Apple Confirms No (Default) ZFS In Leopard 362
javipas writes "Despite recent rumors about the possible inclusion of ZFS as the filesystem of choice for MacOS X 10.5 'Leopard', an Apple executive has denied this possibility. Brian Croll, senior director of product marketing for the Mac OS has as much as said 'ZFS is not happening ... Croll declined to comment on statements made last week by Sun Chief Executive Jonathan Schwartz, who said the use of ZFS would be announced at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Upon further questioning, Croll would only confirm that Apple had never said ZFS would be a part of Leopard. A representative with Sun did not have any immediate comment.' Users of the future operating system will have to keep working with HFS+, a filesystem that is almost ten years old now." Update: 06/12 19:57 GMT by KD : An Apple spokesman contacted InformationWeek with a correction, which they ran as a comment on their original story: What Apple meant to say was, "ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system."
Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jonathan *had* to know he might get burned for spilling the beans before Steve. Jobs has a track record of being harsh, almost vindictive in his dealings with companies which betray his trust.
Exhibit A [insanely-great.com]: Samsung runs their mouth about being selected to supply software to drive the next-gen iPod Nano. Apple turns around and drops them.
Exhibit B [geek.com]: ATI runs their mouth about some specs for new macs before Macworld. Apple removes ATI boards from their computers and refuses to offer them as a build-to-order.
Simply put, don't try to scoop The Steve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:4, Insightful)
spelling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Interesting)
ATI runs their mouth about some specs for new macs before Macworld. Apple removes ATI boards from their computers and refuses to offer them as a build-to-order.
Which really underscores the stupidity of Steve's arrogance. I'm sure ATI wanted that contract, it was a nice contract, but Apple is NOTHING in the great scheme of the PC market. And there aren't that many major players in the high-end graphic chip game. Why play the prima donna, when he might have to deal with them in the future?
Considering ATI's drivers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because Apple stock is so low compared to when he took charge.
Let's see, Apple is about 5% of the graphics card market share. ATI has about 25% of the market right now, so they would represent a 20% increase in sales for ATI, hmmm, I think that might be worth a little bit of work to get the contract. Gee what do we have to do to manage such a contract... not violate our confidentiality agreement, that does sound pretty hard.
There are enough so that Apple has a few choices.
If people violate your trust and undermine your market position, why would you keep doing business with them? If, at some point in the future Apple does do business with ATI again, do you think ATI will take keeping things confidential seriously or do you think they'll stupidly lose a giant contract while gaining nothing again? What about all of Apple's other suppliers for components? Do you think they will take confidentiality seriously? By punishing ATI, Apple showed they were serious and would not put up with that kind of stupidity. Now their statements to suppliers are credible instead of hot air.
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jobs has done well with the company, but that doesn't mean his arrogance hasn't hurt the company or that the arrogance is stupid.
One of Jobs major methods of promoting the company is through secrecy and well timed manipulation of the press. Anyone can claim that the move he made hurt the company, but there is no easy way to show it on paper, since it was a long-term strategic move. Thus, you have to judge based upon the overall results.
There's no doubt that Steve Jobs has been a great asset, but that doesn't mean he's above criticism (or SEC regulations).
Of course he can be criticized and should be, but I've seen no convincing argument he should be criticized for this particular move. He stood behind his agreement and his partner did not, so he du
Apple are lame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If? The issue with Jobs dropping ATI occurred in 2000. Apple has been dealing with ATI for several years now (though since the AMD/ATI merger, Apple seems to be using NVidia GPUs in new products).
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hubris often leads to poor decisions. An arrogant prick who is always right is a hero -- until he's wrong.
Jobs has done alot of great stuff -- he's a visionary who has beaten cancer and grown an amazing company at the same time. That doesn't mean that he's infallible. The obsession with secrecy costs Apple alot of business -- there are today enterprises that would purchase thousands of Macs, but the needless obsession with secrecy and refusal to listen to some customer desires hurts the company in the long run.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although it's more like Apple holds 2% market share and Ati 50%.
Do a quick Google search for their relative market shares. Apple has 4-7% of the US market sales. ATI has 22-26% of US market sales. If you want to look at global market sales, Apple drops to 3% and ATI drops to 8%, since globally the high end market makes up a much smaller chunk of that market then it does in the US, with on the board solutions predominating.
Now before you waste my time with redefining the market definition to exclude on the board solutions, remember that is the percentage computers we'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly true. Apple is one of the largest PC manufacturers (and was when they dropped ATI as well). Their OS share may be low, but they are a big hardware maker. (Fourth largest in the September quarter last year: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6127255.html?t a g=nl [zdnet.com]).
For an OS comparison, a Dell is the same as an Acer is the same a HP. But as for hardware, these are all different.
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Haven't you learned anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, ZFS is probably not important enough for Apple to punish Sun over a set of flapping gums. If you want a better conspiracy theory, perhaps Apple was testing Sun to see if they could keep a secret. The answer is "No."
Really, though, everybody knows ZFS is interesting, and Apple is porting it to Mac OS X. It's quite likely that nobody at Apple knows when or if ZFS on Mac OS X will be mature enough to become a candidate for replacing the default filesystem. It probably won't happen before October, but that's not to say it will never happen.
Are you sure about your data? (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, I think people are getting crazy reactionary, assuming that the gaffe by SUN was responsible for ZFS not making Leopard.
There's no way to know if it was even in there before anyway.
And besides, Leopard was delayed by 6 months back in March. When you delay a product, you don't go adding new features to it, it'll just make the schedule longer. You might in fact defer features you were thinking of adding, like ZFS. It reduces the work to be done and helps shorten the schedule, keeping you closer to the original date.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how Jonathan got burned. Sure, it'd look good for Sun to have ZFS integrated into Mac OS X, but at the end of the day it doesn't really do much for them. If anyone got screwed, it's the end-users. That's if Steve really did decide to pull it based on Jonathan's comments.
I'm not convinced ZFS support is far enough along to be included in Leopard.
Apparently, the work they've done is still in the WWDC beta build [opensolaris.org].
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Insightful)
PREVIOUS POST [slashdot.org]
Wow, 10 years old?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Certain filesystems have been around forever, gaining incremental improvements with the years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow, 10 years old?! (Score:4, Informative)
...and HFS+ is just an incremental update from HFS - adding stuff like journaling and support for larger drives, long unicode file names, and some unixisms like inodes and /dev and hard links and case sensitivity.
So you can really say that HFS+ is almost 22 years old now. [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Problems with old file systems (Score:2, Funny)
Old file systems also have other problem. They are always repeating themselves and losing things, they get cranky all the time, and telling stories that go nowhere instead of simply reading and writing. And they start to get this weird smell.
Ooookaaaay... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because a file system is something that should definitely be re-designed every two years or so. You know, just to stay "current"...
Re: (Score:2)
He'll eventually die from trying to upgrade to a more modern metabolism instead of this crappy carbon/oxygen system, a system MUCH older than HFS+.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad it was javipas that wrote that and not Zonk, otherwise your rant might have meant something. I find it very sad that someone who's been here for so long still can't figure out which parts of the summary are user-submitted and which parts are editorial commentary.
Re:Ooookaaaay... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any doubt that ZFS would provide superior functionality as compared to HFS+?
Are there any drawbacks to using ZFS as a replacement for HFS+?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which Macheads, exactly.
Sun is shipping it (Score:3, Insightful)
Their core business is very expensive hardware and software for demanding users: banks and the likes.
If you've gotta give the benefit of the doubt to someone in this area, it's gotta be Sun.
Senior Director of Product Marketing (Score:5, Funny)
Retribution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Retribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retribution (Score:4, Insightful)
This really doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple have had tens of thousands of nVidia cards, something that otherwise they wouldn't be using, just sitting around?
Re:Retribution (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is simply retaliatory and not a readiness issue, then Apple is seriously undermining its own products in favor of PR. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't much matter if Samsung coded solutions for Apple or someone else did it, and it didn't particularly matter if ATI made the video cards or Nvidia, these companies can be switched out rather interchangeably. However, ZFS is a giant step forward in file systems and has loads more features than anything else, ripping it out just because they "spilled the beans" would be babyish and hostile. Any logical mind would reason that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison of retaliation as there's no similar vendor. It's most likely a readiness issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed.
Err...no he didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Croll declined to comment on statements made last week by Sun Chief Executive Jonathan Schwartz, who said the use of ZFS would be announced at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Upon further questioning, Croll would only confirm that Apple had never said ZFS would be a part of Leopard."
That reads like "would neither confirm nor deny to our reporter" to me, not "has denied".
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Err...no he didn't. (Score:4, Informative)
What he declined to comment on was the comment made by the Sun executive, but he did comment on ZFS itself.
Apple Confirms No Confirmation of ZFS in Leopard (Score:2)
Also, they have no comment on what that other guy said.
What the cat said (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously they haven't said anything about ZFS being included, but that doesn't imply they aren't including it. Sun might just have said something they weren't supposed to, or ZFS might just have been considered for inclusion. Who knows...
ZFS looks great but. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're having CPU issues with ZFS, you're in the HD video business, in which case you'll have a dual CPU machine any
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The other issue people aren't thinking about is making older Mac apps work on the new fil
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The easiest way for Apple to use ZFS would be to simply use the interface that appears to be a block device and pop HFS+ on top of it. This would let them take
What's wrong with HFS+? (Score:2)
Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon (Score:5, Informative)
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 Jun 4 20:48 zfs.readonly.kext
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering all the talk about how Apple retalliates against people who cross them, don't you think you out to abide by the Non-Disclosure Agreement you entered into when you received that Leopard build?
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, I am somewhat disappointed by this announcement. HFS+ isn't terrible, but as far as modern file systems go, it's pretty unremarkable (and every bit as poorly supported as NTFS).
HFS is older though (Score:2)
Well, we can wait a bit longer for ZFS. If you can't wait, grab a Solaris 10, [sun.com] Solaris Express, [sun.com] or OpenSolaris [opensolaris.org] distribution and start playing today! I'm not comfortable committing precious data to anything else.
One day most of our day-to-day filesystems will incorporate the ideas in ZFS [opensolaris.org] - one or two have been seen before, but never in su
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Linux (Score:2)
Unless Linus and everyone else decide to move to v3
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's not ready! (Score:2)
It probably WAS in Leopard until June 6th... (Score:2)
My first thought when Jonathan Schwartz announced that ZFS would be the file system in Leopard [arstechnica.com] was that now there was a really danger that Jobs might cancel it, just out of spite... and the prove the leaker wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's more likely is that there were technical troubles getting it to work with the rest of the OS that couldn't be fixed or worked around before the release date. As others have noted [slashdot.org], the support for Z
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction Coming: ZFS to be available (sort of) (Score:5, Interesting)
An Apple spokesperson seeking to clarify Croll's statement indicated that ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system."
Further detail:
It's only available as a read only option from the command line.
We're still trying to find out what this means, but a correction is coming.
Jives with editorial comments on TFA (Score:4, Informative)
The story is not accurate. (Score:4, Informative)
As to the news, it seems that Croll mispoke a couple of times when asked about ZFS in Leopard. Despite direct questions about Sun CEO Schwartz's claims that ZFS is there, Croll flatly denied the reports to two of our reporters in a 1:1 interview.
An Apple spokesperson called us Tuesday seeking to clarify Croll's statement. Croll was apparently supposed to indicate that ZFS would be available as a limited option, but not as the default file system."
We are now writing a separate story to note Apple's mis-statement and hopefully to reveal more about how ZFS would work in Leopard.
We'll update you here when that story is live.
Michael Singer
InformationWeek - West Coast Editor
case sensitivity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
;)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as Fedora 7 goes, I had a single rescue CD I installed from and then everything else just comes in as needed from the net. No "hunting down a different ISO for each and every nuance of processor". I haven't had to compile anything (including getting MP3s, DVDs and other non-free things working).
Re: (Score:2)
However, it seems that if 64 bit operations were implemented as calls to a global table, the cost wouldn't be unreasonably high. It would certainly be slower than code actually tuned for 32-bit CPUs, and it would also have some impa
Re: (Score:2)
For each nuance of processor? hmm, 32 vs 64 bit not really what i would call a nuance.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft could take some tips from Apple to make their OS more global. First they should declare Windows will no longer on Dells, HPs, eMachines, SONYs, Toshibas and several hundred other vendors. It will only run on Microsoft's branded machines that will have nice features but cost a little more than they used to.
That should make it easier to make Windows compatible with as many machines
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unsupported drivers is not a good excuse, WORKING drivers is what matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea - let's go after the business model which holds 5% market share and try to be more like them... Honestly, hate or love Microsoft, their model's worked for them so far. Apple might be nibbling at their heels, but there's certain price barriers that Apple just doesn't understand. I can drop $500 and get a pretty kick-ass Windows box. I think $500 gets me an iPhone.
But my post will never see the light of day as I'll be seen as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, there are only 3 versions of Fedora. i386, x86_64, and PPC. So Leopard only has Fedora beat by 1 edition.
Re:Mac OS X Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost as unprecedented as a Mac zealot making hilariously inaccurate technical claims because they simply don't understand what they're talking about, but don't see that a justification for keeping their mouths shut.
Come October, Mac OS X will serve everyone with one price, one version, one install: one vision of simple 64-bit desktop goodness.
I made a deal with a hitman. If I ever fall in love with a company to that extent he's going to come round and shoot me in the face. I find it a more palatable option than allowing myself to become a PR spewing corporate cocksucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume Leopard ever had ZFS?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one hand, MS was telling everyone for years about their new filesystem named WinFS.
No, they weren't. WinFS is not - and never has been - a filesystem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, it's not the age, it's the suckage. (Score:2)
Sometimes I really hate it when I'm right. I suggested [slashdot.org] that this was too good to be true when it was originally posted here. Alas, we're stuck with HFS+ until Apple gets over their NIH issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A new iChat?? (Score:4, Interesting)
From the Leopard Sneak Peak, still in Google's cache here [72.14.253.104]
However, there is no mention of iChat Desktop sharing on Apple's new iChat for Leopard page:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/icha
This sucks. I was really hoping to replace my kludgy VNC setups and NAT tables with a clean, elegant, and free remote desktop solution. Thanks a lot Apple!
Re:A new iChat?? (Score:4, Informative)
Image here [apple.com]
Additionally, the button for screen sharing is still present in the ichat screenshots:
Image here [apple.com]
(bottom right in the buddy list window)
Still there (Score:4, Informative)
"By clicking on a connected Mac, you can see and control that computer (if authorized, of course) as if you were sitting in front of it. "
It's still there - just not in iChat (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/find