Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

APFS filesystem format

blog.cugu.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: APFS filesystem format

#81

Post by IMcD23 »

avar wrote: post #22
xoa wrote: post #11

Very, very cool exercise. For anyone who hasn't been following APFS much though, worth knowing that Apple has stated in their AFPS FAQ [1] that they do intend to directly "document and publish the APFS volume format specification" themselves later this year. Presumably (as they do with other stuff they develop) they want to be able to more easily make breaking changes during the shakedown period of initial public dep…

They said the same about Facetime and iMessages but never opened or documented those, so let's see when and if it actually happens. Apple has a history of false promises when it comes to opening and documenting their protocols & data formats. Edit: I misrecalled that iMessage was announced as something they were opening.

Yet they said the same about Swift, ResearchKit, etc. Those are successful open source projects. FaceTime is the only recent project they said they would open up and didn't...and that arguably wasn't their fault.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#82

Post by michaelmrose »

scarface74 wrote: post #71
lobster_johnson wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of companies routinely open-source lots of little things that could easily have stayed internal, but are genuinely useful to everyone else. (Admittedly, I think about 30% of them are Go logging libraries, but the point still stands.) I.e., open source by default as opposed to being the exception. That, of course, can be a strategy. A company can look cooler and attract talent by developing everything in the ope…

It's called "commoditizing your complements" Google open sourced Android to get advertising revenue. IBM supports open source and made money from server sells and still makes money from services. Apple open sourced WebKit (more than they had to) to gain industry support and later to kill off Flash. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Apple didn't own webkit they couldn't keep it closed

Re: APFS filesystem format

#83

Post by tyingq »

scarface74 wrote: post #76
tyingq wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context bubbles up to the post that said "Apple has a history of false promises when it comes to opening and documenting their protocols & data formats" . That comment was down voted, but had me curious. I was asking for examples of something they open sourced that would have exposed something like that, something more risky to the walled garden concept. I perhaps could have worded it better, but HN does seem to…

something more risky to the walled garden concept. I perhaps could have worded it better, but HN does seem to react to any questioning of Apple with a defensive posture. What has any company open sourced that would cause them to loose their competitive advantage?

I get the point that you don't like this line of inquiry, but "something more risky" isn't "definitely lose your competitive advantage". And, again, it's a question, not an accusation. I'm curious...trying to understand the Apple reputation in the open source area, how much of it was deserved or not.

Certainly, Android is more open than Apple's mobile OS. Google does hold some important bits back. But, still, it is "more risky". Hence the question. I may be missing other areas where Apple was open sourcing things that were more core to them.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#84

Post by scarface74 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #82
scarface74 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called "commoditizing your complements" Google open sourced Android to get advertising revenue. IBM supports open source and made money from server sells and still makes money from services. Apple open sourced WebKit (more than they had to) to gain industry support and later to kill off Flash. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Apple didn't own webkit they couldn't keep it closed

The original web rendering engine code was originally licensed under BSD. Apple could have forked it and closed it.

JavascriptCore was also based on BSD code, but was then rewritten by the WebKit team and made GPL.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#85

Post by scarface74 »

savoytruffle wrote: post #79
scarface74 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called "commoditizing your complements" Google open sourced Android to get advertising revenue. IBM supports open source and made money from server sells and still makes money from services. Apple open sourced WebKit (more than they had to) to gain industry support and later to kill off Flash. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Webkit was open-source long before anticipating killing Flash. I think, like Darwin, it was originally open-source because it had to be, due to its origin in an existing open-source project that required derivatives also be open-source.

Darwin was originally based on BSD code - there is no requirement to keep BSD code open.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#86

Post by scarface74 »

scarface74 wrote: post #76
tyingq wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context bubbles up to the post that said "Apple has a history of false promises when it comes to opening and documenting their protocols & data formats" . That comment was down voted, but had me curious. I was asking for examples of something they open sourced that would have exposed something like that, something more risky to the walled garden concept. I perhaps could have worded it better, but HN does seem to…

something more risky to the walled garden concept. I perhaps could have worded it better, but HN does seem to react to any questioning of Apple with a defensive posture. What has any company open sourced that would cause them to loose their competitive advantage?

Certainly, Android is more open than Apple's mobile OS. Google does hold some important bits back. But, still, it is "more risky". Hence the question. I may be missing other areas where Apple was open sourcing things that were more core to them.

Android is "more open" except for the parts that Google cares about - Google Play Services, and all of the other open source components that Google is abandoning.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on...

And there are few if any open source drivers for the cellular chips or graphics chips.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#87

Post by twoodfin »

wolfgang42 wrote: post #55

For those who, like me, don't follow developments in this area closely: APFS is Apple's new filesystem, intended to be used across all of their devices (Macs, iOS, watchOS, etc). For Macs, it will be replacing HFS+, a direct descendant of the Hierarchical Filing System which has been used since 1985. (The original Macintosh Filing System, from 1984, was suitable only for floppy disks; among other things, it was a fla…

It replaced (as of iOS 10.3) HFS+ on the mobile devices as well, didn't it?

Re: APFS filesystem format

#88

Post by tyingq »

scarface74 wrote: post #86
scarface74 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

something more risky to the walled garden concept. I perhaps could have worded it better, but HN does seem to react to any questioning of Apple with a defensive posture. What has any company open sourced that would cause them to loose their competitive advantage?

Certainly, Android is more open than Apple's mobile OS. Google does hold some important bits back. But, still, it is "more risky". Hence the question. I may be missing other areas where Apple was open sourcing things that were more core to them. Android is "more open" except for the parts that Google cares about - Google Play Services, and all of the other open source components that Google is abandoning. https://ars…

I feel like you missed the "Google does hold some important bits back" part that you quoted.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#89

Post by pvg »

scarface74 wrote: post #84
michaelmrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple didn't own webkit they couldn't keep it closed

The original web rendering engine code was originally licensed under BSD. Apple could have forked it and closed it. JavascriptCore was also based on BSD code, but was then rewritten by the WebKit team and made GPL.

Fairly sure KHTML was LGPL, Apple could not have closed it even if they wanted to. Same goes for what became JSCore which also remains LGPL.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#90

Post by unscaled »

scarface74 wrote: post #74
tyingq wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are good examples. It was an honest question though, not a proclamation that Apple hasn't open sourced anything. Edit: Maybe Google is getting more credit because of uptake? Chromium, golang, protobufs, material design, etc. So perhaps not how much was open source, but how much of it ended up in non Google projects?

Chromium was a fairly recent fork of WebKit. Webkit was already being adopted by every browser vendor except MS and Mozilla. As far as Golang, I doubt that it has the uptake ofClang (even used by MS), CUPS, or Bonjour. Yes I realized that CUPS was open source before being acquired by Apple but the copyright was owned by Sweets and they could have closed all future enhancement over the last decade.

You're talking about Blink. Chromium is not a rendering engine, but a full browser. Chrome is just chromium with branded assets and a few proprietary features that link it to Google Services.

It was first released in 2008, only 3 years after WebKit was open sourced, and about the same it was starting to gain traction outside Apple. Most of the browsers which didn't have their own engine back then were actually using Gecko or embedding an IE webview. Google embracing WebKit was a huge factor in pushing it to become the mainstream rendering engine.

Post reply on HN