What is Digg?67 Comments
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24If you read the entire thing you'd realize that's not an appropriate title. In fact, he says he thinks they would be more likely to create their own file system.
- deepdish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I must be alone on this, but I have always enjoyed reading Arstecnica and iCringely.
I know, I know. Nobody else likes them. But I appreciate their take on things. - thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Install base share != market share.
While Apple's global market share might be below 3%, you need to consider that alot of the market share numbers for the other 97% are made up of machines that aren't used as desktops.
For instance, kiosks, ATMs, etc are really turnkey systems, but they are counted in the market share numbers.
The second aspect to consider is the refresh cycle for those machines. Macs tend to have longer refresh cycles than other PCs. Thus in a given year a smaller percentage of Macs are replaced than PCs, further depressing market share.
The number that is more useful for determining install base share is that of software purchases. These typically show the machines in active use by end users. According to the Software Publishers Association, 20% of all software sold is for the Mac. Now, Mac users might purchase more software than their PC counterparts, but it is unlikely that they purchase 10 times as much for their install base share to be 2%. It's much more likely that the install base share of Macs is as much as 20% of machines in use. - chesterton, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30More appropriately titled, "Will Apple ever switch to ZFS?"
- KJay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18First off it's quite a bit higher than 1.8%.
Secondly, it's ENORMOUSLY higher on digg.com, hence the fact that it got dugg to begin with... - zmigliozzi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14on the other side of the board.... how bout that WinFS.... LOL
- Lounger540, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Revenue was $4.37 billion, up 24 percent from last year's quarterly revenue of $3.52 billion. Net income was $472 million, or 54 cents per share, an improvement of 48 percent compared with last year's results of $320 million in net income and 37 cents per share." - By Tom Krazit
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: July 19, 2006, 2:04 PM PDT
People are obviously buying them. - jerwood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Apple is a proven market leader. They consistently push new technology into the mainstream. Therefore, the market, and those of us who shop in it, are interested in what they might do.
- p4r0l3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11or be up-to-date and use reiser4 :P
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Lots of words and paragraphs…"
Kinda remains me of the Emperor in Amadeus... "Bah... too many notes Herr Mozart, too many notes!". - pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Linux doesn't even use reiser4 yet.
- SectorNation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Has anyone been able to confirm or rule out completely that Time Machine won't have some sort of spooling backup feature? In other words, Time Machine spools older versions / deltas / whatever to the local disk for immediate recovery purposes, but then when the "backup disk" is hooked up, it copies these changes back to this disk. At which point, the local disk can either be cleared / shrunk or simply aged out normally?
That would certainly make more sense than it simply only working for machines hooked to a backup device all the time... - seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Read The F**king Article
- MacGeekGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah man, I've read plenty of his articles before that I liked... but I've gotta say... this one went on forever. I felt like I was inside the mind of a detective from a dimestore mystery novel, along for every thought and impulse that popped into his head. Good article, but be warned... he was feeling long winded when he wrote it!
- jessecurry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"There may or may not be an animated cartoon dog"
lol - UltraNurd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Oh those wacky, wacky file system nerds...
- seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Use the reply feature. Thats what its there for.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the fact that the article stated that Time Machine is running on good 'ol HFS+ implies that it does not need a new file system.
- ubaid1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16@kikibun
Apple's excuse is innovation by no bounds. Who cares about compatibility when their solution might be "insanely" better. I didn't read the article, but in response to your comment, I think Apple has their excuses for doing new things. Besides, the incompatibilities are slowly fading away, Apple also recognizes the need for it's technologies to interface with other technologies, and I'm sure that with the advent of boot camp and parallels, that an extra file system (if any at all) won't have a tremendous impact on the compatibility of Macs as a whole.
If you really want to digg me down for not RTFA, I'm sorry, but this rumormill is driving people like me that thrive on Apple's products crazy. And I'm not an Apple fan, I simply like the products they make. Personally, I feel Microsoft is doing more to better the industry. - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10What is so great about ext3?
- pygmalion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6That's pretty silly. Subversion is mostly a server, optimized for network usage through Apache (or their own svnserver) and just happens to ship with a command line client. It is not meant to handle an entire disk of (mostly) binary data, like a typical OS X disk. Neither log messages nor text-diffs make much sense for Time Machine.
I use Subversion on all my projects and will continue to do so with or without Time Machine, a completely different technology. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9why create a new file system? Can't OSX just use some of the Linux greats? ext3 or RaiserFS?
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"this article fails to mention that time machine does not necessary imply a snapshotable file system."
Can anyone here read? The article did not fail to mention this. In fact, it went into quite a bit of depth illustrating that it is not a snapshot but a backup program using hard links for unmodified files. - siracusa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4HFS+ supports optional case-sensitivity.
- altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They aren't creating another file system. ZFS was developed at Sun. And well it's pretty freaking sweet. RTFA ( article ).
- eczarny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I was originally thinking Apple would be using code from Subversion to provide the Time Machine functionality. After all, I believe I read someplace they are including Subversion with Leopard.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Apple's market really isn't the entire world. Sure they would LOVE it to be, but right now the Mac is a niche product...and it does VERY well in it's niche. Certain fields of work are dominated by the mac (primarily creative arts, but there are plenty of other fields that primarily use the mac). I'd hardly call it a failure.
- locnguyen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You have a lot to learn about business if you're going to analyze on percentages alone. You should look at the dollar value too. You can't just say Linux doesn't matter because it has a low market share too.
- sillygates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ext3 is :( :( Reiser4 is more like it...but I think the licensing is incompatible...btw linux can use reiser4, ubuntu comes with the kernel module installed
- ratsg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HFS+ is NOT case sensitive, it preserves case
Journeling was tacked on to HFS+, I believe by the one of the FS designers for BeOS
MacOS X has for some time supported UFS. Many applications have problems with it, I believe primarily due to case issues. It (UFS) has not been well accepted in the Mac communities (both in person and on line) that I am associated with.
MacOS X with Sun ZFS would rock - tyrione, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First of all, as has been eluded to: John is referencing ReiserFS when in fact, Reiser4 being released about 12 months ago and almost ready for Linux is not outdated than ZFS.
http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html
ZFS
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/
Reiser4 is being run through the ringer with Linux and the Kernel Community.
ZFS and its focus for Enterprise Markets makes sense to be an option, down the line, for OS X Server.
Speculating on what changes to the current filesystem in OS X Tiger -> Leopard is most relevant. - UnknownBadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if there was going to be a new file system in conjunction for use with time machine, wouldnt it be implemented in the preview release developers got?
cant help but think if they go for a new file system they would have to recode time machine to suit? - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Summary: he wasn't there, didn't get briefed on it, and is guessing.
-jcr - ezrider0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this article fails to mention that time machine does not necessary imply a snapshotable file system.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nerditup: JFGI
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@i440
Good for NTFS but last I knew, and I haven't looked today so it might have changed, but NTFS was "New Technology File System" made for Windows "New Technology" Which is a Microsoft product. And If I'm not wrong, Microsoft does not make OSX, and if I'm still not way off NTFS is not open source and therefore unlikely to be used in OSX. Now I may be crazy, but last I knew this was all correct. - eczarny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Mostly a server? No it isn't. The repository itself is simply a collection of database files and configuration files for the client to use. The server just gives you access to that collection of data.
When you check out something from Subversion those special .svn directories remember all the revisions you made to your working copy so that when you use commit Subversion knows what changed.
Subversion and the server are completely different entities, it just so happens Subversion comes with a server. - DarkJC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What? Did you even RTFA?
Yes, I know you used to/still work at Apple, and that you must be the holy grail of Apple knowledge, but at least read the damn article. Unless Apple is purposely misleading developers with regards to how Time Machine works, this article is for the most part very informative. If anything, it's the digg headline / summary that's misleading. In the article, I see admittal of guesswork before Time Machine was announced (what a surprise!), speculation when it was first revealed, and then admitted disappointment when he realized they're still going to be using HFS+, for 10.5 anyway.
Honestly, I'm surprised. Usually your replies are good in that, because of working at Apple, you have insight into their ways that others don't. This post of yours comes off sounding elitist and uninformed. - Kolenka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny thing is... NSResponder is actually right and wrong here.
Yes, he is right that he wasn't there, didn't get briefed, and is guessing... but the thing is, those guesses are about as right as can be unless the devs themselves gave more accurate information. It does file-granular backups, queuing up the list of changes from the last backup for incrementals. - twoblink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was not a big fan of ext3 (still am not) because it's died on me before, and corrupted my data to the point that remounting as ext2 and then fscking didn't help.
I use XFS on all my linux boxes exclusively (it's so much faster than ext3, which is a dog with a lot of flees). The one problem I have is that XFS is not compatible with Grub. But I'll gladly use lilo since I boot only once a year, but use the file system every waking moment.
Running Bittorrent 365 days a year straight, has tested the "robustness" of XFS; I've had 2 corrupt files thus far in 2 years; and both were repairs by xfs_repair. Other than that, no problems.
I hope that OSX adopts ZFS or a filesystem with similiar abilities.. Linux has a lot of filesystems to choose from; but IMHO, very few "great" ones. Most are good, but I'd rather give up most of the choices for ONE good one. - brianmost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From the Time Machine preference panel shown in some screenshots, it looks like it's just a daily backup utility. Nothing about Time Machine looked like we should expect a new file system -- just a very fancy way of browsing through a set of differential backups.
Where's everyone getting this versioned filesystem notion? - mbradbury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder if Apple has got OS X booting off of a ZFS filesystem? Because Solaris can't
- Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@lounger540: you do know that the majority of those numbers come from the iPod & iTunes, right?
although this has nothing to do with the article, i'm just pointing out the fact that you're using big numbers that aren't relevant to the topic in the first place. thats like saying, well the xbox 360 is obviously profitable, just look how much money M$ has netted this year, though we all know that thats not true. - chrisprasojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hm.. Whatever it is, Time Machine is a great feature. Much better, cooler, and easier then the current backup apps. Leopard is on my wishlist! :D
- elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Full copy of each file every time you modify it -- this is what I was hoping didn't happen. I was hoping that time machine was nothing more than Subversion with flashy graphics.
I guess computing deltas on those big video files would consume an awful lot of CPU, but I'd prefer that just for the disk space usage. - chrisrosa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sitting in the keynote, I have to say I had the same exact conclusion, but then was a little surprised that it was offered up as a great new feature. Not totally surprised though, considering Apple's history of keeping things as tight as possible up until the release. This is the best take I've seen on the Time Machine - ZFS "conspiracy" so far.
- maximusGeek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I heard Apple was looking to move to ZFS for some time now
- Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That was a very good read. I'm actually a lot less impressed right now with Time Machine then I was initially. I was hoping it would use the snapshots method instead of a "backup the whole file" method. It sucks that a small change to a large file will result in backing up the entire large file. Hopefully the "folders disguised as files" (iMovie projects, etc) will not be considered 1 big file and will have their contents backed up individually.
- Schematics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Neato!
- Kolenka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Have fun then... you have to turn it /on/ before you can use it. Not everyone has a drive sitting around for backups, so it would be insane to have it on by default, since it needs its own drive.
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is