profssrfink

melgross said:

mac_128 said:

This news probably scares me more than anything. I'm still not over MFS to HFS. ;-)

Glad to see it coming, but yikes. I'm afraid they will push it out faster than it's ready. A file system is the last place I want bugs. There is something to be said for stability in some areas. 

No doubt they've been working on this for years. A ways back, Apple was contributing to ZFS, which was a file system developed by Sun. We fully expected Apple to move to that years ago. But when Oracle bought Sun, the licensing for ZFS became convoluted, and Apple backed away. I expect that Apple immediately began to look elsewhere. Apparently, APFS is a wholly Apple developed file system that shares at least some characteristics of ZFS. We don't know a whole lot yet, but expect to know a lot more tomorrow after the initial seminar.

john Siricosa, who is an expert on these things, and who analyses Apple's OS, and who has been a major voice behind Apple getting a new file system, seems to be very enthusiastic right now. I'm really looking forward to finding out more tomorrow, and when available, getting my hands on Apple's technical papers on this.

Agreed. COW is a ZFS trait for sure, but Im guessing Apple modified the hell out of it to suit a mobile OS, memory limitations and fragmentation. ZFS isn't for your typical user desktop. I don't think people even used it as such, although Ubuntu 16.1 LTS seems to have embraced ZFS on Linux so much so it included it in the Kernel. I use it for servers and its great.


Apple had to move on from HFS+. Microsoft is moving to a newer, faster FS focused on virtualization. NTFS will phase out over the next few years. Apple's focus will definitely be cloud and mobile. So a compressible, encryptable FS that spans all devices AND their backend infrastructure is the only way to normalize performance and keep a laser focus on its development.

Im no fan of how Google generates revenue. But the EU is constantly sticking its neck into realms that it probably shouldn't. in this case Google is right. They develop Android, and should have a very strong say as to what can be done with it. Using Android is completely volunteer so I don't see how this is a legitimate gripe with phone OEMs. if you don't like the rules make your own OS and market it. otherwise, resolve your beef with Google directly. if someone wants to choose a different search engine then they need to follow the steps to make changes or download Apps that allow them to bypass google's search. If they don't like that because it limits some functionality of the OS, too bad. Go use another OS or live with the workaround. Google does not owe anyone an apology for their business model. Google's only real stream of revenue is Ad sales, so no wonder they try and dominate the home screens with THEIR search. I cant blame them for that. Concerning some of the other complaints about how Google treats search results, thats another story, and it sounds like there are very legitimate gripes about that. But in this world you need to pay to play. Isn't my favorite model, but its Google's and they are free to make that decision IMO.

AI please include some sort of benchmark next time you use the word Shootout. This was a spec comparison found at apple.com Pretty pathetic writing.

I just downloaded 9.3 and the features listed in your article are not part of this release. 3d touch functions have not changed and the size of the update was ~300 MB, not 1.5GB

"I'm usually on the side of tech companies but I really feel Apple is in the wrong here. and 18 others." and without justification you're opinion is about as useless as a football bat.