Sorry for the crass language. I'm an old man and I got the RA. Might be the hormones, though as I'm not particularly POd by anyone in particular.
Grasshopper not fit for garden. Fit for farm. Require learning. Read on.
Despite claims by Sun's CEO, the 128-bit ZFS that appears in (Sun) Solaris (Solaris is a UNIX platform - it may run Linux but why? can't you afford a real operating system?) will not (NOT the person say) be spotted in Mac OS X. (do tell.)
By Antone Gonsalves
Jun 11, 2007 11:38 PM
Update, June 12, 5 pm: This article is based on reporting the statements of an Apple representative who subsequently said he had misspoken about ZFS's role in Leopard. A second article reporting the complete, corrected details about ZFS can be found here: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=199903525
From the first article:
"Croll declined to comment on statements made last week by Sun Chief Executive Jonathan Schwartz, who said the use of ZFS would be announced at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Upon further questioning, Croll would only confirm that Apple had never said ZFS would be a part of Leopard."
"Apple has included a read-only version ZFS in Leopard as a future file system option for high-end storage systems."
My view: This is going to be a shoot out between competitors based on a same starting line handicapped by VCSy's choosing. Microsoft will introduce Windows Home Server (aka Longhorn) apparently with WinFS in whatever name it might happen to go by in October and Apple will provide ONLY a read-only version of such an advanced File System.
That sucks. I wonder why? Is Microsoft being rewarded for coming to the table early and Apple had to be convinced? Is Microsoft asserting unknown patents derived from their WinFS development against ZFS starting with Apple's version. It gives Sun and the open-source community plenty of time to consider the implications before Microsoft actually announces such.
This is the advance notification system:
Microsoft Security Bulletin Summary for June 2007
Published: June 12, 2007
To receive automatic notifications whenever Microsoft Security Bulletins are issued, subscribe to Microsoft Technical Security Notifications.
OR Microsoft could fight the patents and run their developments at risk they would lose the court fight at some point threatening all the work they are doing even today. And they would also be running against unleashed competitors who have demonstrated they weren't exactly sitting on their thumbs the past five years themselves. VCSy needs only one amongst this crowd to say "I'll buy the license" and VCSy can have that outfit up and running within very short order (I say that knowing the architecture VCSy and the licensee will be working, or I should say what the architecture will be working on them. Organization, redundancy identification and arbitration... the works come from the base claims of these IPs. There's plenty more to patent or we could settle all this globally and just throw the patents to the winds and hope our bread will return). The impact on Microsoft would be vicious as they will have a difficult enough time rolling out against the Linux developers who will assume the same "challenge the patents" tilt into the windmills and wreak havoc to all the chances Microsoft has to confront openoffice and open web-applications.
Devilishly clever, what not?
Sorry for the ramble, Mo. You know I get like this sometimes. Fingers gotta dance.
(And, Yes, Virginia. Somebody did kill Santa Claus... AND the Easter Bunny. We got the whole bag and basket. heh heh heh )