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).
Thread beginning with comment 390974
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-03-26
Actually, ZFS would be ideal for media professionals who use OS X.
Think about musicians or sound engineers who deal with files that are hundreds of megabytes in size. Rather than having dozens of copies of the same file taking up gigabytes of diskspace, ZFS would just store the differences.
Plus support for software RAIDing would make recording of ultra high quality audio a breeze where currently latency is often an issue.
ZFS also has native support for compression (which is ideal when your a media professional and frequently handling data that can't be lossy compressed)
ZFS also doesn't require defraging nor scandisk/fsck'ing - which is in line of Apple whole philosophy (as in "it just works")
And lets not forget the improvements to Time Capsule (as already mentioned).
ZFS could have been an awesome addition to OS X and a valued asset for media professionals who regularly work with high resolution samples.