Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.
You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.
See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.
10/25/09
10/25/09
2. Sun is soon to be owned by Oracle, which is in the midst of developing BTRFS - an open source file-system with many of ZFS's strengths and lacking a few of the weaknesses. Some feel BTRFS will be the default LINUX file system before too long.
3. BTRFS is not yet finished - which means it's not yet ready for a commercial OS, but also leaves room for tweaking and adding before it is "final".
4. Apple wants a modern file system now, but will _need_ a modern file system soon.
5. Jobs and Ellison are friends.
I'm guessing that Apple has abandoned ZFS for BTRFS, saving them a potential lawsuit (if NetApp wins or settles) and allowing them to increase their interoperability with future *nix distros. We'll know for sure if Apple employees start popping up on the BTRFS mailing lists... #leopard
10/25/09
10/25/09
Not very open source friendly, but well within their realm of legal rights.
10/25/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
08/31/09
1) They underestimated the work getting it fully integrated; not just 'there if you know how to get to it', but fully productized and easy enough for their audience to use. And taking into account all the new failure and configuration paths.
2) It's not really something blingy that they can explain to most of their customer base. How many people are using their MacBook or iMac and going 'dang, this file system is really just adequate' and tossing the OS in disgust?
3) So they just never had enough manpower to dedicate to it full time when they could have those people working on something else like MMS in the iPhone or the iTablet or a thousand other things. The best people for this job would have been the ones who were desperately trying to get 10.6 out and had their hands full of other stuff like the Finder rewrite.
08/31/09
09/01/09
Argument #3 doesn't quite make sense, since Apple keeps their project teams so discrete.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Apple wouldn't have to worry so much about GPL since still owns the Darwin kernel and can license it under whatever it wants.
Also it can just write the file system support as a kmod and not link it in directly (just means you can't boot from ZFS file system).
08/31/09
08/31/09
-------------------------------------------------
In 2008, Apple announced that we would see ZFS as part of Snow Leopard Server, but a year later our copies are shipping with ZFS nowhere to be found.
-------------------------------------------------
see that part about Snow Leopard SERVER........
08/31/09
08/31/09
Actually It slipped my mind by the time I got to the end of it.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
"ZFS" became "ZDF" half way through.
08/31/09
Thanks for the catch, fixed.
08/31/09