3 ms·

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 4y 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 4y 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
rbanffy 4y ago
How ironic they are now the largest manufacturer of Unix workstations...
sgjohnson 4y ago
I much prefer APFS over ZFS. The sad thing is that they didn’t open-source APFS. They could have done that at 0 cost and scored a lot of awesomeness points.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  Why? I've used APFS on my Mac, and it worked well enough that I didn't have to think about. Now I've been using ZFS on my daily driver Linux PC and I don't have to think about it either. I actually prefer ZFS for being able to set up transparent compression. But other than that, I'd be hard-pressed to pick a favorite.
throw0101a 4y ago
> Sadly, it's typical of Apple to want special treatment from vendors. If you're going to put a third-party's technology into your products (i.e., the file system that everything is built on), having extra assurances with regards to support and development is not crazy. Apple tends to buy companies that make the technology they based their products on, but wasn't really going to happen with Sun. At best they'd have to poach the entire ZFS team, but there could still be things like patents and such (which they're allowed to use via the CDDL). Yes, they incorporated Dtrace, but that wouldn't be a big deal to rip out if things went sideways legally-speaking. Changing and depending on a file system is a BFD.

Affric 4y 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 4y 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

rbanffy 4y ago

How ironic they are now the largest manufacturer of Unix workstations...

sgjohnson 4y ago

I much prefer APFS over ZFS. The sad thing is that they didn’t open-source APFS. They could have done that at 0 cost and scored a lot of awesomeness points.

vladvasiliu 4y ago
Why? I've used APFS on my Mac, and it worked well enough that I didn't have to think about. Now I've been using ZFS on my daily driver Linux PC and I don't have to think about it either. I actually prefer ZFS for being able to set up transparent compression. But other than that, I'd be hard-pressed to pick a favorite.

throw0101a 4y ago

> Sadly, it's typical of Apple to want special treatment from vendors. If you're going to put a third-party's technology into your products (i.e., the file system that everything is built on), having extra assurances with regards to support and development is not crazy. Apple tends to buy companies that make the technology they based their products on, but wasn't really going to happen with Sun. At best they'd have to poach the entire ZFS team, but there could still be things like patents and such (which they're allowed to use via the CDDL). Yes, they incorporated Dtrace, but that wouldn't be a big deal to rip out if things went sideways legally-speaking. Changing and depending on a file system is a BFD.