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

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: APFS filesystem format

#101

Post by tyingq »

Tanegashima wrote: post #97

Look, we get it, you bought an Android and you want to use iMessage and FaceTime. That would be stupid, Apple doesn't make money from users data, Apple doesn't listen to conversations like Google does to sell ads. So why would they support servers (and there are a lot more of android users than iOS users) for people that didn't bought anything from them? For people that bought Androids to like them? They don't need t…

That's not at all why I posted this or where I was going. I do happen to have an Android, but don't use apps other than a web browser and whatever the SMS app is. I have no desire to video chat, or any need for SMS beyond what a Nokia can do.

I am just interested in knowing more about why Apple has the reputation it does around open source. The thread has delivered on that. Also delivered on the idea that apple fans are oddly defensive. Honestly not trolling, but the reaction seems as if I did succeed in that somehow.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#102

Post by Tanegashima »

duskwuff wrote: post #67
mrmondo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI - HFS is capability of case sensitivity and is an option during formatting. I believe it even used to be the default.

HFS and HFS+ were never case-sensitive by default on Mac OS. Case-sensitive HFS+ was made available as an option in Mac OS 10.0, but was always glitchy (especially for boot volumes), because many applications depended on case insensitivity.

I have a case sensitive HFS+ and everything works fine.

That was a problem with older versions of Adobe suite, but since lots of people on Macs used Adobe Apps...

Re: APFS filesystem format

#103

Post by dang »

Tanegashima wrote: post #97

Look, we get it, you bought an Android and you want to use iMessage and FaceTime. That would be stupid, Apple doesn't make money from users data, Apple doesn't listen to conversations like Google does to sell ads. So why would they support servers (and there are a lot more of android users than iOS users) for people that didn't bought anything from them? For people that bought Androids to like them? They don't need t…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175206 and marked it off-topic.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#104

Post by scarface74 »

sigjuice wrote: post #100
scarface74 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why does Apple continue to publish Darwin code then? I have always been curious.

Why not?

It doesn't harm Apple's competitiveness. Apple doesn't publish source to the hire level OS X frameworks.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#105

Post by jwildeboer »

Tanegashima wrote: post #98
kuschku wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding Apple’s Open Source strategy, the WebKit origin story is a major disaster. They forked an existing project, only did sourcedumps every few months, often stripped of all comments, refused to work with the original devs that they had forked from (the KDE KHTML engine), etc.

Good. GPLv3 software can't be on Apple products, yet every Chromebook ships with it, because Saint Google.

Signal is GPLv3 and readily available on Apples App Store. So no, you are mistaken.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#106

Post by scarface74 »

kuschku wrote: post #47
scarface74 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They never promised to open up iMessage. The story behind FaceTime is a little bit more complicated. Steve Jobs said he would open it up without asking the engineers and lawyers who were just as surprised as anyone else about his announcement. As far as Apple not open sourcing anything. https://opensource.apple.com They also published the full git commit history of Swift from the initial commit.

Regarding Apple’s Open Source strategy, the WebKit origin story is a major disaster. They forked an existing project, only did sourcedumps every few months, often stripped of all comments, refused to work with the original devs that they had forked from (the KDE KHTML engine), etc.

Since 2010, KDE has been moving away from KHTML to the official WebKit fork.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#107

Post by m1sta_ »

boondaburrah wrote: post #96
Jerry2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you missed the whole lawsuit thing [0] that forced them to make (initially P2P) Facetime completely centralized at which point it was pointless to open it up. PS: If you're gonna hate on Apple, at least find some valid points about them to hate instead of just spreading bullshit. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-pat...

After having just read that article, and knowing nothing else about it: ... How is that patentable?

Lots of things seem obvious in retrospect.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#108

Post by [deleted] »

boondaburrah wrote: post #96
Jerry2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you missed the whole lawsuit thing [0] that forced them to make (initially P2P) Facetime completely centralized at which point it was pointless to open it up. PS: If you're gonna hate on Apple, at least find some valid points about them to hate instead of just spreading bullshit. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-pat...

After having just read that article, and knowing nothing else about it: ... How is that patentable?

[deleted]

Re: APFS filesystem format

#109

Post by bfred_it »

Jerry2 wrote: post #75
avar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you missed the whole lawsuit thing [0] that forced them to make (initially P2P) Facetime completely centralized at which point it was pointless to open it up. PS: If you're gonna hate on Apple, at least find some valid points about them to hate instead of just spreading bullshit. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-pat...

Apple did say they were opening it up; then they didn't. How's that bullshit? Even if they did have a legal excuse, that doesn't make it any less true. It could happen again.

Re: APFS filesystem format

#110

Post by achivetta »

lowercaseman wrote: post #95
jdmnd wrote: post #12

Timestamps are 64bit nanoseconds As far as I can tell, this will overflow in just 11 years – 2028-06-15 09:33:27.3709551615 UTC Why would this go into a new standard? Is there a practical use for such a high level of granularity? edit: off by a factor of 10 in my calculation... It's actually 2554-07-21 23:34:33.709551615 UTC

Found this: https://github.com/jbenet/nanotime . No idea if related in any way or used for APFS but it was interesting enough for a quick read. This one is MIT licensed. A little more searching I found a variant but it's done with big-endian so it's much different.

64-bit nanosecond values are actually pretty common on Darwin already. See e.g. clock_gettime_nsec_np(3).
Post reply on HN