On 13/04/2014, at 12:47 pm, Rob Lewis <groble...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no dog in this fight, but I wonder if possibly the late discovery of
> the need for ECC was a factor in Apple's abandoning the ZFS project. Unlikely
> they'd want to reengineer all their machines for it.
I do not know, and am therefor free to speculate :)
However, rumour hath it that Apple considered the patent/licence situation
around ZFS to be problematic. Given the current litigious landscape, this was
not a fight that they were willing to buy into. Note that the patent problem
also threatens btrfs.
You might discount the magnitude of the threat, but on a cost/benefit analysis
it looks like they walked away.
Likewise, some of the benefits and a lot of the emphasis of ZFS lies in server
space, which is not a market that Apple is playing in to any great extent. It's
not that ZFS doesn't have lots of benefits for client space as well, but the
SUN emphasis was very much on the server side (which Oracle only emphasises).
Now, with the OpenZFS model and in particular the options ("We'll support a,b
and t, but not c or e") it's possible they might revisit it sometime (why yes,
I am an incurable optimist. Why do you ask?) but I suspect they are more
interested in distributed file systems a.k.a. the cloud.
"I have a soft spot for politicians---it's a bog in the west of Ireland!"
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.