Torvalds calls Apple's file system "utter crap"
I couldn't resist, for two reasons:
1.) Get some life back the forum
2.) I've not heard a lot of negatvies about HFS (although I haven't gone looking, either).
I for one wish they had bought BeOS, as that journaling file system was light years ahead of the offers of the time in terms of speed, recoverability, and indexing/searching/tagging/application integration.
- 02-05-2008, 02:37 PM #2
- 02-05-2008, 03:44 PM #3
- 02-05-2008, 07:32 PM #4
As a good friend of mine, and full time Linux professional said to me when he saw this, absent specifics, Torvalds comments are meaningless.
HFS+ is old, and by some miracle Apple still manages to innovate things like Time Machine, and likely given the shift to terabytes of personal (family/home) data in the HD age, Apple will have to go beyond HFS+ anyway, which may explain their dabbling with ZFS.
- 02-06-2008, 09:19 AM #5
- 02-06-2008, 11:26 AM #6
I keep going back to Gruber's Kremlinology comment about discussing/deciphering Apple's road-map.
They had OS X running on Intel for years before they announced the switch. They've canned products they didn't feel were right for the market that we still don't know about (yet).
It's a black box.
Who knows what other file systems, be they HFS++, ZFS, or something we've yet to hear about, running in their dark rooms?
Since they want to be the digital hub, and the data crunch is coming, I can't imagine they aren't considering it (and given the hub-bub online over ZFS a while back (i.e. http://drewthaler.blogspot.com/2007/...ter-redux.html
vs. http://www.macjournals.com/news/2007/10/07.html#a80), I'd guess there's a lot of work going in).
(Whether this type of secrecy is good or bad is debatable, and WinFS is a perfect example of what can happen even with ridiculously pre-announced file system road maps).