Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Apple Confirms No (Default) ZFS In Leopard

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:37 AM
from the zf-never dept.
Businesses OS X Operating Systems Apple
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Apple Delays Leopard to October 545 comments
SuperMog2002 writes "Apple Insider has the sad news that Mac OS X Leopard has been delayed until October. Apparantly software engineers and QA had to be reassigned to the iPhone in order to get it out on time, costing Leopard its release at WWDC. For now the original press release from Apple can be found on the 'Hot News' part of their site, though Apple did not provide a permanent link to the story. 'While Leopard's features will be complete by June, the Cupertino-based company said it cannot deliver the quality release expected by its customers within that time. Apple now plans to show its developers a near final version of Leopard at the conference, give them a beta copy to take home so they can do their final testing, and ship the software in October.'"
[+] Technology: Why Apple Delayed Leopard for the iPhone 453 comments
Ernest DeFarge writes "Apple recently announced that they've pulled several key programmers from the OS X 10.5 "Leopard" and assigned them to the iPhone in order to get it done on time. In doing so, they delayed Leopard for 4 months. Does that mean that the iPhone is more important to Apple than Mac OS? Or is it just capitalizing on the current state of Apple's fanbase?"
[+] Sun CEO Says ZFS Will Be 'the File System' for OSX 384 comments
Fjan11 writes "Sun's Jonathan Schwartz has announced that Apple will be making ZFS 'the file system' in Mac OS 10.5 Leopard. It's possible that Leopard's Time Machine feature will require ZFS to run, because ZFS has back-up and snapshots build right in to the filesystem as well as a host of other features. 'Rumors of Apple's interest in ZFS began in April 2006, when an OpenSolaris mailing list revealed that Apple had contacted Sun regarding porting ZFS to OS 10. The file system later began making appearances in Leopard builds. ZFS has a long list of improvements over Apple's current file system, Journaled HFS+.'"
[+] ZFS Set To Eventually Play Larger Role in OSX 196 comments
BlueMerle writes with the news that Sun's ZFS filesystem is going to see 'rudimentary support' under OSX Leopard. That's a stepping stone to bigger and better things, as the filesystem will eventually play a much larger role in Apple OS versions. AppleInsider reports: "The developer release, those people familiar with the matter say, is a telltale sign that Apple plans further adoption of ZFS under Mac OS X as the operating system matures. It's further believed that ZFS is a candidate to eventually succeed HFS+ as the default operating system for Mac OS X -- an unfulfilled claim already made in regard to Leopard by Sun's chief executive Jonathan Schwartz back in June. Unlike Apple's progression from HFS to HFS+, ZFS is not an incremental improvement to existing technology, but rather a fundamentally new approach to data management. It aims to provide simple administration, transactional semantics, end-to-end data integrity, and immense scalability."
[+] Hardware: Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS 361 comments
Roskolnikov writes "Apple has apparently decided that ZFS isn't really ready for prime time. We've been discussing Apple/ZFS rumors, denials, and sightings for some years now. Currently a search on Apple's site for ZFS yields only two hits, one of them probably an oversight in the ZFS-cleansing program and the other a reference to open source. Contrast this with an item from the Google cache regarding ZFS and Snow Leopard. Apple has done this kind of disappearing act in the past, but I was really hoping that this was one feature promise they would keep. I certainly hope this isn't the first foot in the grave for ZFS on OS X."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Apple Confirms No (Default) ZFS In Leopard 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dthirteen (307585) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:38AM (#19479129) Homepage
    Nobody scoops Steve Jobs...
    • I agree.

      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.

      • 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?

        • ...for Linux bite the bag, and at least NVidia's and Intel's are worth using, this is a blessing in disguise for all those who intend to use Linux with their MacIntels. No big loss.

        • Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:57PM (#19480333)

          Which really underscores the stupidity of Steve's arrogance.

          Yeah, because Apple stock is so low compared to when he took charge.

          I'm sure ATI wanted that contract, it was a nice contract, but Apple is NOTHING in the great scheme of the PC market.

          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.

          And there aren't that many major players in the high-end graphic chip game.

          There are enough so that Apple has a few choices.

          Why play the prima donna, when he might have to deal with them in the future?

          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)

            by moderatorrater (1095745) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @01:41PM (#19480885)

            Yeah, because Apple stock is so low compared to when he took charge.
            Nice fallacious argument. 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. There's no doubt that Steve Jobs has been a great asset, but that doesn't mean he's above criticism (or SEC regulations).

          • Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by duffbeer703 (177751) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @03:11PM (#19481989)
            <quote>Yeah, because Apple stock is so low compared to when he took charge.</quote>

            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)

              by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)

              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)

          by Genevish (93570)

          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)

          by htakashiro (1114635) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @01:59PM (#19481049)
          I think Jobs kinda knows what he's doing. We're the ones posting on Slashdot.

            • Re:Haven't you learned anything? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @02:22PM (#19481365) Homepage Journal
              The five year history of Apple's share price indicates that Apple's strictly enforced policies regarding secrecy of their product plans is probably not hurting the company in any way. Considering the lackluster performance of other companies that blabber on and on and on about their half-baked plans that never mature, one might well conclude that this policy is helping Apple shareholders, even if it comes at the expense of occasional inconvenience.

              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)

        by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @01:29PM (#19480745)
        My understanding is that Samsung did score the contract for the chip in the 2nd Gen Nano. Wikipedia says so, for whatever that's worth.

        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)

        by ahg (134088)
        Sun Micro probably does not have the same motivation as the other two companies you mentioned above to keep things secret. Afterall, with ZFS being open source, Apple doesn't have to pay royalties or licensing fees to them. They may have some sort of consulting contract with Apple, as they have the most knowledgable people on ZFS working for them. That and bragging rights may be good for Sun, but it's not likely a major contract will be lost.
          • Probably from where there's "No child left behind".

            • spelling (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @02:09PM (#19481167) Homepage Journal
              The larger pattern of which this is one example seems to indicate that many people don't read, except Slashdot and other geek discussion forums, blogs, etc., In turn, this leads to a self-perpetuating defect. A meme, if you will, mutates, and replicates in this pool because the corrective mechanisms are weak. It then may rise to dominance in a limited domain of Slashdot, for example, if people don't spend enough time reading outside materials. (We already know the articles are often not read.) People see these things misspelled more often than not. If they don't read sources from literature or properly edited magazines or newspapers then they pick up the wrong spelling or usage, and add to the noise. The feedback loop builds as other people are then more likely to encounter the incorrect usages or spellings more frequently than they otherwise would.

    • Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheWizardTim (599546) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:48AM (#19479287) Journal
      When I worked for Apple, at 6am ATI let slip that they were making cards for The PowerMac and "something else". That "something else" was the cube. My boss got a call about 5 minutes later from Steve telling us to remove all references to ATI on all web pages, in 17 languages, by 9am.

    • Re:Haven't you learned anything Sun? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by adisakp (705706) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:58PM (#19480345) Journal
      I predicted this a week ago:

      PREVIOUS POST [slashdot.org]

  • Wow, 10 years old?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:39AM (#19479137)
    Too bad NTFS is almost 15, and I heard FAT stopped counting (because of a technical limitation).

        • Re:Wow, 10 years old?! (Score:4, Informative)

          by Megane (129182) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @01:04PM (#19480413)

          ...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]

          • Re:Wow, 10 years old?! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by bheading (467684) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @03:41PM (#19482439)
            Why is the fact that it is "old" considered to be a problem ? Anyone who thinks new=good, old=bad is way out of step.

            Far better to talk about what features it lacks. Or if you're trying to defend it, talk about its stability record. Have filesystems really advanced, since journalling became the standard way to do things, in any specific way that benefits regular users ?

  • Ooookaaaay... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gentlemen_loser (817960) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:43AM (#19479197) Homepage
    "Users of the future operating system will have to keep working with HFS+, a filesystem that is almost ten years old now."

    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:3, Insightful)

        by jeffasselin (566598)
        At first, when we heard the more serious info about ZFS last week, I found it interesting, but when I read the comments here on /. and went to look for info on ZFS, I realized it's a powerful filesystem but which might not be ready for prime-time. I suspect Apple is looking or looked at using it, but realized it wasn't ready for integration -- especially not as the default FS in a consumer OS. I'd certainly like to see it as an optional supported format to play and experiment with, but such a switch would p
        • Sun is shipping it for use in "enterprise" setups.

          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)

    by lbmouse (473316) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:45AM (#19479233) Homepage
    Why do reporters insist on interviewing marketing goons to uncover tech specs? This guy probably thought the reporter was asking if Leopard was going to include Zurich Financial Services.

  • Retribution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by earnest murderer (888716) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:48AM (#19479277)
    I'm not saying this is retailatory... But this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish partners for making preemptive announcements about Apples products. One may recall not too many years ago ATI making a show about Apple using their video cards just before another WWDC (maybe it was Macworld, I forget). Apple proceeded to spend the night pulling ATI's cards from their ready to ship Macs. In keynote the following morning Steve Jobs announced (surely with ATI execs in the front row) that nVidia was their premier partner for Mac video. It has been said that it was 6 monts before ATI execs could get even an executive secretary on the phone.

    • Re:Retribution (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bassman59 (519820) <andy@latke.nREDHATet minus distro> on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:24PM (#19479851) Homepage

      I'm not saying this is retailatory... But this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish partners for making preemptive announcements about Apples products. One may recall not too many years ago ATI making a show about Apple using their video cards just before another WWDC (maybe it was Macworld, I forget). Apple proceeded to spend the night pulling ATI's cards from their ready to ship Macs.

      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)

      by danpsmith (922127) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:30PM (#19479943)

      I'm not saying this is retailatory... But this wouldn't be the first time Apple has gone out of it's way to punish partners for making preemptive announcements about Apples products. One may recall not too many years ago ATI making a show about Apple using their video cards just before another WWDC (maybe it was Macworld, I forget). Apple proceeded to spend the night pulling ATI's cards from their ready to ship Macs. In keynote the following morning Steve Jobs announced (surely with ATI execs in the front row) that nVidia was their premier partner for Mac video. It has been said that it was 6 monts before ATI execs could get even an executive secretary on the phone.

      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.

  • Err...no he didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mccalli (323026) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:49AM (#19479289) Homepage
    The TFA says:

    "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)

      by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:22PM (#19479831)
      From the article:

      During an interview with InformationWeek, Brian Croll, senior director of product marketing for the Mac OS, said, "ZFS is not happening," when asked whether Sun's Zettabyte File System would be in Leopard. Instead, Leopard would use Apple's current hierarchical file system, called HFS+. The Apple file system was first introduced in 1998 in Mac OS 8.0.


      What he declined to comment on was the comment made by the Sun executive, but he did comment on ZFS itself.

  • What the cat said (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rakshasa Taisab (244699) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:49AM (#19479291) Homepage
    "Upon further questioning, Croll would only confirm that Apple had never said ZFS would be a part of Leopard."

    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)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:49AM (#19479301) Homepage Journal
    It is really better for servers than a Workstation. It uses a lot of CPU power and adds features that no Workstation is likely to need for a while. It would be ideal for a NAS so maybe we will see it as an option on storage product from Apple.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Otterley (29945)
      Have you actually *used* ZFS? It is not CPU intensive in the least. I've run it on a 700MHz PIII with no problems. From the developer's mouth: "Assume 1 2GHz Opteron for every 200 MB/s, including ZFS *and* the NFS stack". [opensolaris.org] 200 MB/s is an order of magnitude (10x) faster than any hard disk installed in a desktop or laptop. And, that's for a continuous I/O load, which most users never see.

      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)

        by laffer1 (701823)
        I won't argue benefits, but I'd like to point out the FreeBSD 7-current implementation uses a lot of RAM. Apple doesn't ship enough RAM in their products as it is. I don't see this working well out of the box on desktops. Now, we might see it in OS X server and it may be in the client, but not pushed. Regardless, a serious RAM upgrade is needed. I think Sun even recommends at least 1GB of RAM to use ZFS on Solaris.

        The other issue people aren't thinking about is making older Mac apps work on the new fil

  • Notes from a WWDC curmudgeon (Score:5, Informative)

    by hkb (777908) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:04PM (#19479537)
    ZFS is in the WWDC Leopard build. It's currently configured for read-only, although full functionality is in there. Write ability is disabled for stability/integrity issues. /System/Library/Extensions:

    drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 Jun 4 20:48 zfs.readonly.kext

  • Correction Coming: ZFS to be available (sort of) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dotnaught (223657) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:52PM (#19480269) Homepage
    I was one of the two reporters in that interview and we both were surprised by Croll's comment. We were just contacted by Apple to say that what we heard (or what we both thought we heard) was not the fully story. The real story is:

    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)

      by LionMage (318500) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @02:05PM (#19481127) Homepage
      Apparently, one of the editors at InformationWeek (Michael Singer, West Coast Editor) saw several perplexed comments left by readers and added similar commentary to yours, which I thought would be germane:

      As to the news, it seems that Croll mispoke [sic] 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.
      Glad to see there's an effort underway to get the facts out to people.

  • The story is not accurate. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kristoph (242780) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @01:44PM (#19480905)
    The InformationWeek editor has posted this ...

    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

    • Re:Mac OS X Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Slashcrap (869349) on Tuesday June 12 2007, @11:55AM (#19479407)
      It even goes so far as to allow 64-bit apps without a 32-bit binary to run in 32-bit mode transparently, which is unprecedented thus far.

      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:3, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool (672806)
      On the one hand, MS was telling everyone for years about their new filesystem named WinFS. Actually if you consider the capabilities of WinFS and not just the name, MS promised that type of technology in Cairo over 10 years ago. On the other, Apple never said it was experimenting with ZFS much less that it was going to use it. A Sun exec said Apple would use it in Leopard based on the fact that Apple entered into an agreement to use ZFS. My viewpoint is that although Apple got rights to use it, that do

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by linefeed0 (550967)
      You'd think so. You'd be wrong. Ever seen an "invalid sibling link"? I did, oh, in 1996, with the original HFS. Also this past year on a Tiger server. I suspect there was something wrong with the RAID controller, but a filesystem that relies on b-trees really should be able to at least try to repair them. HFS+ has good company, though. XFS from SGI (on Linux) has tons of stupid bugs, omissions, and corner cases; NTFS certainly has its share of "fun"; and I haven't used reiserfs enough to really know how sta

    • A new iChat?? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Disoriented (202908) * on Tuesday June 12 2007, @12:40PM (#19480099)
      Not sure if anyone noticed, but a major feature that was promised for iChat in Leopard has somehow disappeared.

      From the Leopard Sneak Peak, still in Google's cache here [72.14.253.104]

      Share and share alike

      Remote control takes on a whole new meaning with iChat in Leopard. Thanks to iChat Screen Sharing, you and your buddy can observe and control a single desktop via iChat, making it a cinch to collaborate with colleagues, browse the Web with a friend, or pick the perfect plane seats with your spouse. Share your own desktop or share your buddy's -- you both have complete control at all times. And when you start a Screen Sharing session, iChat automatically initiates an audio chat so you can talk things through while you're at it.


      However, there is no mention of iChat Desktop sharing on Apple's new iChat for Leopard page:
      http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/ichat .html [apple.com]

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by despisethesun (880261)
      That, in my mind, would be a compelling reason not to ever buy an Apple. If the company is so ready to remove features that would be useful to users and advance the state of the art just to get back at someone for leaking word of that feature, they clearly don't have the customer's best interests at heart.

      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

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.