Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 21:13 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
John Siracusa, the Mac OS X guru who writes those insanely detailed and well-written Mac OS X reviews for Ars Technica, once told a story about the evolution of the HFS+ file system in Mac OS X - he said it was a struggle between the Mac guys who wanted the features found in BeOS' BFS, and the NEXT guys who didn't really like these features. In the end, the Mac guys won, and over the course of six years, Mac OS X reached feature parity - and a little more - with the BeOS (at the FS level).
Permalink for comment 390897
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-11
...is there was a very good reason to drop ZFS. To actually announce they were going to use it was a big step. It would be interesting to hear the full details...
I say this because writing a FS isn't an easy thing, it's crazy to write one when there is already one existing. If there was functionality they wanted, it would be easier to add it to ZFS then to start from scratch...
Apple use Unix, OpenGL / PDF, OpenCL, OpenAL, CUPS, gcc, llvm, Webkit and the list goes on and on. Most of these have been improved by Apple and given back to the community. Apple also benefit greatly from the community, it's like having thousands of extra coders on the payroll, but you don't have to pay them.
From what I have seen, they don't re-invent the wheel anymore unless they see a need, there is no point. No company does (well, shouldn't). Usually the "need" my elude us or be closely attached to revenue, but it's still a "need".
So, I would guess they are either looking at something else, or cooking their own. If they are cooking their own, you can bet it will be a lot better than HFS+. Better than ZFS, I seriously doubt that (but we can hope)...