9 ms·

I know. I'm getting close to 50 years old, and I have lots of COMPLAINTS!!! about how various tech (Atari 2600 ~ iPhone 15 Pro Max) worked out. But filesyste

by veidr 3y ago

I know. I'm getting close to 50 years old, and I have lots of *COMPLAINTS!!!* about how various tech (Atari 2600 ~ iPhone 15 Pro Max) worked out. But filesystems seem like the biggest species-level fuckup. Windows had their shit, Mac had HFS then "HFS+" until... tbh, quite breathtakingly, like five minutes ago, When they finally introduced APFS. But like... no checksumming, just Mötley Crüe data integrity, it's all good, iCloud backups FTW amirite!?! ZFS is good; I use it. But it didn't pan out, because a humanity-saving filesystem has to work on the systems humans actually use... (T_T)

babypuncher 3y ago
Apple considered using ZFS but decided to build their own because Oracle. I do not blame them one bit.
- veidr 3y ago
  I don't, either; that Oracle submarine pervert is the worst-remaining tech villain. Nevertheless, Apple built something objectively worse (T_T)
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    > worst-remaining tech villain. That crown would be a pretty tough one to hold, there are some good candidates.
- chungy 3y ago
  They canceled those plans long before Oracle was even thinking of buying Sun. It's more a classic case of Apple's "not invented here"
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    APFS wasn't publicly unveiled until 2017, did it really spend more than 7 years in active development before then?
    - chungy 3y ago
      Probably. File systems are hard to make sure to get just right. ZFS took just about 5 years to mature into a production release. From its inception in 2000 to production release in 2005. Oracle's btrfs (their attempt at competing with ZFS) began in 2008. Still isn't mature.
  - veidr 3y ago
    Well, even Sun was wedded to the (shit-the-bed) CDDL, but before Oracle there was the sense that a one-off deal might be made. Once Oracle bought Sun, it was like "Which is more important, your filesystem or your OS?" Which isn't a hard question with regards to any filesystem I've ever used except ZFS. Seems insane to use anything else for long-term storage, unless it has some kind of high corporate budget.

I know. I'm getting close to 50 years old, and I have lots of *COMPLAINTS!!!* about how various tech (Atari 2600 ~ iPhone 15 Pro Max) worked out. But filesyste

by veidr 3y ago

babypuncher 3y ago

Apple considered using ZFS but decided to build their own because Oracle. I do not blame them one bit.

veidr 3y ago
I don't, either; that Oracle submarine pervert is the worst-remaining tech villain. Nevertheless, Apple built something objectively worse (T_T)
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > worst-remaining tech villain. That crown would be a pretty tough one to hold, there are some good candidates.
chungy 3y ago
They canceled those plans long before Oracle was even thinking of buying Sun. It's more a classic case of Apple's "not invented here"
- babypuncher 3y ago
  APFS wasn't publicly unveiled until 2017, did it really spend more than 7 years in active development before then?
  - chungy 3y ago
    Probably. File systems are hard to make sure to get just right. ZFS took just about 5 years to mature into a production release. From its inception in 2000 to production release in 2005. Oracle's btrfs (their attempt at competing with ZFS) began in 2008. Still isn't mature.
- veidr 3y ago
  Well, even Sun was wedded to the (shit-the-bed) CDDL, but before Oracle there was the sense that a one-off deal might be made. Once Oracle bought Sun, it was like "Which is more important, your filesystem or your OS?" Which isn't a hard question with regards to any filesystem I've ever used except ZFS. Seems insane to use anything else for long-term storage, unless it has some kind of high corporate budget.