Foskett Services

There's a lot of misinformation and half-truths in this article. To pick one example, the filesystem: yes, we're sadly not using ZFS but that's in all likelihood due to licensing restrictions, not because Apple thinks HFS+ doesn't need replacing. What Apple has done is introduce CoreStorage, a "storage virtualisation system" (see link below), which beyond allowing new features to be added now (e.g. full disk encryption), will presumably allow easier migration to a new filesystem in future. And this was added in Lion.

http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/08/04/mac-osx-lion-corestorage-volume-manager/

As a self-described power user, I've found 10.8 to be a nice upgrade on 10.7 and worlds better than 10.6. That's not to say there aren't issues -- there are many, as there are with any OS -- but Apple currently isn't showing any sign of slowing down, with many of the issues I've experienced having been fixed in 10.8, while any power user is quite capable of disabling new consumer-facing features that don't benefit them (e.g. Launchpad, iCloud).

Edit: reading further, there's a better example -- the author's criticism of Fusion Drives. I quote "Bottom line: Fusion as-is and as supplied by Apple is OK (maybe, hard to say for sure in multi-drive systems). Other than that, messing around carries some ugly risks."

Not only are Apple's Fusion drives a new technology (and it's a relatively pioneering one at that, at least in the consumer space -- they're not HDDs with an SSD cache, but…

I couldn't understand why. I found this article echoing your experiences:

http://blog.fosketts.net/2016/11/26/beware-usb-c-hdmi-adapters-flaky-2016-macbook-pro/

Note that it ends saying "The Good News: DisplayPort Works

I purchased a couple of USB-C to DisplayPort adapters from Monoprice and am pleased to report that they both work just fine. As hoped, these simple adapters natively and passively attach Alternate Mode DisplayPort from the MacBook Pro’s integrated AMD GPU through the Intel Thunderbolt controller and connect perfectly with the monitors I’ve tried."

I then Googled "active displayport hdmi converter" (to find one with a little chip inside, that actively really outputs true HDMI.)

I found this page:

https://www.startech.com/eu/m/AV/Displayport-Converters/DisplayPort-to-HDMI-Active-Video-and-Audio-Adapter-Converter-DP-to-HDMI-1920x1200~DP2HDS

Which says "Connect an HDMI® monitor to a DisplayPort® Video Source".

Since it's active, the Mac should see it as a DisplayPort device. The device then takes that signal and outputs HDMI. So while the resolution might not be perfect, I would expect this combination to work and let you connect your Mac to any HDMI device, period.

Since it sounds like you have this problem a lot, if you did end up buying that device I'd be keen to know if it worked! (email in my profile.)

Thanks.

I thought the same thing when I saw both names mentioned. My understanding is CIFS is an older dialect of SMB that some servers/clients can still fall back on. Here's some key text from an article on the subject [0]:

> Most people, when they use either SMB or CIFS, are talking about the same exact thing. The two are interchangeable not only in a discussion but also in application – i.e., a client speaking CIFS can talk to a server speaking SMB and vice versa. Why? Because CIFS is a form of SMB.

> 1.) The CIFS implementation of SMB is rarely used these days. Under the covers, most modern storage systems no longer use CIFS, they use SMB 2 or SMB 3. In the Windows world, SMB 2 has been the standard as of Windows Vista (2006) and SMB 3 is part of Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012.

> 2.) CIFS has a negative connotation amongst pedants. SMB 2 and SMB 3 are massive upgrades over the CIFS dialect, and storage architects who are near and dear to file sharing protocols don’t appreciate the misnomer. It’s kind of like calling an executive assistant a secretary.

[0] https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/

[1] https://blog.fosketts.net/2012/02/16/cifs-smb/ (related)

> The 787 didn't even exist when the GPS time last rolled over, so it's quite unusual to see it have this problem

It's not as unusual as you'd think:

https://blog.fosketts.net/2019/04/06/gps-time-rollover-failures-keep-happening-but-theyre-almost-done/

There you see a nice summary of the problem and an example a Mercedes car from, if I understood, 2008 experiencing the same type of problems. Also discussed on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19593227

It's like having a Y2K bug software and saying "but that software didn't exist before 1900." It doesn't matter when the "epochs" are, it's just about what the design covered or didn't.

I've personally fixed the trading software which failed to correctly implement the correct rollover of the decades (i.e. the transition from year 9 to year 0 in the names), not to mention Y2K. It was simply tested before only "in the same decade."

It's definitely a failure in the development process, for the software that is supposed to work in some bigger time frame, and not only shortly.

I found a USB-C -> HDMI -> DVI-D -> monitor works for that situation. But the HDMI adapter matters. Some Dell adapters we had laying around the office are what worked for me here, but it was flakey (plug in multiple times - plug in multiple monitors in the correct order).

If your monitor supports Displayport then that is the route you want to use. The MBP 2016 supports USB-C displayport alternate mode, and quality cables exist. This is pretty much bulletproof if it's an option to you.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZH7CKO/ are the cables I bought since they were available next-day, but Monoprice also makes a quality cable.

http://blog.fosketts.net/2016/10/30/2016-macbook-pro-usb-cthunderbolt-survival-guide/ is also a great resource to get started, if you haven't seen it yet.

If you think that was bad, just listen to what Theo de Raadt had to say.

"NFSv4 is a gigantic joke on everyone....NFSv4 is not on our roadmap. It is a ridiculous bloated protocol which they keep adding crap to. In about a decade the people who actually start auditing it are going to see all the mistakes that it hides.

"The design process followed by the NFSv4 team members matches the methodology taken by the IPV6 people. (As in, once a mistake is made, and 4 people are running the test code, it is a fact on the ground and cannot be changed again.) The result is an unrefined piece of trash."

https://blog.fosketts.net/2015/02/03/vsphere-6-nfs-41-finally/