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 391226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Yes they are nice additions, but I would have preferred the addressing of concerns like dynamic inode allocation which would have been a nice improvement over ext2/3. It's a very common problem, running out of inodes. I certainly understand the backwards compatibility reasons for that, but it's a very common and real problem nonetheless.
While I respect the need for backwards compatibility with filesystems and why new filesystems like ZFS often have a tough time, I can't help but feel we're at the end of the line.