Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 21:13 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Thread beginning with comment 390815
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2006-10-08
Some years ago, I read in a german forum that someone "does not like the Linux file system because the pictures are too big" - obviously refering to some icons in some file manager. :-)
This shows one thing: Users aren't interested in file systems per se, in most cases they don't even know what a file system is, or they confuse the term with something else. Users are just interested in what benefits a particular file system gives them, and those who "give them" the file systems (along with operating systems they sell) should promote advantages of the file systems they use according to what it means to their specific target audience. Apple's Mac OS X is primarily targeted to the home market and the professional workstation market, not to server farms or heavy virtualization sites.
Legacy.
I was always fine with UFS2, but do honestly prefer ZFS as its follower in BSD and Solaris. Buf for Mac OS X, it's highly debatable if ZFS or UFS2 are the best choice, remembering the fact that the target audience's interests primarily indicate what to develop (and to sell), given specific characteristics of hardware used, as well as the settings in which it is used.
Blind OS fanatism seems to be a result of excellently working marketing. This is applyable to the same folks who demand MICROS~1 "Office" on every platform and who cry for "Photoshop" on Linux. Often, the same folks have pirated copies of everything they use. :-)