perhaps apple is trying to make jon schwartz look like an idiot, to punish him for revealing a secret that he was not supposed to.

the new finder screams "ZFS" so it will surprise me if it's not in the final product.

Quote

burrito wrote:
the new finder screams "ZFS" so it will surprise me if it's not in the final product.

I'm not familiar with ZFS; how ya figure that the new Finder "screams" it? Is it something like the transition from MFS to HFS, where adding the "H" (hierarchical) allowed folders within folders instead of having all folders at the root level?

I know next to nothing about ZFS, but it seems to me that Time Machine "screams" ZFS more than anything else I've seen. Is that not true?

This is probably foolish conspiracy talking, but;

Barring the possibility that Apple isn't using ZFS solely to spite a vendor for leaking info, What if Mr. Schwartz was using the upcoming anticipation of WWDC to help hype ZFS amongst developers?

Crazy talk? Maybe. BUT STAY OUT OF MY TEETH!!!

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I know next to nothing about ZFS, but it seems to me that Time Machine "screams" ZFS more than anything else I've seen. Is that not true?

It would make sense for Time Machine to take advantage of some of the features of ZFS. However, unless I'm mistaken Time Machine still works fine on HFS+. If that is true, it also means ZFS is not necessarily an integral part of what makes Time Machine work.

Another possibility is that Apple decided ZFS in Tiger isn't quite ready for prime time so they're going to save it for a future 10.5.x update, or even 10.6.

Head to http://www.macjournals.com/ and sign up for a free trial of MWJ, and you'll get 15 pages on exactly how ZFS works, including many, many reasons why it is not suitable for anyone's primary Macintosh file system this decade. It would require something like 20GB to 50GB *more* disk space just for a standard Mac OS X installation, it doesn't work the way most people say it does, and even the features it would provide also require enough background CPU time that they're not suitable for notebooks.

It's abundantly obvious that everyone pushing "ooh! ZFS! shiny!" either doesn't know how to read the file system's public specification, or didn't bother. (It's a fantastic file system for servers and arrays, but not for desktops or portables.) No one looked at this story with *any* skepticism, nor did anyone provide any reasons why HFS Plus supposedly needs to be "replaced."

Sun's marketing department deserves to win *lots* of awards for this.

Although Time Machine would work well with ZFS, HFS+ was actually modified for Leopard specifically to support Time Machine.

Switching out file systems is not a trivial matter. People think that the file system is easy and that compatibility is simple but it's just not so.