Even FAT may still be on our thumb drives, haunting us with the ghost of CP/M long after everyone has forgotten what that even was. HFS+ may kick around for a few years longer as well. NTFS is likely to stick around for many years in the future, simply out of sheer inertia.
But it is tried and true, and for many people, that is more important. Despite valiant attempts to establish ReiserFS as a new standard, and the measurable superiority of systems like XFS, most Linux users are still using ext3. Often it is easier to stick with well-established file systems, even when the cost of switching is ostensibly "free." The example of Linux, which is completely open source and allows anyone to write a new file system for it, is a useful one. For example, long-established file systems, such as FAT, still can be found in popular peripherals including flash drives. He suggests that it's an uphill task to move a user base to a new file system. Reimer asks why Apple didn't switch over to the "newer and sexier" ZFS a few years ago instead of continuing to refine HFS+. He discusses the merits (and historical context) of each, as well as the chances for adoption of ZFS by Apple.
#SWITCH TO THE HFS FILE SYSTEM IN OUTLOOK FOR MAC MAC OS X#
While Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard Server supports ZFS, there's no expectation that it will replace the current Mac file system any day now, or even any year now.Ī recent Ars Technica article by Jeremy Reimer provides an overview of the file systems used by many platforms, including Macs, PCs and Unix systems. Sometimes that message has been delivered (incorrectly) by Sun top brass. Over the past couple of years, the usurpation of the current Mac's HFS+ file system by Sun's ZFS has been predicted.
0 kommentar(er)
