Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > Dominic Giampaolo joins Apple

Dominic Giampaolo joins Apple
Thread Tools
Zarafa
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2002, 05:45 PM
 
For OS X, there aren't a lot of pieces of news better than this.

For those who are unfamiliar with Dominic, he worked for Be, Inc., and most notably wrote BFS.

Here's The Register article that mentions it (as a precursor to some interesting things about filesystems, particularly database implementations of same). Relevant excerpt:

[...] while Dominic, we are delighted to learn, has subsequently joined Apple as a file system engineer. He started last week.
Expect Good Things from this.

[ 03-29-2002: Message edited by: Zarafa ]
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2002, 05:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Zarafa:
<STRONG>

Expect Good Things from this.

[ 03-29-2002: Message edited by: Zarafa ]</STRONG>
That is, assuming Stevie gives him the room he needs to operate. Heres hoping .

BlackGriffen
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)
     
snerdini
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Merry Land
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2002, 05:59 PM
 
i think acquiring ANYONE who worked on beos is great...but especially in the filesystem area. that was one of beos' strong points! i'm stoked!
     
clarkgoble
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Provo, UT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2002, 06:18 PM
 
With MS coming out with their new file system (that sounds exciting) and HFS' various incarnations getting long in tooth, it is almost a necessity that Apple come out with a new file system in a couple of years.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2002, 08:12 PM
 
Hh yes, he's a brilliant engineer. Bfs rocks my world. What a great hire!
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
gorgonzola
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New Yawk
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2002, 09:09 PM
 
They hired Jordan Hubbard a while back as well, of FreeBSD ports fame. They seem to be going in the right direction with their hirings, but hopefully good things will actually come of this.
"Do not be too positive about things. You may be in error." (C. F. Lawlor, The Mixicologist)
     
eno
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fightclub
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2002, 09:15 PM
 
Well, as much as I hope for journaling in the Mac OS X file system, if this guy adds it in it's going to have to be completely backwards compatible with HFS+ otherwise Apple won't touch it. They've had too many difficult transitions; they don't want another one.

The database-like aspects would also be a nice frill, but once again they'd have to be added in a backwards compatible way. From a marketing standpoint, I think Apple needs to do this in order to be seen to be competitive with MS (perceptions are everything).

Read the whole Reg article. It's a good read.

Time to start hoping for HFS++ (?) with Mac OS X 10.3?
     
Yoda's Erotic Piggyback
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Riding Luke's saucy little back on Dagobah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2002, 03:08 AM
 
So what is wrong with HSF+?
     
starfleetX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2002, 03:16 AM
 
Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
<STRONG>So what is wrong with HSF+?</STRONG>
It's too easily damaged, for one. Imagine never having to reboot and "fsck" your disk to correct errors.
The server made a boo boo. (403)
     
Dennis the Phantom Menace
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2002, 03:27 AM
 
This is absolutely amazing news! It would be nice to see a an HFS++ file system.
     
chris_h
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: East Texas (omg)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2002, 03:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Dennis the Phantom Menace:
<STRONG>This is absolutely amazing news! It would be nice to see a an HFS++ file system. </STRONG>
yeah, but then all future MS mac products would require you to upgrade to MS HFS# , a file system that would either really piss you off or really confuse you (mostly in regards to its relevance and purpouse).
     
SYN
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2002, 06:15 AM
 
This is great news! I'm VERY happy to learn Apple is taking things into its hands, and such a outstanding engineer can only give us a great FS in the future.

This is very exciting news, I'm anxiously waiting to see what's next
Soyons R�alistes, Demandons l'impossible
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2002, 10:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
<STRONG>So what is wrong with HSF+?</STRONG>
One, as people have said here, it's fragile.
Two, it's slow. Really slow. It's great at file lookups, but everything else is abysmal performance-wise, because the structure has to be single-threaded.

There are many good things about HFS+. It has some of the greatest usability features out there, perhaps the greatest being the one thing basically unique to it, and the one which no one ever sees: unique file ID's independent of the filename. But it has some severe flaws in other areas. With luck, this guy can write a filesystem that can change all that.

As for the backward-compatibility issue: Yes, nondestructive conversion would be a Really Nice Thing. But I don't think it's a necessity. HFS+ required a reformat, and no one complained about this. Yes, I know Alsoft came out with a utility to nondestructively convert; this is besides the point, as Apple never used it and you had to pay for it anyway. My message to people making this new system (HFS-3?): Make it backward-compatible if you can, but don't feel chained to it. And for the love of God, keep those unique file ID's!
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
SYN
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2002, 12:09 PM
 
What I meant regarding backwards compatibility was: do apps rely on HFS+-specific structure, ie they'd have to be partly rewritten to run on a new FS, or can I for instance just copy an app to a FAT32 volume and it'll run without a hitch? If so, then I second you, backwards-compatibility is absolutely not imperative. Migrating to NTFS requires a reformat too...

I'm hoping to see a BFS on stero�ds, a marriage between the advantages of HFS+ (most notably unique file IDs, I was discussing this the other day with BeOS users, who aren't impressed with anything nowadays, and they just couldn't believe it worked without me showing them...) and those of BFS.

I'm really looking forward to the 64bit-journaling-live-node-watching-instant-searches-live-queries-attributes-up-the-wazoo goodness of what this guy can cook up, properly backed up in Cupertino
Soyons R�alistes, Demandons l'impossible
     
Orange Luna
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2002, 01:34 PM
 
Originally posted by SYN:
<STRONG>What I meant regarding backwards compatibility was: do apps rely on HFS+-specific structure, ie they'd have to be partly rewritten to run on a new FS, or can I for instance just copy an app to a FAT32 volume and it'll run without a hitch?</STRONG>
I know Apple is trying to encourage developers now to get away from HFS dependencies, but still supports it somewhat in Carbon. Moving to a new file system should be relatively easy for any X app today without HFS dependecies.
"It's the cowards and weaklings and sorelosers who hide behind rules and fair play."
The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester
     
Lew
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2002, 01:43 PM
 
Originally posted by SYN:
<STRONG>...Migrating to NTFS requires a reformat too...
</STRONG>
Or just type 'Convert C: /fs:NTFS' and it'll non-destructively convert at the next reboot
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 05:01 AM
 
What's wrong with a completely new filesystem.

I don't like HFS+ touchiness. Lost my data more than once due to the fact that it was beyond repair.

A mix discussed here as HFS++ is bull because it mixes what is never meant to mix. Like building a Porsche engine into my grandfather's Opel, it just won't work.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
clarkgoble
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Provo, UT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 05:50 AM
 
Just out of curiosity, what kind of programs would be making HFS+ dependencies? I mean I can see using some low level system calls - but even there I bet most of them are just reading and writing data and could be "faked" for a new file system.

Other than disk utilities, why would a program need to know about the structure of the file system?
     
michaelb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 06:20 AM
 
I said at the time:

Apple should have bought both NeXT and Be.

In the end, it looks like they are...


(Of course, it took 5 years and the extinction of Be to get the people. Come on Steve, hire Jean-Louis as well to entertain the troops: just think how hip Apple would be with all those leather jackets and gold earrings... Wow, would you look at that: a nice snowflake floating over that lava lake on the hotter side of hell.)
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 06:38 AM
 
MacOS X has a simple solution -- there is an abstraction layer for the filesystem. Applications should not interact with 'low-level' functions (except for some, maybe such as Norton Disk Doctor).

That way, an application does not realize what filesystem is under the hood (you can install MacOS X on a UFS partition as well).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
boots
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 09:27 AM
 
Originally posted by OreoCookie:
<STRONG>MacOS X has a simple solution -- there is an abstraction layer for the filesystem. Applications should not interact with 'low-level' functions (except for some, maybe such as Norton Disk Doctor).

That way, an application does not realize what filesystem is under the hood (you can install MacOS X on a UFS partition as well).</STRONG>

Is that really true? I have a number of (mostly classic) apps that won't even rocognize that a UFS partition even exists. Is that because of the resource forks that classic apps use?

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 10:43 AM
 
I am sorry, I should have been more precise about my statement.

Of course, only MacOS X native apps benefit from the filesystem abstraction layer.
Classic apps still can't access anything but the filesystems OS 9 recognizes. And since there is no driver for UFS under OS 9 (and I seriously doubt there ever will be) you cannot access your UFS volume.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Todd Madson
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 10:53 AM
 
I doubt Jobs will hire JLG. JLG was one of the guys voting for Jobs
ouster back in the day.
     
Immortal K-Mart Employee
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Folding customer returned size 52 underwear.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 10:54 AM
 
Originally posted by michaelb:
<STRONG>I said at the time:

Apple should have bought both NeXT and Be.
</STRONG>
Who the hell would have the money for that! Remember NeXT cost them 400 million and Be wanted the same.

{v2.3 Now Jesus free}
Religions are like farts: yours is good, the others always stink.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 11:15 AM
 
Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
<STRONG>

Who the hell would have the money for that! Remember NeXT cost them 400 million and Be wanted the same.</STRONG>
Apple does
     
spb
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: london
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 11:21 AM
 
im waiting for uffs

useless f***ing file system

oh we've already got it..
     
Immortal K-Mart Employee
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Folding customer returned size 52 underwear.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 11:23 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Apple does </STRONG>
Wouldn't look good though. If they buy next, come out with OSX and then buy Be it makes it look like they still can't get it to work. Second if they thought merging Unix, NeXT, and MacOS together try throwing another OS in the mix.

I think it is better just to hire a few Be people.

{v2.3 Now Jesus free}
Religions are like farts: yours is good, the others always stink.
     
SYN
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 03:36 PM
 
I think it is better just to hire a few Be people.
They already have, quite a few
Soyons R�alistes, Demandons l'impossible
     
AJ
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 07:57 PM
 
Here's to hoping they thread like crazy then...
     
juanvaldes
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2002, 09:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
<STRONG>

Apple does </STRONG>
today yes. Back then no way.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
     
Bouba
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2002, 06:04 PM
 
One of the major differences between UFS HFS FAT and BFS is that only two of these file systems support multiple forks. BFS and HFS does (that's why you have the datafork and the ressource fork in applications under os 9). In os X, things are a little bit different. Because it is also compatible with UFS which doesn't recognize the ressource fork, this one had to be merged with the datafork into one. As a result, the applications and disk images can now be downloaded and copied from a FAT (windows file system) disk without being corrupted as it was the case with .img (that's why it has changed to .dmg). That's also the reason why you can't run classic from a UFS formatted disk.

Also, filesystems in os X are implemented as a plugin-like architecture, allowing to add other filesystem in the game without affecting the applications accessing the files.

I think that it will be possible to maintain the advantages of HFS+ while migrating to a journaling architecture like BFS. But the new file-system would have to keep file IDs etc...
...happiness is not a fish that you can catch.
     
BTP
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 34.06 N 118.47 W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2002, 09:43 PM
 
I spent some time using BeOS and I liked it. The buying BeOS vs. Unix reminds me of people that choose to build a new home way out in the boondocks as opposed to more urban areas. Sure, the homes are big beautiful and and it is really nice, but at the end of the day, you are all alone. Making such a pbreak would have left Apple well out of the mainstream. Each has good and bad points, but it would have been a lot harder for Apple to make a go of this with the BeOS as it was, IMHO. What is lost are the great things in BeOS, speed being the one I remember most. If we can have some BeOS goodness in OS X, I'll be happy.
A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on. - Mark Twain
     
wheeles
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2002, 10:17 PM
 
Originally posted by Bouba:
<STRONG>Also, filesystems in os X are implemented as a plugin-like architecture, allowing to add other filesystem in the game without affecting the applications accessing the files.

I think that it will be possible to maintain the advantages of HFS+ while migrating to a journaling architecture like BFS. But the new file-system would have to keep file IDs etc...</STRONG>
I remember reading somewhere (possibly the Register) that the underlying filesystem architecture was something called VFS. Not sure what that stands for. UFS and HFS+ were merely plugins for VFS. It is possible that Dominic could be working more on the VFS side than a reworking of HFS+.

I really don't understand why people are getting so antsy over HFS+. In time the majority of apps will not care about which filesystem you are using. I can understand the need for backward compatibility to allow older apps to function, but provided there is an HFS+ plugin for whatever Dominic is working on then that won't be a problem. Things still need to move forward, however.

I used BeOS for quite a long time and had no filesystem corruptions, didn't have to defrag my disk or even care about its health. It could take care of itself. No mucking about with it was required. I could shutdown everything in about a second and boot in about 15 seconds. If I pulled the plug out of the wall I wouldn't lose any data and didn't have to fsck anything. Dominic, more of the same please.
Join the fun Join Team MacNN
     
BTP
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 34.06 N 118.47 W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2002, 10:20 PM
 
While I am still somewhat in a transitional phase, I'd be open to having a new filesystem. The bleeding edge is a nice place to live.

A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on. - Mark Twain
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2002, 10:35 PM
 
Originally posted by wheeles:
<STRONG>

I remember reading somewhere (possibly the Register) that the underlying filesystem architecture was something called VFS. Not sure what that stands for. UFS and HFS+ were merely plugins for VFS. It is possible that Dominic could be working more on the VFS side than a reworking of HFS+.</STRONG>
VFS stands for Virtual File System. It's not really a filesystem at all. It's just a standard set of calls that OSX uses to interact with any filesystem. In effect, OSX talks to the virtual filesystem, and the virtual filesystem then talks to the real filesystem. That's what a VFS plugin is all about; it allows VFS to talk to the new filesystem, but the rest of the OS doesn't even have to know about it; it just keeps on talking to the VFS same as always. That way, at least ideally, any filesystem that has a VFS plugin should work seamlessly with the system.

Most operating systems have a similar concept nowadays, actually.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:21 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,