Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 21:13 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Mac OS X 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).
Thread beginning with comment 390815
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

If you want to know what a good file System is, you ask people who care about file systems.


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.

Microsoft has no choice NTFS or FAT32 is a no brainier.


Legacy.

Apple HFS+ or UFS no brainier.


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.

Linux ext4 vs reiserfs vs XFS vs btrfs. That's competition that requires people to evaluate file systems based on independent benchmarks as opposed to blind os fanaticism.


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. :-)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 6