"APFS has issues with Fusion Drives": News. "OMFG! Apple is gonna make their beta testers reformat their drives! WTF, Apple, not supporting their own drives!": Not News.
I gotta admit, I was kind of curious what APFS did with Fusion drives...
Obviously nothing TOO bad; because those people were happily running APFS-formatted Fusion Drives in the Beta.
I believe it's just because Apple does not want to roll-out APFS support on any drive that has a spinning-rust component. Not because of anything "bad"; but because the Performance Optimizations have so far been concentrated on SSD/Flash performance.
Spinning-Rust optimizations will come later, probably with either a Point release in High Sierra, or the next major macOS release.
Or not forcing them to do a complete Fileystem transfer - Windows hasn't for 25 years and still works because why should it care (it'll default to a sane choice, of course)?
That's because Windows USES a 25 year old Filesystem, because THEIR "new Filesystem" is still QUITE lame:
It is nice when nasty things don't happen to you that require a vendor to fall back to disclaimers. It's not the norm for beta testers to get fucked over like this. Yes, Apple is covered from liability. Their shortcomings can fuck over their beta testers without Apple having any liability.
Are you satisfied, now that your assertion has been fully fleshed out?
How is that fusion drive any better than just having a smaller, primary SSD and a large secondary spinning platter disk?
Because the OS manages all this behind the scenes, transparent to the user. The user sees it as one Drive. This allows stuff like the "Applications" Folder to actually have some Applications on the Flash portion, and others on the spinning-rust portion (and maybe that mix will even change over time, as the system watches usage profiles), but to the User, ALL the Applications are in "One Place".
fusion drive a hard disk drive with a NAND flash storage. this has been around for nearly a decade and exists in MAC as a cost savings measure at the expense of performance and is best suited toward mac customers as the moniker is far more critical to them than any demonstrable value.
The Hate is strong in this one!
You, sir, are both ignorant AND idiotic. Fusion Drives are a PERFORMANCE-centric improvement, NOT a "Cost-Savings Measure".
It's news because the OS / filesystem cares is incompatible with a storage device because it has flash cache baked in.
WTF kind of sense does that make? The OS / filesystem shouldn't know or care!
In the PC world, hybrid drives, or "SSHD"s, are completely abstracted away. They're just another fucking storage device and the firmware tries to speed some shit up on its own.
Apparently for the Mac world, this isn't the case.
If you had bothered to watch the Keynote a few years ago, when the Fusion Drive concept was introduced, you would already know that, unlike idiot Windows and idiot Linux, macOS knows what to do with the Fusion Drive, and the OS makes intelligent decisions, based on usage, as to what data is moved to the Flash portion, and what data is kept/moved on the spinning-rust portion, of the drive. This results in MUCH better performance overall.
It's okay to upgrade. Just pray you were not one of the beta testers who 'upgraded' a drive that was not well backed up.
And if you are doing that without taking the drop-dead-simple step of making a Time Machine backup first, you deserve just EXACTLY what you get, sorry!
Apple's new operating system does not support a feature that they currently sell at a premium because they don't offer large flash drives. That's a significant failure on their part and affects many people who should read this article as advice not to upgrade.
That's news.
Oh, shut the FUCK up! You have NO idea what you are blathering about; but ARE the reason Slashdot ran a story about a problem with a BETA Installer Script on a BETA OS Version, FFS!
no kidding, i am not "up" grading to high sierra until i see that bug fixed.
also it is mind-bogglingly stupid to have a "high sierra" disk format when we already have a "high sierra" disk format (aka ISO 9660). there are literally thousands of names they could have used. it's like including a built-in database called "oracle."
I for one am curious what the bug is that would affect fusion drives but not pure flash storage. Especially since the bug apparently wasn't caught until very late within the beta process.
It's not a "Bug". The focus on APFS Optimizations so far have been on SSD/Flash storage; not Spinning Rust nor Hybrid (Fusion) Drives. That will come later.
The plan with High Sierra was to automatically convert ONLY SSD Boot Volumes. All else were to be left as HFS+ for now.
If I had to guess, the Fusion Drives reported their capabilities in some way that "tricked" the installer into treating it as an SSD Drive, thus converting it to APFS.
So, if there was a "bug", it was a bug in the Installer Script, NOT in APFS itself.
It is news because some people with Fusion Drives expected to be upgraded to the new release and the new filesystem, but now won't. They may be developers, integrators, or whatever, and this lets them know that APFS is delayed for their kit until later.
Which is why you get what you deserve if you install a Beta on a "production" (or your personal) machine.
Why is this even news? A feature in a beta version of software got cut for the GM. Happens all the time. Any idiot can read between the lines and understands that there's a bug in APFS for fusion drives, and rather than delay the release, Apple is just disabling it on fusion drives until a point update down the line.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
It's "news" because anything that can POSSIBLY be "spun" to be negative IN ANY WAY about Apple is grist for the click-mill that is Slashdot.
Apple was the first to make it fashionable to ban init
They didn't make it "Fashionable". They fucking INVENTED it (launchd) in 2005! And then Open Sourced it. But the FOSSies couldn't just accept a gift from Apple. They just HAD to go and fuck it all up. In a LOT of ways, the abomination that is systemd is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the entire F/OSS "Community".
BTW, macOS has been using launchd essentially trouble-free intstead of that retarded init since 10.4 (Tiger). IOW, WELL over a decade.
All MacOSX is is a dumbed down GUI on top of a Mac kernel. It is not Unix like in spirit more than SystemD is.
"Dumbed-down GUI"? YOU write it!
Not Unix? Sorry. OS X/macOS has been a CERTIFIED Unix since at least 10.5 (around 2007), and maybe even before. Wake me when Linux of ANY flavor is a Certified Unix...
...Samba or rather a strange proprietary fork of Samba
Again, bullshit, at least sort of. Apple got rid of SAMBA because it had become a dumpster-fire of unmitigated proportions, and, because it became GPLv3, which Apple will not abide. They wrote their own SAMBA replacement, whiich, after a couple of revs, is stable enough and full-featured enough that they actually have DEPRECATED their own AFP sharing system in favor of SMB.
I don't know about you; but this seems to be a standard version of Apache, and it shipped with macOS Sierra, which is still the current version of the OS:
I'm no Apple user so I don't know about Keynote. But for ensuring compatibility, I make sure that my wife's PowerPoint presentations are all converted to PDF.
Keynote (like almost ALL Applications on macOS), can easily output to PDF. PDF support is (and always has been) built into the OS itself.
There is no good software for presentations on Linux that compares to Keynote or PowerPoint.
I've found this to be true only at very extreme levels of flashiness where razzle and dazzle are more important than content, and you want people paying attention to the special effects rather than the point you're trying to get across, if there even is one.
The most probable scenario for this, in my own experience, is suits selling expensive stuff to suits... stuff that the salesman doesn't really understand and the prospective buyer maybe isn't capable of understanding.
Short of that, if you, you know, actually want to get a message across, Linux has all sorts of excellent options.
Linux people are even more clueless about "polish" than Windows people.
If you're running a conference and you want people to present on your computer, then macOS makes the most sense. It can happily be configured to display PowerPoint, Keynote, {Libre,Open}Office, Google Docs, or PDF presentations and can be tested with all of these in advance. Any other platform is going to lose at least one of these options and end up with cranky speakers sulking that they can't use their fancy animations. Of course, PowerPoint doesn't embed fonts by default anymore, so the PowerPoint slide decks will look crappy if they use any custom fonts...
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on how you interpret it.
"APFS has issues with Fusion Drives": News.
"OMFG! Apple is gonna make their beta testers reformat their drives! WTF, Apple, not supporting their own drives!": Not News.
I gotta admit, I was kind of curious what APFS did with Fusion drives...
Obviously nothing TOO bad; because those people were happily running APFS-formatted Fusion Drives in the Beta.
I believe it's just because Apple does not want to roll-out APFS support on any drive that has a spinning-rust component. Not because of anything "bad"; but because the Performance Optimizations have so far been concentrated on SSD/Flash performance.
Spinning-Rust optimizations will come later, probably with either a Point release in High Sierra, or the next major macOS release.
Or not forcing them to do a complete Fileystem transfer - Windows hasn't for 25 years and still works because why should it care (it'll default to a sane choice, of course)?
That's because Windows USES a 25 year old Filesystem, because THEIR "new Filesystem" is still QUITE lame:
https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
If there was no possibility of the beta testers being fucked over like this, you wouldn't need to do a beta.
It's a beta ffs. Of course this could happen. No software vendor in the world makes guarantees like the ones you are asking for in beta test.
A-Frickin'-Men!!!
It is nice when nasty things don't happen to you that require a vendor to fall back to disclaimers. It's not the norm for beta testers to get fucked over like this. Yes, Apple is covered from liability. Their shortcomings can fuck over their beta testers without Apple having any liability.
Are you satisfied, now that your assertion has been fully fleshed out?
You're welcome.
That's what Time Machine is for.
FFS, people!
That's what happens when you join a beta. The vendor learns things, fixes bugs, delays features, and makes changes.
I mean seriously. Not trying to be a troll. How is this news?
Because Apple News = Clickbait for Apple-Haters...
Delivering an half-baked new file system.
Not "half-baked".
Rather, "In its early stages; but still a significant improvement for SSD/Flash storage".
I only recommend SSHDs if you have a laptop (which typically use 5400 RPM drives)
And when Fusion Drives were introduced, that's exactly what Apple was using as a default in their laptops.
Oh, and what one computer-type is Apple's most popular?
How is that fusion drive any better than just having a smaller, primary SSD and a large secondary spinning platter disk?
Because the OS manages all this behind the scenes, transparent to the user. The user sees it as one Drive. This allows stuff like the "Applications" Folder to actually have some Applications on the Flash portion, and others on the spinning-rust portion (and maybe that mix will even change over time, as the system watches usage profiles), but to the User, ALL the Applications are in "One Place".
Actually, it's fairly clever.
fusion drive a hard disk drive with a NAND flash storage. this has been around for nearly a decade and exists in MAC as a cost savings measure at the expense of performance and is best suited toward mac customers as the moniker is far more critical to them than any demonstrable value.
The Hate is strong in this one!
You, sir, are both ignorant AND idiotic. Fusion Drives are a PERFORMANCE-centric improvement, NOT a "Cost-Savings Measure".
So suck it, moron.
It's news because the OS / filesystem cares is incompatible with a storage device because it has flash cache baked in.
WTF kind of sense does that make? The OS / filesystem shouldn't know or care!
In the PC world, hybrid drives, or "SSHD"s, are completely abstracted away. They're just another fucking storage device and the firmware tries to speed some shit up on its own.
Apparently for the Mac world, this isn't the case.
If you had bothered to watch the Keynote a few years ago, when the Fusion Drive concept was introduced, you would already know that, unlike idiot Windows and idiot Linux, macOS knows what to do with the Fusion Drive, and the OS makes intelligent decisions, based on usage, as to what data is moved to the Flash portion, and what data is kept/moved on the spinning-rust portion, of the drive. This results in MUCH better performance overall.
Except apple has a history of planned obsolescence. There's no guarantee they will actually do a point update.
You're an idiot.
It's okay to upgrade. Just pray you were not one of the beta testers who 'upgraded' a drive that was not well backed up.
And if you are doing that without taking the drop-dead-simple step of making a Time Machine backup first, you deserve just EXACTLY what you get, sorry!
Apple's new operating system does not support a feature that they currently sell at a premium because they don't offer large flash drives. That's a significant failure on their part and affects many people who should read this article as advice not to upgrade.
That's news.
Oh, shut the FUCK up! You have NO idea what you are blathering about; but ARE the reason Slashdot ran a story about a problem with a BETA Installer Script on a BETA OS Version, FFS!
no kidding, i am not "up" grading to high sierra until i see that bug fixed.
also it is mind-bogglingly stupid to have a "high sierra" disk format when we already have a "high sierra" disk format (aka ISO 9660). there are literally thousands of names they could have used. it's like including a built-in database called "oracle."
You're an idiot.
I for one am curious what the bug is that would affect fusion drives but not pure flash storage. Especially since the bug apparently wasn't caught until very late within the beta process.
It's not a "Bug". The focus on APFS Optimizations so far have been on SSD/Flash storage; not Spinning Rust nor Hybrid (Fusion) Drives. That will come later.
The plan with High Sierra was to automatically convert ONLY SSD Boot Volumes. All else were to be left as HFS+ for now.
If I had to guess, the Fusion Drives reported their capabilities in some way that "tricked" the installer into treating it as an SSD Drive, thus converting it to APFS.
So, if there was a "bug", it was a bug in the Installer Script, NOT in APFS itself.
Translation: "I don't want to hear about it. It's bad news about Apple and I don't want you to hear it, either."
Sorry to diasppoint you.
It's NOT "Bad News". It's news about a Beta release.
Nothing more. Slashdot is just trying to MAKE IT "Bad News".
It is news because some people with Fusion Drives expected to be upgraded to the new release and the new filesystem, but now won't. They may be developers, integrators, or whatever, and this lets them know that APFS is delayed for their kit until later.
Which is why you get what you deserve if you install a Beta on a "production" (or your personal) machine.
Why is this even news? A feature in a beta version of software got cut for the GM. Happens all the time. Any idiot can read between the lines and understands that there's a bug in APFS for fusion drives, and rather than delay the release, Apple is just disabling it on fusion drives until a point update down the line.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
It's "news" because anything that can POSSIBLY be "spun" to be negative IN ANY WAY about Apple is grist for the click-mill that is Slashdot.
I bow to your much greater knowledge.
Very interesting! You OBVIOUSLY have paid FAR more attention to the subject of ARM Licensees that I have!!!
Thanks for the Edjumication!
Wake me up when the LS command can show hidden files and folders without crazy hacks that go away after you restart the terminal program.
Um, it's really hard, I know: Try typing "ls -a". See, done!
http://www.mactrast.com/2011/1...
Inet last I looked had a program called netinfo
macOS (OS X) hasn't used NetInfo in, well, in a VERY long time. Like TWELVE years...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Apple was the first to make it fashionable to ban init
They didn't make it "Fashionable". They fucking INVENTED it (launchd) in 2005! And then Open Sourced it. But the FOSSies couldn't just accept a gift from Apple. They just HAD to go and fuck it all up. In a LOT of ways, the abomination that is systemd is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the entire F/OSS "Community".
BTW, macOS has been using launchd essentially trouble-free intstead of that retarded init since 10.4 (Tiger). IOW, WELL over a decade.
Read it and weep:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All MacOSX is is a dumbed down GUI on top of a Mac kernel. It is not Unix like in spirit more than SystemD is.
"Dumbed-down GUI"? YOU write it!
Not Unix? Sorry. OS X/macOS has been a CERTIFIED Unix since at least 10.5 (around 2007), and maybe even before. Wake me when Linux of ANY flavor is a Certified Unix...
https://www.infoworld.com/arti...
In Unix everything is a text file so you can use the terminal tools. Not so in MacOSX.
In macOS, most config files are a flavor of xml, which is a flavor of text.
I know some people can run mysql under MacOSX but is it easy to install?
Yep. I found and used a one-click Installer that gave me an entire LAMP (well, XAMP) stack in just a few minutes.
Ah, here's one now...
https://www.macupdate.com/app/...
Next!
Is the XCode free?
Yep. Has been since OS X 10.0.0. They no longer include it on the Install Disc (but you can get it here) :
http://www.mactrast.com/2011/1...
Apple got rid of CUPS
Bullshit. Apple purchased CUPS in 2007, and STILL kept it Open Source!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
...Samba or rather a strange proprietary fork of Samba
Again, bullshit, at least sort of. Apple got rid of SAMBA because it had become a dumpster-fire of unmitigated proportions, and, because it became GPLv3, which Apple will not abide. They wrote their own SAMBA replacement, whiich, after a couple of revs, is stable enough and full-featured enough that they actually have DEPRECATED their own AFP sharing system in favor of SMB.
http://appleinsider.com/articl...
...a strange proprietary fork of [...], Apache...
I don't know about you; but this seems to be a standard version of Apache, and it shipped with macOS Sierra, which is still the current version of the OS:
https://medium.com/@JohnFodera...
And the version is ships with it (2.4.23) is also reasonabl
I guess that explains Tim Cook and the complete lack of updates for some Macs, laughable updates for others and for-the-rich-only Macs.
Wow! Off-Topic much?
I'm no Apple user so I don't know about Keynote. But for ensuring compatibility, I make sure that my wife's PowerPoint presentations are all converted to PDF.
Keynote (like almost ALL Applications on macOS), can easily output to PDF. PDF support is (and always has been) built into the OS itself.
His ORGANIZATION is the Linux Foundation, does no one there use Linux on their desktop?
Don't dangle that kind of phrase out... You're REALLY asking for it!
But, I'll be nice. This time. ;-)
There is no good software for presentations on Linux that compares to Keynote or PowerPoint.
I've found this to be true only at very extreme levels of flashiness where razzle and dazzle are more important than content, and you want people paying attention to the special effects rather than the point you're trying to get across, if there even is one.
The most probable scenario for this, in my own experience, is suits selling expensive stuff to suits ... stuff that the salesman doesn't really understand and the prospective buyer maybe isn't capable of understanding.
Short of that, if you, you know, actually want to get a message across, Linux has all sorts of excellent options.
Linux people are even more clueless about "polish" than Windows people.
And that's saying something...
If you're running a conference and you want people to present on your computer, then macOS makes the most sense. It can happily be configured to display PowerPoint, Keynote, {Libre,Open}Office, Google Docs, or PDF presentations and can be tested with all of these in advance. Any other platform is going to lose at least one of these options and end up with cranky speakers sulking that they can't use their fancy animations. Of course, PowerPoint doesn't embed fonts by default anymore, so the PowerPoint slide decks will look crappy if they use any custom fonts...
EXACTLY!