361–370 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is far more willing to switch to more newer technologies than Microsoft is.
Also, NTFS being a much better filesystem than HFS+, there was a lot less incentive to switch.
Although ExFAT is at least somewhat promising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and Microsoft is far more willing than Apple to put effort into backwards compatibility.
In the past, nobody did a better job of backwards compatibility than Microsoft. Lately, Microsoft is showing that they aren't afraid to break things in the name of progress. If W10 is indeed the last version of Windows, maybe that's okay.
The Most harsh part was not coding or UI, it was determining which version of different window API had a remote chance to smoothly work together. (It involved DB drivers and data grids)
Forgive my ignorance, but what benefits would an average user experience with this new file system?
In theory (the practical side is tricky to get right): - More resilience against data corruption for one due to copy on write and likely checksumming - so in theory power failure should not harm the filesystem and you can roll back to a last known state and only lose data for the last few seconds if at all. - Snapshots, before installing updates you can snapshot the filesystem and roll back instantly. You could also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's so frustrating watching tiny incremental backups take forever over the network While waiting for APFS to become stable, buy Carbon Copy Cloner. $40. I love it. It's fundamentally rsync, but tailored to OS X. For personal use a single license covers an entire household. Every night CCC fires up on each laptop and each does an incremental clone to its own dedicated directory on my desktop machine. This clone is us…
CCC was what I used back in the day (IIRC it used to be free) to make the most reliable bit-for-bit backups of OS X machines. Time Machine skipping over so many files is kind of a nuisance to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the past, nobody did a better job of backwards compatibility than Microsoft. Lately, Microsoft is showing that they aren't afraid to break things in the name of progress. If W10 is indeed the last version of Windows, maybe that's okay.
But wasn't that as the expense of clarity for new developers? I remember a horrible graduation exam where I had to code in VisualStudio. The Most harsh part was not coding or UI, it was determining which version of different window API had a remote chance to smoothly work together. (It involved DB drivers and data grids)
Just saw a comment in another thread, stating Apple had slipped in improving their Unix layer, and here comes this. New file system is not a joking matter: Microsoft failed to deliver their new FS; Linux took years to go from ext2 to ext3 to ext4, and btrfs is in forever testing; most of *BSD still use their old ones; zfs took decade to become mainstream... The information currently is very scarce on this one, but I…
While I am happy that Apple have at last committed to replacing HFS+, I'm wondering why they didn't use ZFS rather than reinventing the wheel. It's not like it's a particularly easy wheel to reinvent either; the amount of effort which goes into a filesystem like ZFS is non-trivial. Why not build on top of that? I would have greatly appreciated being able to use ZFS with MacOS X, for datasets, snapshots, sending them…
Apple should have bought Sun at the time, and cross-pollinate Mac OS X and Solaris while using OpenSolaris to attack the server/cloud market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to troll, but I see so many HN comments about backups and I just don't have this need anymore. What are people using traditional backup software like time machine, carbon copy cloner, etc. for on their laptop these days? I use google docs for all my docs and spreadsheets, occasionally I use excel or word or keynote for files but if I do I save the docs to my dropbox or google drive folder, I have my photos…
It's not only paranoid people who keep offline backups, it's those that understand the threat models where data can be destroyed through logical or physical access to all storage locations. For arguments sake, I'll focus Google services. As I personally discovered recently, docs offers minimal protection for your data: 1. Docs shared with you (others are "owner") can disappear without notice. 2. Manual clones are the…
Basically if you don't have any offline backups it is easy to become totally screwed. 2TB drives are cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks for mansplaining rootless and encryption (/s). Encryption is not authentication, so it does not prevent unnoticed modification. And secure boot only really depends on authentication and not on encryption, so you are conflating two different concepts. No you cant just trust the data, replay attacks over time and space are still an issue.
>mansplaining Thank you for injecting sexism into a technical discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks for mansplaining rootless and encryption (/s). Encryption is not authentication, so it does not prevent unnoticed modification. And secure boot only really depends on authentication and not on encryption, so you are conflating two different concepts. No you cant just trust the data, replay attacks over time and space are still an issue.
I'm not the one conflating them; it's the Secure Boot people who think this is a good idea. Full-Disk Encryption is the defined "OS" stage of the Secure Boot chain-of-trust today, acting as an "optimization" (heh) over signing disk blocks. It's certainly more secure (indeed, it prevents replay attacks) to just keep a big block-hash table, update it when blocks change, and then hash that table and sign it on fsync—but…
No you can not. That is your sentence not from Secure Boot People.
Also I assume that APFS will support encrypted and unencrypted logical FS in the same space sharing FS instance. So the separate OS partition is just a logical FS which is unencrypted. - Which I meant in my original post.
GELI and the AES-GCM are authenticated. Not sure if GCM has equivalent properties to the GELI HMAC feature but probably good enough.