Any chance this will reduce the space needed for major OS updates? Those have always been desperately inefficient.
macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
11–20 of 152 posts
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#12Nice. But I would like it better if the effort was to support ext4, BtrFS, NTFS and other popular filesystems from the Linux and Windows world...
ext4 and Btrfs are only well supported on Linux; they are not universal standards. NTFS was only supported well on Windows until recently; but extensions like NTFS Encryption (BitLocker) are still Windows only. Mac still does not let you write to an NTFS volume. APFS and HFS+ are obviously Apple file systems. FreeBSD does not support ext4 or Btrfs well; but instead prefers UFS2 or ZFS despite also being an open-sourc…
Is there a single filesystem in the world (besides "simple" ones like FAT) that both has an open standard AND is licensed in a "usable" codebase (MIT or other "non-copyleft" license)?
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
if Mac also supported Linux file formats they would get closer to universal, though? we can't get to that world without these individual steps. creating a new non universal one is backing away from it
Even FreeBSD can't be bothered to do a good job supporting Linux file systems. They're basically proprietary siloed file systems like the rest, even if code is available. Linux, meanwhile, can't be bothered to support either of FreeBSD's file systems officially. UFS2 is hardly patented anymore, but Linux doesn't care beyond read-only support. Being open-source, and even being in a popular open-source project, does no…
There might be some license issues, but the dirty secret is filesystem portability isn't terribly important, and for the users for whom it is - ExFAT and friends are usually good enough.
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#14I hope they did something to not load my hard drive with all the AI crap and steal the storage.
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
ext4 and Btrfs are only well supported on Linux; they are not universal standards. NTFS was only supported well on Windows until recently; but extensions like NTFS Encryption (BitLocker) are still Windows only. Mac still does not let you write to an NTFS volume. APFS and HFS+ are obviously Apple file systems. FreeBSD does not support ext4 or Btrfs well; but instead prefers UFS2 or ZFS despite also being an open-sourc…
Is there a single filesystem in the world (besides "simple" ones like FAT) that both has an open standard AND is licensed in a "usable" codebase (MIT or other "non-copyleft" license)?
I think UDF was meant to be this, though I don't think it supports everything you'd want. Does NTFS have licensing issues though?
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#16https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/vzd...
I guess this is the Apple version of qcow2 and friends
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#17Nice. But I would like it better if the effort was to support ext4, BtrFS, NTFS and other popular filesystems from the Linux and Windows world...
ext4 and Btrfs are only well supported on Linux; they are not universal standards. NTFS was only supported well on Windows until recently; but extensions like NTFS Encryption (BitLocker) are still Windows only. Mac still does not let you write to an NTFS volume. APFS and HFS+ are obviously Apple file systems. FreeBSD does not support ext4 or Btrfs well; but instead prefers UFS2 or ZFS despite also being an open-sourc…
[flagged]
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
ext4 and Btrfs are only well supported on Linux; they are not universal standards. NTFS was only supported well on Windows until recently; but extensions like NTFS Encryption (BitLocker) are still Windows only. Mac still does not let you write to an NTFS volume. APFS and HFS+ are obviously Apple file systems. FreeBSD does not support ext4 or Btrfs well; but instead prefers UFS2 or ZFS despite also being an open-sourc…
if Mac also supported Linux file formats they would get closer to universal, though? we can't get to that world without these individual steps. creating a new non universal one is backing away from it
Does this even matter, if you can copy/mount files over a network?
What are potential use cases where you'd want to support those additional file systems? External drives?
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
ext4 and Btrfs are only well supported on Linux; they are not universal standards. NTFS was only supported well on Windows until recently; but extensions like NTFS Encryption (BitLocker) are still Windows only. Mac still does not let you write to an NTFS volume. APFS and HFS+ are obviously Apple file systems. FreeBSD does not support ext4 or Btrfs well; but instead prefers UFS2 or ZFS despite also being an open-sourc…
[flagged]
A. You're flagged for graphic, inappropriate, and triggering language.
B. Oracle sued Google for a decade over whether a minor number of APIs were copyrighted in Java; do you think Apple's eager to embrace their technology regardless of license? Heck, even Ubuntu wasn't willing to make that bet.
C. Guess how much official licenses for those fancy file systems cost.
D. ZFS, and other fancy file systems, are not known for low RAM and CPU usage. In a server, this does not matter; but it's pretty important for anything on a battery.
Re: macOS Tahoe brings a new disk image format
#20Nice. But I would like it better if the effort was to support ext4, BtrFS, NTFS and other popular filesystems from the Linux and Windows world...
[deleted]