7 ms·

Fun fact: When Apple first built Time Machine, the goal was that ZFS would be the root filesystem. That's why the TM UX fits so nicely with ZFS. Sadly the lic

Fun fact: When Apple first built Time Machine, the goal was that ZFS would be the root filesystem. That's why the TM UX fits so nicely with ZFS. Sadly the licensing issues scared Apple off from adopting ZFS.

vondur 5y ago
I think it was due to a lawsuit EMC had going against Sun over ZFS.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  I thought it was Jonathan Schwartz embarassing Steve Jobs by announcing it was coming to macOS himself. Which was a big deal at the time. I always thought that was a petty reason but I didn't really consider it beyond Steve Jobs to do that to be honest. He really took such matters very personally. But your explanation sounds more reasonable. I really thought this until now though.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    It was a 'support contract' between Sun and Apple not being able to be agreed to: * https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opens...
- dburkland 5y ago
  I think you mean with NetApp
jjoonathan 5y ago
Yeah, that original interface was wild https://youtu.be/2HixPtvIWhY?t=2174 https://youtu.be/2HixPtvIWhY?t=2174 if only ZFS hadn't fallen through! Speaking of which, are there any public plans to do this with APFS or are they just trying to push everyone into the cloud?
- anyfoo 5y ago
  The video is grainy, but isn't that still the TimeMachine UI since then? And with APFS at least it now also integrates snapshots, not just external backups?
  - jedberg 5y ago
    The current interface doesn't have the stars and space theme, but yeah, it's pretty much the same.
- jedberg 5y ago
  Yeah it was the perfect UX for ZFS. Real shame the two couldn't have evolved together.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  From what I'm reading, Time Machine has been using APFS snapshots for local snapshots since High Sierra, and since Big Sur for the primary backup (assuming target drive is APFS formatted).
- diskzero 5y ago
  I wrote the Time Machine interface and was sweating like mad sitting in the third row or so during the demo. It was a lot of fun getting all the animations and UI elements sliding around smoothly. One interesting fact about the entire presentation of all the new features is that all of the backup Macs but one had crashed by the end. If you watch closely you can see the mirrored demo machines switching in when the live demo box locks up. Whee!
  - jedberg 5y ago
    That's awesome! Well done! I loved that interface (and still do). That's funny about the backup machines. I always knew they had backups, but didn't realize it was that many.
  - Cadwhisker 5y ago
    Nice choice of username, then ;)
peatmoss 5y ago
I remember the WWDC that seemed to have a very “solar” graphical motif and my friends and I were all freaking out with speculation that Solaris and OS X were going to merge in some meaningful way. That unfortunately happened in the good timeline where Scheme in the browser also happened.
- jedberg 5y ago
  The video from WWDC is linked in a sibling comment. It had that universe theme with a star field and the files shrinking back into a supernova. > That unfortunately happened in the good timeline where Scheme in the browser also happened. Oh man that would be amazing. It would be so much better than javascript!
  - peatmoss 5y ago
    I think it was the year or so after Time Machine launched that a bunch of banners up in Moscone Center had us convinced of a grand Sun / Apple tech marriage. Re Scheme: It was the first choice of Javascript’s inventor, Brenden Eich, but the suits didn’t go for it. If you want to have a good cry, look up DSSSL and imagine the alternate timeline with S-expressions instead of HTML, DSSSL instead of CSS, and Scheme instead of Javascript. Pretty sure there’s also a robust open source OpenStep or NeWS ecosystem instead of X11, Al Gore was a two termer, and 9/11 never happened.
throw0101a 5y ago
> Sadly the licensing issues scared Apple off from adopting ZFS. It was not licensing. ZFS is licensed the exact same way as Dtrace, and Dtrace is part of Mac OS / macOS. It was signing a 'support' contract with Sun: terms couldn't be agreed to. From Jeff Bonwick (co-creator of ZFS) on the zfs-users list at the time: > Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it > (like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a "private > license" from Sun (with appropriate technical support and > indemnification), and the two entities couldn't come to mutually > agreeable terms. I cannot disclose details, but that is the essence of it. * https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opens...
- jedberg 5y ago
  It says it right there -- they wanted a "private license" which Sun could/would not give them.
  - justinjlynn 5y ago
    Sadly, it's typical of Apple to want special treatment from vendors. In a way, I'm sad that we didn't get a MacOS based on ZFS. That would've been nice.
    - Affric 5y ago
      If you read further in the thread it's hinted at that Apple mainly wanted indemnification from legal action and the Net App saga was ongoing at the time. Considering that Apple would be rolling it out to many users through high margin computers this is a reasonable concern.
    - mdaniel 5y ago
      I've used OpenZFS on OSX (https://github.com/openzfsonosx/openzfs#readme https://github.com/openzfsonosx/openzfs#readme) and it's been better to me for cross-os drive sharing than NTFS or UFS, despite their warnings about using it on USB devices I hear you about a ZFS root partition, though
diskzero 5y ago
Partially true. There were also some very smart and opinionated engineers who had their own projects in development as well.

vondur 5y ago

I think it was due to a lawsuit EMC had going against Sun over ZFS.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
I thought it was Jonathan Schwartz embarassing Steve Jobs by announcing it was coming to macOS himself. Which was a big deal at the time. I always thought that was a petty reason but I didn't really consider it beyond Steve Jobs to do that to be honest. He really took such matters very personally. But your explanation sounds more reasonable. I really thought this until now though.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  It was a 'support contract' between Sun and Apple not being able to be agreed to: * https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opens...
dburkland 5y ago
I think you mean with NetApp

jjoonathan 5y ago

Yeah, that original interface was wild https://youtu.be/2HixPtvIWhY?t=2174 https://youtu.be/2HixPtvIWhY?t=2174 if only ZFS hadn't fallen through! Speaking of which, are there any public plans to do this with APFS or are they just trying to push everyone into the cloud?

anyfoo 5y ago
The video is grainy, but isn't that still the TimeMachine UI since then? And with APFS at least it now also integrates snapshots, not just external backups?
- jedberg 5y ago
  The current interface doesn't have the stars and space theme, but yeah, it's pretty much the same.
jedberg 5y ago
Yeah it was the perfect UX for ZFS. Real shame the two couldn't have evolved together.
kitsunesoba 5y ago
From what I'm reading, Time Machine has been using APFS snapshots for local snapshots since High Sierra, and since Big Sur for the primary backup (assuming target drive is APFS formatted).
diskzero 5y ago
I wrote the Time Machine interface and was sweating like mad sitting in the third row or so during the demo. It was a lot of fun getting all the animations and UI elements sliding around smoothly. One interesting fact about the entire presentation of all the new features is that all of the backup Macs but one had crashed by the end. If you watch closely you can see the mirrored demo machines switching in when the live demo box locks up. Whee!
- jedberg 5y ago
  That's awesome! Well done! I loved that interface (and still do). That's funny about the backup machines. I always knew they had backups, but didn't realize it was that many.
- Cadwhisker 5y ago
  Nice choice of username, then ;)

peatmoss 5y ago

I remember the WWDC that seemed to have a very “solar” graphical motif and my friends and I were all freaking out with speculation that Solaris and OS X were going to merge in some meaningful way. That unfortunately happened in the good timeline where Scheme in the browser also happened.

jedberg 5y ago
The video from WWDC is linked in a sibling comment. It had that universe theme with a star field and the files shrinking back into a supernova. > That unfortunately happened in the good timeline where Scheme in the browser also happened. Oh man that would be amazing. It would be so much better than javascript!
- peatmoss 5y ago
  I think it was the year or so after Time Machine launched that a bunch of banners up in Moscone Center had us convinced of a grand Sun / Apple tech marriage. Re Scheme: It was the first choice of Javascript’s inventor, Brenden Eich, but the suits didn’t go for it. If you want to have a good cry, look up DSSSL and imagine the alternate timeline with S-expressions instead of HTML, DSSSL instead of CSS, and Scheme instead of Javascript. Pretty sure there’s also a robust open source OpenStep or NeWS ecosystem instead of X11, Al Gore was a two termer, and 9/11 never happened.

throw0101a 5y ago

> Sadly the licensing issues scared Apple off from adopting ZFS. It was not licensing. ZFS is licensed the exact same way as Dtrace, and Dtrace is part of Mac OS / macOS. It was signing a 'support' contract with Sun: terms couldn't be agreed to. From Jeff Bonwick (co-creator of ZFS) on the zfs-users list at the time: > Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it > (like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a "private > license" from Sun (with appropriate technical support and > indemnification), and the two entities couldn't come to mutually > agreeable terms. I cannot disclose details, but that is the essence of it. * https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121221111757/http://mail.opens...

jedberg 5y ago
It says it right there -- they wanted a "private license" which Sun could/would not give them.
- justinjlynn 5y ago
  Sadly, it's typical of Apple to want special treatment from vendors. In a way, I'm sad that we didn't get a MacOS based on ZFS. That would've been nice.
  - Affric 5y ago
    If you read further in the thread it's hinted at that Apple mainly wanted indemnification from legal action and the Net App saga was ongoing at the time. Considering that Apple would be rolling it out to many users through high margin computers this is a reasonable concern.
  - mdaniel 5y ago
    I've used OpenZFS on OSX (https://github.com/openzfsonosx/openzfs#readme https://github.com/openzfsonosx/openzfs#readme) and it's been better to me for cross-os drive sharing than NTFS or UFS, despite their warnings about using it on USB devices I hear you about a ZFS root partition, though

diskzero 5y ago

Partially true. There were also some very smart and opinionated engineers who had their own projects in development as well.