3 ms·
BTRFS is still not mature, and there's a license incompatibility as well. And it's controlled by Oracle all the same. If Apple replaces the filesystem they'll l
by melted 11y ago
BTRFS is still not mature, and there's a license incompatibility as well. And it's controlled by Oracle all the same. If Apple replaces the filesystem they'll likely roll their own.
- zanny 11y agobtrfs is not controlled by Oracle for one (its principal developers are employed by Facebook, but its still regular Linux GPLv2 code) but I did check and the APL is incompatible with the GPL. And they obviously aren't going to make a new filesystem. That doesn't get them sales like higher resolution screens or changing the color theme... again.
- melted 11y agoLooks like you're right. Oracle used to control it (as evidenced by (c) Oracle all over the place), but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
- ghaff 11y agoI'm not sure it's accurate to say it was "controlled" by Oracle but a lot of--though certainly not all--active development came out of Oracle at one point, notably by Chris Mason (who is now with Facebook).
- melted 11y agoWhoever employs the core team, controls the project. For a while that was Oracle.
- ghaff 11y agoAnd they obviously aren't going to make a new filesystem. That doesn't get them sales like higher resolution screens or changing the color theme... again. Introducing a new filesystem would be a big decision for Apple. There would doubtless be all sorts of migration and compatibility issue, even aside from the work it would take. Especially given where we are in the maturity of desktop clients, it makes a lot more sense to incrementally improve the current filesystem. I'm not sure how snarky you intended to be, but no there aren't many sales in a complex undertaking that is far more likely to cause data corruption and migration issues than concrete benefits for 99.9% of users.