS not ready yet

[drwho]

I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but from what I've read, ZFS just isn't ready yet. It hasn't been fulled 'baked' to get all the bugs out. For instance, being the boot file system is still pretty new. File systems are pretty critical things, Apple would hate to commit to ZFS just to have it be junk, especially when there's no contract that makes promises (maybe they could hire Sun to fix it up really nice, and have some guarantees - but I don't know if this has happened. Maybe it's happening right now). In the meantime, Apple is just waiting for all the unpaid testers to find the bugs. Apple I am sure has lots of in-house work on it as well.

That being said, I really don't like Apple or Steve Jobs. I am no Apple fanboy.

Older is better

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Saying people are "forced" to use a decade old filesystem is pretty retarded. Of all things, filesystems are better when they're old. They've been through more reallife usage and so we know we can depend on them. There's a reason why ext2* still reigns as king in the Linux world even though many "superior" filesystems are now available: it's older!

As nifty as ZFS sounds, HFS+ has proven to be reliable, and Apple would be idiots for abandonning it for some (relatively) newfangled filesystem-of-the-week.

* ext3 is nothing more than ext2 with a journal strapped on to it and therefore counted in as ext2

Thought the loss is Apples

[aliquis]

It's not like Sun would earn a lot of money from Apple using ZFS (I guess atleast, if Apple didn't hired people to help with porting it).

However ZFS is a major selling point for running Solaris on servers and therefor buying Sun hardware. Having ZFS as an option on Apples servers aswell might have been a bad thing for Sun (not that Apples server market can be anything near Suns in size, seriously who runs a server on OS X and why?)

Anyway, the less people who uses ZFS and the more exclusive it is to Solaris the better for Sun. Or? Sure it's open-source but I doubt that is because Sun wants everyone to copy their technology, it's probably more because it sounds better, safer and more future proof.

Apple are lame

[aliquis]

Considering there will only be read-only support of ZFS now I doubt it was as much as Steve Jobs beeing upset on Schwartz as it was Apple not beeing done with porting and getting ZFS to run which was the problem.

It works the dumb way

[LemonYellow]

John Siracusa has already written a great article on Time Machine over at Ars Technica. ZFS would have allowed Time Machine to back up only changed blocks in files, but apparently the current implementation has to copy whole files around.

http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/15 /4995

Re:It works the dumb way

[Anonymous Coward]

the current implementation has to copy whole files around.

Which is a huge penalty for large media files. Good thing Macs aren't used for anything like HD video editing. Oh, whoops!

Re: EFI and ZFS

[andreyw]

...Never mind that Apple doesn't actually conform to the EFI 1.10 spec for booting and have an HFS+ driver so they can boot directly off their partition....

You know what's really sad...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

...I only got the joke when I read "to bad".

Re:reminds me of something

[Lars T.]

You mean, Apple might just develop alternative technology in the background, but not use it, for years and years, until they get fed up with their current tech and make a quick, business pleasing jump, thanks to their foresight and planning? You mean like making parallel developments of their OS for x86?

Re:reminds me of something

[Gilmoure]

You know, now that you mention it, it does seem rather outrageous, that they could just recode OSX for X86 in a few months.

Re:Correction Coming: ZFS to be available (sort of

[hobbit]

From here:

In a follow-up interview today, Croll explained, "ZFS is not the default file system for Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for high-end storage systems with really large storage. As a result, we have included ZFS -- a read-only copy of ZFS -- in Leopard."

"Read-only means that at a later date, if there are ZFS volumes, those systems would be able to read ZFS volumes," Croll added. "You cannot write data into the system. It will allow you to read ZFS volumes later."

Um, what?! That's a clarification?! Is read-only ZFS shipping in Leopard, or later?

I thought I understood the first paragraph. But the second reads like it was written by the sort of person who refers to their computer as "my screen":

"Read-only means that at a later date (bad start: read-only has nothing to say about time) , if there are ZFS volumes (there are definitely ZFS volumes, I've seen them on Sun boxes), those systems (to what does "those" refer?) would be able to read ZFS volumes," Croll added. "You cannot write data into the system (you can't write data into a system which can read ZFS volumes?!). It (what?) will allow you to read ZFS volumes later (when?)."

Apple should keep this guy away from the press.

ZFS case-insensitive support

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselo g/2007/244/;jsessionid=4DEEAE13A4489C28E3C4644C989 86C1F

Translation

[Kelson]

So if I'm reading this correctly, they're putting read-only support for ZFS in the initial release of Leopard for forward compatibility. The idea being that, if they add full ZFS support in a later release, and you start using it on your nifty new Leopard+1 (or Leopard+updates) Mac, you can still read the data if you plug that drive into an older Mac that only has the base Leopard system.

Aside from external drives, this means that if full ZFS is added in an update to Leopard, you can use it to store your backups. You'll still be able to pull data off the backup drive if you have to reinstall and need to grab it quickly, before you can download the updates.

Re:Translation

[hobbit]

Ah, yes. Well interpreted! Thanks.

no chance of ZFS in 10.x series

[GURU Meditation 8000]

Apple never puts anything actually NEW in their point releases, just some fancier graphics and a changed layout or 2 (that still breaks their own guidelines). nah, ZFS if it ever appears will be in Apple OS XX (or 11 if they are calling it a sensible name)

GPL frees end users. BSD? Nooot so much...

[ricegf]

Actually the GPL is less Free for both end-users and developers.

Nope. Every license "dictates the possibility and type of interface between Free and non-Free software" - it's the nature of a license. Nor does the GPL limit how end-users use such licensed software to implement "potential solutions" in any way, shape or form - in fact, it specifically disclaims any such constraints on the part of end-users. Re-read the GPL - I'll wait. AFAICT, all constraints are on the developer, with none on the end-user. I suspect you're confusing the two (hint: Apple is not an "end-user").

And Apple has some nice software, but it is not released under a BSD license. Try adding it to your own proprietary product, and watch the lawyers go into a frenzy! Not much freedom there.

Allowing developers to improve a package without sharing the improvements also hurts the end-user by limiting the rate of overall improvement in software, and by potentially preventing the end-user from obtaining support from a different source (how many vendors can patch that OS X kernel? I'll wait while you count... Oooonnnneee. Right!). Very much "less free". And as a side "benefit", the rate of improvement for the software is dampened by duplication of effort and reduced collaboration. (How much of Mac OS X has migrated back into *BSD? Not much.)

The GPL has been a huge boon to end-users in both quantity and quality of products - as this particular one has noticed and appreciated over many years. Have you noticed how many GPL'd packages have been ported to Windows? How about that nice Mac interface? Hmmmm.

I have nothing against BSD, it looks like a pretty nice system. And Apple certainly has some nice, very proprietary software. But to claim it is "more free" for end users than any GPL system is simply disingenuous.

Re:GPL frees end users. BSD? Nooot so much...

[QNXtreme]

Nor does the GPL limit how end-users use such licensed software to implement "potential solutions" in any way, shape or form - in fact, it specifically disclaims any such constraints on the part of end-users.

By restricting the developer(s), the GPL restricts the user down the line. Had the developer had the freedoms that the GPL disallows, he would have had the options to do more with his source code and ideas, which in turn benefits the end user.

And Apple has some nice software, but it is not released under a BSD license. Try adding it to your own proprietary product, and watch the lawyers go into a frenzy! Not much freedom there.

Actually, the APSL is both a Free and an Open Source license, as the two bodies have qualified it. Apple also releases a lot of software under the Apache and Mozilla licenses as well. They do no release anything under the BSD license, the freest of all software licenses, but I can do a lot with Apple's source code anyway, thank you very much.

Allowing developers to improve a package without sharing the improvements also hurts the end-user by limiting the rate of overall improvement in software, and by potentially preventing the end-user from obtaining support from a different source

This is a common tactic in arguing for the freedom of the GPL. In practice, there are few if any products that have the momentum behind them that their end-users will have a variety of support sources. End-users certainly won't contribute much more than bug reports, if that. Have you checked SourceForge lately? The amount of abandoned or stillborn projects is staggering.

(how many vendors can patch that OS X kernel? I'll wait while you count... Oooonnnneee. Right!). Very much "less free". And as a side "benefit", the rate of improvement for the software is dampened by duplication of effort and reduced collaboration. (How much of Mac OS X has migrated back into *BSD? Not much.)

And this is exactly why Apple products run as you expect them: one developer, one widget. Consistency. Compare and contrast that to the thousands of Linux distributions, the different kernel trees (Cox's, Linus's), and the scads of patches - the most user unfriendly system out there. This isn't about "freedom" at this point anymore, the word is silly in this context. Apple being the only one to patch its own kernel is an advantage its end users enjoy.

And Apple has shared a lot back with FreeBSD, do a google search and see for yourself.

The GPL has been a huge boon to end-users in both quantity and quality of products - as this particular one has noticed and appreciated over many years. Have you noticed how many GPL'd packages have been ported to Windows? How about that nice Mac interface? Hmmmm.

Quite a few, sure. But "more than nothing" isn't a lot. See above.

I have nothing against BSD, it looks like a pretty nice system. And Apple certainly has some nice, very proprietary software. But to claim it is "more free" for end users than any GPL system is simply disingenuous.

What's disingenuous is your argument. The GPL has more restrictions within it than the BSD license, period. The developer is freer to do what he wishes with his project when using the BSD license. The GPL hinders those choices and also makes the developer do more work.

Re:GPL frees end users. BSD? Nooot so much...

[ricegf]

In practice, there are few if any products that have the momentum behind them that their end-users will have a variety of support sources.

That's incredibly naive. I have modified source of several free projects for independent contractors I know, and I'm hardly a household name. My company has used work-for-hire developers to fix bugs and add enhancements to free software for internal use. You seem to be limiting "support services" to only proprietary-style professional companies that advertise those services in the Wall Street Journal. Open your eyes, my friend - custom modification of free software is ubiquitous. Custom modification for BSD-taken-proprietary is... limited to the company that released the product.

Have you checked SourceForge lately? The amount of abandoned or stillborn projects is staggering.

The number of projects period is astounding. Some of them are incredibly useful; most aren't, because SourceForge is free. Exactly like SlashDot and posts. :-)

By restricting the developer(s), the GPL restricts the user down the line.

Close. By restricting the developer(s), the GPL restricts the developer down the line - particularly, from taking free code and making it non-free, thus limiting what users can do. The GPL places no restrictions an an end-user whatsoever.

The GPL has more restrictions within it than the BSD license, period. The developer is freer to do what he wishes with his project when using the BSD license. The GPL hinders those choices and also makes the developer do more work.

Precisely my argument. BSD license frees the developer to use the code for more projects - specifically, proprietary projects. But proprietary projects limit the freedom of end-users - they cannot fix bugs, or further reuse the code. GPL protects the user's freedoms by ensuring that free code remains free.

You clearly care about the developers, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I care more for the users than the developers, and thus will continue to prefer code that frees end-users.

Re:GPL frees end users. BSD? Nooot so much...

[QNXtreme]

That's incredibly naive. I have modified source of several free projects for independent contractors I know, and I'm hardly a household name.

But you are an exception.

My company has used work-for-hire developers to fix bugs and add enhancements to free software for internal use. You seem to be limiting "support services" to only proprietary-style professional companies that advertise those services in the Wall Street Journal. Open your eyes, my friend - custom modification of free software is ubiquitous. Custom modification for BSD-taken-proprietary is... limited to the company that released the product.

What you described here is paid work. While you choose to make a distinction between being able to hire somebody and firing off bug reports and feature requests to a company in hopes of a fix, the real limitation here is money. If FOSS is so open and everyone participates, why is your company having to hire people to patch your software? That's the real divide - money, not licensing.

The number of projects period is astounding. Some of them are incredibly useful; most aren't, because SourceForge is free. Exactly like SlashDot and posts. :-)

All hilarity aside, you can stargaze all you want but I'm only concerned with things in the useful orbit. The number of software projects with a robust codebase and regular release schedule is small, and only some of them are useful. But again we see that your license of choice isn't helping end-users (by making available worthwhile software) or developers (by helping them to write worthwhile software).

By restricting the developer(s), the GPL restricts the developer down the line - particularly, from taking free code and making it non-free, thus limiting what users can do.

But making for a much more solid product. For a real-world example, let's look at WebKit, the muscle behind Safari, iTunes, iChat, and scads of other software packages. (Check at Wikipedia for an exhaustive list.) Apple took that software and did a lot with it without it being under a Free or Open Source license. It's FOSS now, but hadn't been and the FOSS community has done little to enhance it.

Precisely my argument. BSD license frees the developer to use the code for more projects - specifically, proprietary projects. But proprietary projects limit the freedom of end-users - they cannot fix bugs, or further reuse the code.

They don't anyway, unless they happen to have programming experience and are being paid. The number of hobbyists doing any real (released) work is microscopic in proportion to the number of end-users. And they're probably the same people who have jobs doing whatever it is they do with their GPL'ed software.

GPL protects the user's freedoms by ensuring that free code remains free.

And tying deevelopers' hands with multiple restrictions with a small and dubious benefit to end-users.

Re:GPL frees end users. BSD? Nooot so much...

[ricegf]

Your "free to be proprietary" arguments don't sway me because I don't value proprietary software. I value freedom, and thus the GPL's "forever free" approach is far preferable to me.

The developers of the software I choose to use daily - Linux, Gnome and its family of apps, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office.org, Java, etc. etc. - have overwhelmingly chosen "forever free" over "free to be proprietary" licenses, so I suspect I'm not as unique as you claim.

Thanks for the discussion, and best wishes on the road ahead.

Re:GPL frees end users. BSD? Nooot so much...

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me sir, but do you have long hair and a beard?

Dell and Apple warranty serviceman

[charnov]

I am Dell serviceman for servers and desktops (going back 5 years) and was an Apple warranty serviceman for laptops and desktops. I was a regional technician for Donnally in the Midwest supporting over 5000 Macs for 2 years, etc., etc. I have 18 years experience, buddy, and I know my stuff inside and out.

Try an ad hominem somewhere else.

Re:Dell and Apple warranty serviceman

[NMerriam]

Congratulations on your stellar employment history. I'm fascinated how your experience with PPC systems and x86 systems led you to believe it was the same hardware, since I've supported hundreds of each and can't begin to compare how much easier it is to support a box where things just slide together because they're engineered properly rather than requiring screws out the wazoo.

Having a motherboard manufactured by the same company doesn't mean it's the same motherboard, that the specs are the same, that the components are the same (although of course most of them are).

If Apple and Dell were selling the same systems, you'd see a similar repair and warranty rate, and a similar failure rate. Yet every survey ever conducted shows that's not the case.

Re:Dell and Apple warranty serviceman

[charnov]

Asustek and Quanta manufacture the MacBooks as whitebox machines, and the Mac Pro bits and pieces are sourced through a few different OEMs. Apple is not a manufacturer any more. It's quality and failure rates have become MUCH better now that they use mostly standard OEM PC parts.

Remember the original iMac fiasco due to manufacturing in Mexico? Ever had to do Apple directed on board soldering fixes? Remember the several "secret" recalls of power supplies, batteries, and motherboards over the years?

Apple's warranty service used to be decent. Dell's on the other hand at least offers 4-hour same day on site service. Just never buy from the home division. Always go with the Business division.

Re:meh-hole vs. BZZZT! Wrong!

[Gary W. Longsine]

The posts that begin "Bzzzt! Wrong!" seem to follow a normal distribution, so I think it should be a separate filter, not tied to the "meh-hole" filter, but yes, perhaps a more generalized filtering mechanism is desired as suggested elsewhere in this thread.

"ZFS is in the WWDC Leopard build"

[toby]

And here's some notes on it, courtesy of zfs-discuss list:

I know it's a pain, but you have to spend money to download Apple's betas, that is, pay their developer fee. If, however, this might inspire you to do this, you should know that zfs will run (read and write) on the latest build of Leopard, as Apple has (somewhat cryptically) said. Apple also has a "non-disclosure" clause on their developer memberships, but they appear to have already made a number of public statements about zfs in Leopard. So, here's a generic (and clumsy) way to enable kernel extensions on a BSD system, of which Leopard is a variant (actually, it runs over a version of Darwin). And zfs is a kernel extension, and can be loaded like any other. The zpool and zfs commands below you already know if you follow this thread.

Try this in terminal:

% cd /System/Library/Extensions
% ls -alF | less # This will show you all the kernel extensions, *.kext, in a pager
[hit the space bar to page forward; on the last page you should see:
...
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... ntfs.kext/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... smbfs.kext/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... udf.kext/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... webdav_fs.kext/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 ... zfs.kext/
(END)
# hit "q"; this gets you back to the terminal
...

If you see zfs.kext, then the installer did indeed put it on your system. Then:

% sudo kextload zfs.kext
password: # enter your admin password; if that doesn't work, become root with su

You will get some error messages about the cache, probably from the files Extensions.kextcache and Extensions.mkext. But, zfs will load (at least it will on a G5 dual 2.7).

zfs, zpool, now work, and man zfs, man zpool will give you a man page.

As far as I can tell, this is the process to load a kernel extension on any BSD system, of which Mac OS X/Darwin is one (the others are FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD).

HOWEVER, be aware that finder in almost any version of OSX tries to automount every possible file system. Leopard does this as well; unlike zfs and zpool under Solaris, Leopard automounts any pool created or imported with zpool, and sets the mountpoint under /Volumes, WITHOUT running zfs create, or set mountpoint:

% zpool create zpool01 disk1

Automatically mounts in the finder and has the directory:

/Volumes/zpool01

Again, this happens WITHOUT RUNNING zfs, which is quite different from Solaris.

You will have to fiddle with permissions, and you might have to do something like:

sudo chmod -R /Volumes/zpool01 a+rwx

to make the entire pool writable (or some variant, g+rwx, etc.). But it will work.

I haven't tried using zfs quota, set mountpoint=, set share=, but set compression=on seems to work, but I don't see much compression going on.

On reboot (or after a crash, which is frequent on beta builds) the finder will, initially, not have the zfs kernel extension enabled, and will ask if you want to format the disk (or slice, or however you set it up). Click "ignore"; DO NOT FORMAT THE DISK. zfs already has, but the finder doesn't know it yet.

Repeat the kernel extension commands above. Then run:

zpool import -f poolname

You can also try zpool scrub, but I'm not sure if that helps.

You should have all the files you copied on the zfs system before the crash (but no promises; mine were, but maybe yours will not).

You can try "safe boot" with Leopard (hold down the shift key on boot), and that might disable some problematic kernel extensions.

If someone knows how to modify Extensions.kextcache and Extensions.mkext, please let me know. After t

Purdue banned Macs for years because of this

[charnov]

I was staff at Purdue when they got burned on a few hundred Mac IIvx's loaded to the gills. I believe those things were around $8,000 each with the Targa cards and Apple came out with the Quadra's at half the price and more power, memory, ect. while we were still taking delivery. A few million dolars to a public university tends to tick people off. Doing that to a top electrical engineering school is really bad. Consequently, it was years before new Macs were supported in any way (although we did have one of the first NeXT labs in the country).

Re:Purdue banned Macs for years because of this

[Lars T.]

I was staff at Purdue when they got burned on a few hundred Mac IIvx's loaded to the gills. I believe those things were around $8,000 each with the Targa cards and Apple came out with the Quadra's at half the price and more power, memory, ect. while we were still taking delivery. A few million dolars to a public university tends to tick people off. Doing that to a top electrical engineering school is really bad. Consequently, it was years before new Macs were supported in any way (although we did have one of the first NeXT labs in the country). Err, I guess you mean the IIfx, because the vx actually came out at the same time as the first Quadras.

The fx came out one and a half years before the Quadras, thinking that they wouldn't improve their top-of-the-line product after such a long time is hardly Apple's fault - esp. when the use of the 68040 was certain.

Nope, IIvx

[charnov]

No, I mean exactly what I said. Apple sales execs pimped the IIvx for months saying it was the best thing going and what we needed for our new video and graphic design labs. What pissed off Purdue was that they had the Quadras waiting to come out all along and never presented it as an option. While we were taking delivery and setting up the IIvx's, Apple announced the Quadra and it's pricing. We basically got products that were being phased out dumped on us at a premium price, screwed at both ends, and the administration still talks about it to this day.