1. mikec#IM's Avatar
    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.

    http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/05/l...em-utter-crap/
    02-05-2008 03:12 PM
  2. marcol's Avatar
    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.

    http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/05/l...em-utter-crap/
    Of course he does also say that OS X is better than Vista overall

    More seriously, I guess the relevance of this to this forum hinges on what bits of OS X is in the iPhone OS. Is the file system the same?
    02-05-2008 03:37 PM
  3. cmaier's Avatar
    HFS is definitely long in the tooth.
    02-05-2008 04:44 PM
  4. Rene Ritchie's Avatar
    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.
    02-05-2008 08:32 PM
  5. Dieter Bohn's Avatar
    IANAP (Programmer), but reading up on the delays for ZFS over on Ars Technica, I definitely get the feeling that HFS+ is going to very quickly become a bigger problem as the rest of the world gets on something more advanced.
    02-06-2008 10:19 AM
  6. Rene Ritchie's Avatar
    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).
    02-06-2008 12:26 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD