11 Comments

Summary:

Apple shed a little light today, on the lack of ZFS appearing on the Leopard information pages. It seems that ZFS will not be the default file system in Leopard – this much we’ve already deduced. But how exactly will Apple be supporting it? is only […]

Apple shed a little light today, on the lack of ZFS appearing on the Leopard information pages. It seems that ZFS will not be the default file system in Leopard – this much we’ve already deduced. But how exactly will Apple be supporting it?

is only available a read-only option from the command line,

Read-only means that at a later date, if there are ZFS volumes, those systems would be able to read ZFS volumes

What this means to the rest of us is that we can’t write to a ZFS drive with Leopard. However if you’ve got some server (Solaris being most likely) running ZFS, Leopard will allow you to read that drive. Um, woohoo? I guess it could be worse, and we’d get no comment/support on the ZFS front, but this is clearly a let down. If you’re not sure why ZFS is a big deal, there’s a great article about it here.

I’ve been defending the Keynote and somewhat lackluster features in the past couple posts, but I think I’m about to surrender my stance at this point. Microsoft took an awful lot of heat for delays and cutting back all the breakthrough features that Longhorn (Vista) was to ship with, most notable being WinFS. Now here we are on the eve of Leopard – which has suffered its own delay in ship date – and the much-hyped ZFS will be absent from the party for Apple as well.

It almost appears that Cupertino has been using their photocopiers

By Nick Santilli

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. It’s a bit of a different situation don’t you think? In the Microsoft case they advertise a list of features they intend to ship, then cut the features before release. In the Apple case fanboys speculate for a year and come up with wild-ass theories with no official comment from Apple, and are disappointed when their guesses are not accurate.

    Share
  2. I agree with Brian. Um, HELLO??? Apple has NEVER advertised ZFS. NEVER.

    I’ve been amazed at the general cry-baby response to the keynote. I’m starting to think that the Mac community and Mac web has lost it’s collective mind. Just what exactly is Apple failing to deliver? Folks are far too quick to forget the accomplishments of the past few years and put up this gimme gimme gimme tantrum. Let’s not forget that Jobs and the engineers are human beings with lives and families.

    Share
  3. This article is not worthy of comment…

    Share
  4. It’s not like Apple has been touting ZFS and suddenly removed it. I don’t recall them ever even mentioning ZFS before now.

    Share
  5. I think the Mac community is replete with selfish, spiteful and spoiled individuals.

    When there’s little to complain about, it seems that they start lifting the carpets to see what they can find… maybe they feel better about themselves when they’re bitching about someone/thing else.

    BTW – I watched the keynote yesterday, and I think it was GREAT. The tongue in cheek pokes at MS were also tons of fun. I am looking forward to my new Leopard iMac in last quarter 2007.

    Share
  6. In addition to my comment above, I want to say that it’s not directed at the author (Nick) but that I think that it’s a product of having had ‘superior OS to windows’ for a long time. It’s a evolution of complacency, brought about by having too many good things. I think.

    Share
  7. This really isn’t shocking since Sun doesn’t have their boxes installing on ZFS yet, either, and they’ve definitely been working on it longer than Apple has. Yeah, it’s *possible* to boot from ZFS, but the install doesn’t offer it on a silver platter (sorry) and you’d better roll up your sleeves and pop a couple of Xanax before you try it. I’d expect (and sincerely want) ZFS to be an option in OS X development builds for a long time before I want it on my Macs. That said, I’ll be giddy when I have ZFS on my Macs.

    Share
  8. The comments in the response have a good point. Apple has been delivering. BUT, given that Leopard is now overdue…. I saw noting in SJ’s keynote on Leopard’s features that had me wanting to get an upgrade. I failed to see what is so special about the features presented. … nice but so what. The one good feature that i won’t be able to use is the 64 bit part. i will not be upgrading to intel mac for at least 2-3 years. Now maybe there are _super secret new features_ to come. I certainly hope there are other compelling features to come in Oct. On the other hand i will be perfectly happy with what i have at the moment for another year or two. But it’s another case with Dot Mac. IF that is not greatly improved by oct I will not be renewing. Jobs has publicly admitted it needs fixing. It has sucked for at least two years. They had better improve that puppy. So in conclusion I don’t think that i am an ungrateful whiny spoiled consumer. Why is it wrong for us to expect improved services and an OS that delivers something after two years of development? Why are we selfish to expect that a service that costs 99 annually be regularly improved? ( I do hope the iPhone is a runaway success, even though i wont be getting one for a year or two.)

    Share
  9. It’s disappointing not to see new tech (ZFS in this case) in our beloved OS which is already so far ahead of the competition. It’s by no means a deal breaker, but I couldn’t help observing the subtle similarities.

    The last line was something I couldn’t help – poking fun at Apple the same way they’ve done to MS. Just good fun. :)

    Share
  10. lots of grumbling in userland, and apple had better listen up:

    Michael Tsai on the keynote.
    http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/11/wwdc-2007-keynote/

    I am glad that more folks are not going to let apple off the hook on this one.
    There are real things that need fixing. a transparent dock leaves us cold. as does the otehr eye candy.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post