What kind of licensing issue can't be solved by the application of money? It's not like Apple is wanting for money and a suite of filesystem engineers are darn expensive.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
macOS Sierra Tidbits: Apple File System, RAID Support, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been running case-sensitive for years. The first couple of versions of OSX didn't work right with a case-sensitive root filesystem but it works fine now.
Only when the other person is running a case-insensitive file system or is just a lazy bum.
Last edited:
I've been running case-sensitive file systems on OS X for more than ten years. Aside from one issue with a LabView-based application, I've had zero problems.
I can't answer your question as I am not initiated into Apple's decision-making process. All I know is that they had a ZFS implementation for OS X which was due to ship in 10.6, and then the project was suddenly abandoned. Not long after that Oracle closed down ZFS source code. No idea what exactly went wrong there, but I assume that Oracle didn't want to share.
Why are people going mad at the removal of anywhere? I regularly run unsigned apps and i NEVER have anywhere turned on. I simply right click and select open and it allows you to run it, no need to have anywhere selected, and its a dangerous option to have enabled with how full of nasties the internet is now. Just look at how bad the malware issue is in the Windows world at the moment Mac OS will head that way as market share continues to grow if things like anywhere are turned on, these defences while never 100% perfect are needed.
So when Apple says 'Watched movies in iTunes' does that include home videos/non iTunes store movies? Or just purchased content from iTunes? I have iMovie projects that I like to keep on my Mac, it'd actually be quite nice to have them stored off my hard drive so I can download them when needed and keeping the space on my hard drive.
Apologies if this has already been addressed.
Apologies if this has already been addressed.
Google is not hurting for cash either and yet they chose to reimplement Java for Android rather than license it from Sun. Maybe Sun just has ****** licensing terms.
For all of you who are interested in ZFS, Apple and filesystems, this blog post might be of interest (its from a person who was involved personally):
http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/06/15/apple_and_zfs/
He is also preparing a writeup on APFS from what I know.
http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/06/15/apple_and_zfs/
He is also preparing a writeup on APFS from what I know.
It would be better if they just used ZFS rather than making appleZFS
I think App,e dislikes the GPL since 3.0. There was something that put Steve off!
I have no desire to speak to my Mac. I can't think of anything I could do faster with speaking compared to using keyboard and mouse.
As for the Gatekeeper I hope Apple allows using unsigned software without prompting using every time...
Interesting information. I'm looking forward for his comments on APFS.
It will prompt when you install it, not every time you run it.I have no desire to speak to my Mac. I can't think of anything I could do faster with speaking compared to using keyboard and mouse.
As for the Gatekeeper I hope Apple allows using unsigned software without prompting using every time...
Interesting information. I'm looking forward for his comments on APFS.
Well, people have been stressing over about Apple locking down Mac since at least Lion
Four years later, Macs are not any closer to being locked down. And if some corner-case functionality is indeed locked down (e.g. Rootless), Apple provides you with the tools to unlock it.
I'm cool with offloading seldom used apps to central storage, but I want that central storage to be in my basement. Or at least cached in my house. The basement server is the technology that I think is missing from the Apple product lineup. I want to be my own cloud, that way when my 18 different devices synch photos to one another, it stays (mostly) in my house. Privacy, bandwidth, optimized performance for the common case of wanting to watch my favorite movies over and over on AppleTV. Home cloud, basement server, that's the future I want.
Well, people have been stressing over about Apple locking down Mac since at least Lion
This is not true. You may still have the ability today but Apple is clearly taking steps to lock it down. They will keep making it harder and harder to run unsigned (unapproved) apps until they get push back. As long as people continue with the "well I can still do it at the moment" attitude Apple will keep pushing until its gone. If you take it away all at once they will get push back. Do it very slowly over several releases and you will have less resistance.
First of all, unsigned and unapproved are very different things. Second, your view is very pessimistic. From what I see, Apple is working on making Mac a more secure environment, which obviously entails that unsigned (insecure) apps are more difficult to run — which is a sensible move that I fully support. I see no indication whatsoever that Apple is trying or even thinking about locking the system down. After all, they are not stupid and there is no benefit they could get out of locking the system down. On contrary, they are removing previous restrictions. For example, they are opening tons of previously locked APIs for unapproved (distributed outside of App Store) apps in 10.12.
I'm not sure I buy that. People won't take THAT long to adjust to case-sensitive file systems.
[doublepost=1466024975][/doublepost]
Unfortunately, Adobe aren't the only ones. As a software developer myself, I can't for the life of me understand why an entity would complicate their code, checking for filesystem case sensitivity, rather than just deciding on a file naming scheme and sticking to it. Using #defines in their header files would make this even easier...
[doublepost=1466025060][/doublepost]
Possibly, but that's not the issue as ZFS doesn't use the GPL 3.0 (or any other version); it uses the CDDL.
Sun doesn't exist anymore. Oracle now owns Java and from what I've seen so far, their terms are a bit on the ridiculous side.
HFS+ isn't DOS. The regular case-insensitive version of HFS+ is case--preserving. That means that the only way Adobe's software is broken is if the case of the filename in code or their packager doesn't match what's on disk. That's 1 minute to verify, one-line to fix. Beyond trivial and it would then work on both kinds of filesystems. If the Adobe product you're using doesn't work that's ridiculously lazy on Adobe's part, they've had a decade to fix it. I know current versions of Reader work.
Incoming Mac Pro: Now available in 16 GB, 64 GB, and 128 GB.
It still existed when Google tried to license Java (2007) and when Apple tried to license ZFS (2009).
That was actually kind of my point; Core Storage operates below the file-system, so anything that can be implemented in a file-system agnostic way should really be in Core Storage. That includes encryption, as we have now, plus compression, possibly snapshots (it's a little more awkward at Core Storage's level, but not impossible to do it), and really Apple should have rolled RAID capabilities into Core Storage by now. Plus they could do ZFS style data-integrity (block checksums) since you don't need to know what the data is to check that it is unchanged and/or self-heal it, still no sign of this though unfortunately.
Looking into it some more there may be some advantages to APFS level encryption though, it seems like we may be able to get FileVault 1 style per-user encryption back, but without the hack of using disk images, in other words APFS may be able to treat each user folder as its own sparse file-system and encrypt it separately, which is neat. Not sure exactly what APFS' whole-volume encryption will look like, it may not actually have that capability (the documentation doesn't go into enough detail on this) so Core Storage will still have the advantage of hiding details of the file-system it contains. In other words, we could have an APFS file-system in which each user account is its own, encrypted file-system, within a larger encrypted file-system that also protects the system itself. So while any user password will be sufficient to start up the computer, only the user-specific password will decrypt their files etc.
Not sure how that will affect Time Machine though, but that may be dependent on the snapshot feature which will presumably be handling backups far more efficiently in future.