*cough*
03-21-2016, 08:49 PM,
Post: #201
RE: *cough*
I'm OK with paths being like that. Again, it matches the real-life paradigm of files and folders. And I recognize that symlinks/aliases failed to solve that problem with the masses. Even Windows failed with all of the desktop shortcuts. I think apps like Photos don't make it any easier to find my stuff. I have to meticulously enter meta data to make Photos useful, and if I'm that meticulous with my files, I'll know what directory I filed them under.

That's not say that enhancements to the Finder like tagging are bad. I think they're great. It helps the Finder find. But other tools like Launchpad or any number of launchers in the past are just as anemic now as they've been in the past. Funny thing about tools like Launchpad is that the first thing people as for is folders.

Obfuscating the file system presents design problems that simply haven't been solved, and I'm not confident that they will be any time soon. I think that as non-visual UIs begin to dominate there will be new opportunities, but they're going to rely heavily on that metadata.
bedstuy Wrote:mocking a pair of $500 jeans is a form of class warfare... why do you hate my social status?
03-21-2016, 10:19 PM,
Post: #202
RE: *cough*
What I'm saying is that tying classification to physical location in a one-on-one relationship is about as arbitrary and undesirable as encoding file type into a file's name. Just because we've been doing it for decades and we're used to it, doesn't make it good practice and certainly not immune to improvement.
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
03-22-2016, 04:32 AM,
Post: #203
RE: *cough*
(03-21-2016, 10:19 PM)Alien Wrote: What I'm saying is that tying classification to physical location in a one-on-one relationship is about as arbitrary and undesirable as encoding file type into a file's name. Just because we've been doing it for decades and we're used to it, doesn't make it good practice and certainly not immune to improvement.

Are you expecting everyone to run something like a SQL database on their computers?
03-22-2016, 04:39 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-22-2016, 04:41 AM by Alien.)
Post: #204
RE: *cough*
You keep insisting that users need to be intimately acquainted with the underlying technology. Rarely have you been wronger.

Case in point: "SQL" is not "a database". It is an interface to a relational database.
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
03-22-2016, 04:58 AM,
Post: #205
RE: *cough*
(03-22-2016, 04:39 AM)Alien Wrote: You keep insisting that users need to be intimately acquainted with the underlying technology. Rarely have you been wronger.

Case in point: "SQL" is not "a database". It is an interface to a relational database.

That's a bold statement.
03-22-2016, 05:03 AM,
Post: #206
RE: *cough*
It is now.
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
03-22-2016, 07:59 AM,
Post: #207
RE: *cough*
* FuturDreamz noticed Alien chose to split hairs as a rebuttal.
03-22-2016, 08:00 AM,
Post: #208
RE: *cough*
oh hey that's new
My logic is infallible. Resistance is futile.
03-22-2016, 08:05 PM,
Post: #209
RE: *cough*
Your response speaks volumes about your intent with this thread and the clickbait links you're so fond of posting. You are not the least bit interested in actual issues; you're just throwing stuff out there it appeals to your anti-Apple mindset without fully understanding what is being discussed. You are exactly the audience those articles are targeting.

First off, what is a file system, or indeed any storage system, if not a (crude) database? HFS is, for all intents and purposes, a hierarchical database. One where much of the database management and indexing needs to be done inside the user's head, because it doesn't offer much in terms of interfacing beyond "click a folder and see what's inside". This is a holdover from the days when processing power was in such short supply that anything else would tax the system to the point where it would become solely dedicated to managing storage (either that or prohibitively expensive). This holds true for pretty much any file system in widespread use today.

SQL is merely a manner of interacting with relational databases. Not by a far stretch the only possible way. Your position that I suggest users to be subjected to "an SQL database" is FUD at best, but probably just you not knowing whateverthefuck you are on about. Users interact with relational databases on a daily basis, without ever needing to delve into the nitty-gritty of SQL.

Now, as for your clickbait op-ed that started all this: the statement that Apple is in more of a bind than other OS vendors because its file system is (more) outdated, is a dumb one. See, the file system is irrelevant; it is just another chuck of technology that can be replaced at the drop of a hat. What's more important in this regard, is how closely the file system is tied to the user experience. Apple has, in the past, shown quite clearly that they are a) not afraid to undertake massive migrations of technology, and b) are capable of doing so without much of an impact on the user experience. I'd like to see Microsoft try and pull off such a feat. How is Windows RT faring, these days. I haven't kept up. Maybe that is because that it is a glorious failure, is dead and buried, and no-one makes mention of it anymore. I don't know.

Apple are better poised than anyone to migrate their file system, because of their closed garden model and close control over the (use of) API's in their OS. They have a system in place to ready app developers for large software migrations, and have already demonstrated that they can pull these things off. Compare that to Microsoft, which will time and time again back peddle once corporate clients balk at having to rewrite their myriad of shoddily-written "apps" that are critical to business operations and hinge on outdated technologies forever supported in newer OS versions simply because there are so many of them and nobody knows how to replace them.

When you get down to it, the (technological) challenges that Apple face when storage technology leaps into the future, are the same challenges everyone faces. The true challenges are not technological, and in that regard Apple have a clear advantage over their competition. advantage.
03-23-2016, 12:04 AM,
Post: #210
RE: *cough*
* agedgruel notes Alien is feeding the troll
Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie ClubbieClubbieClubbie



03-23-2016, 03:14 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-23-2016, 03:15 AM by FuturDreamz.)
Post: #211
RE: *cough*
Quote:IANGTLB

My point, is that direct access to the filesystem (at least the part with user files) is a necessity when you work with multiple programs that are not designed to cooperate with each other (such as Inkscape/Illustrator and Mastercam). It's far simpler to be able to simply give an app the filepath then try to find a way (or expecting the developer to write a reliable method) of passing a file from one program to the other directly. Yes, files such as images cannot be easily located using a simple file organization system. They need a tagging and search system. But other documents such as tax documents, resumes, and project folders do benefit from a proper file system - and even the folder isolation that goes with it. Folders allow you to group different filetypes from the same project together - while ensuring there's no confusion with similar filetypes from a completely unrelated project. I have no idea what you are suggesting as a proper alternative, and assume you must be referring to using some sort of relational database - which has it's own set of problems.

If you don't believe me, throw ALL your computers in the garbage and use an iPad Pro for everything.


Also: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-tran...-complete/
My logic is infallible. Resistance is futile.
03-23-2016, 04:52 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-23-2016, 04:53 AM by Alien.)
Post: #212
RE: *cough*
Quote:My point, is that direct access to the filesystem (at least the part with user files) is a necessity
Nope.
Quote:when you work with multiple programs that are not designed to cooperate with each other (such as Inkscape/Illustrator and Masterdom).
Nope. See, you're name-dropping to make it seem you know what you're talking about. But you are way out of your league, here. That much is obvious.
Quote:It's far simpler to be able to simply give an app the filepath
Nope, it's just what you're used to doing.
Quote:then try to find a way (or expecting the developer to write a reliable method) of passing a file from one program to the other directly.
Where did that requirement suddenly come from?
Quote:Yes, files such as images cannot be easily located using a simple file organization system.
Actually, they can.
Quote:They need a tagging and search system.
No, they don't.
Quote:But other documents such as tax documents, resumes, and project folders do benefit from a proper file system
No, they don't.
Quote: - and even the folder isolation that goes with it.
Nope.
Quote:Folders allow you to group different filetypes from the same project together
Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
Quote: - while ensuring there's no confusion with similar filetypes from a completely unrelated project.
Bottom line: you don't know the difference between an interface and a storage system.
Quote:I have no idea what you are suggesting
That's the first sensible thing you've said in a while.
Quote: as a proper alternative, and assume you must be referring to using some sort of relational database - which has it's own set of problems.
I must be, because you are a dumb non-thinker.
Quote:If you don't believe me, throw ALL your computers in the garbage and use an iPad Pro for everything.
Yeah, that's relevant.
Quote:lso: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-tran...-complete/
Great, more clickbait.
03-23-2016, 07:10 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-23-2016, 07:45 AM by FuturDreamz.)
Post: #213
RE: *cough*
Your arguments are getting increasingly incoherent. And yes, I know what I'm talking about. I'm in the Machinist Technician program at SAIT, and I actually USE Mastercam. My teacher gave me a copy of x8 HLE which I have on my laptop. I was describing a task which I have actually done, where I had taken a picture of the earth from Google, used Inkscape to convert it into a vector and format it, then imported the result into Mastercam to use as toolpaths for an engraving. I'm not just name-dropping.

You have still failed to give any form of real-world example as to why access to a filesystem is not necessary. In post #200 you complain that storing photos in a filesystem so they can be found is confusing, yet in post #212 you object to my comment which was agreeing with you. Nearly all of your rebuttals are merely childish responses which fail to provide any explanation for their statements. How exactly do you intend to store important documents such as tax information or projects in an organized manner, without the use of a filesystem? How exactly do storage models become irrelvent when dealing with important or sensitive information? Do you just let the app in question manage it and then be at the mercy of the app's developers?


(03-23-2016, 04:52 AM)Alien Wrote:
Quote:I have no idea what you are suggesting
That's the first sensible thing you've said in a while.
Your arguments are devolving into a wall of meaningless blather without providing any points or examples to back it up. Is that intentional?


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
My logic is infallible. Resistance is futile.
03-23-2016, 07:13 AM,
Post: #214
RE: *cough*
* agedgruel gets the popcorn
Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie Clubbie ClubbieClubbieClubbie



03-23-2016, 02:19 PM,
Post: #215
RE: *cough*
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/03...0-support/
03-23-2016, 10:23 PM,
Post: #216
RE: *cough*
(03-21-2016, 08:49 PM)roo Wrote: I'm OK with paths being like that.  Again, it matches the real-life paradigm of files and folders.  And I recognize that symlinks/aliases failed to solve that problem with the masses.  Even Windows failed with all of the desktop shortcuts.  I think apps like Photos don't make it any easier to find my stuff.  I have to meticulously enter meta data to make Photos useful, and if I'm that meticulous with my files, I'll know what directory I filed them under.

That's not say that enhancements to the Finder like tagging are bad.  I think they're great.  It helps the Finder find.  But other tools like Launchpad or any number of launchers in the past are just as anemic now as they've been in the past.  Funny thing about tools like Launchpad is that the first thing people as for is folders.

Obfuscating the file system presents design problems that simply haven't been solved, and I'm not confident that they will be any time soon.  I think that as non-visual UIs begin to dominate there will be new opportunities, but they're going to rely heavily on that metadata.

Hierarchical filesystems are just your preferred obfuscation, not any more or less artificial than searchable metadata.
03-23-2016, 11:11 PM,
Post: #217
RE: *cough*
(03-23-2016, 07:10 AM)FuturDreamz Wrote: Your arguments are getting increasingly incoherent. And yes, I know what I'm talking about. I'm in the Machinist Technician program at SAIT, and I actually USE Mastercam. My teacher gave me a copy of x8 HLE which I have on my laptop. I was describing a task which I have actually done, where I had taken a picture of the earth from Google, used Inkscape to convert it into a vector and format it, then imported the result into Mastercam to use as toolpaths for an engraving. I'm not just name-dropping.

You have still failed to give any form of real-world example as to why access to a filesystem is not necessary. In post #200 you complain that storing photos in a filesystem so they can be found is confusing, yet in post #212 you object to my comment which was agreeing with you. Nearly all of your rebuttals are merely childish responses which fail to provide any explanation for their statements. How exactly do you intend to store important documents such as tax information or projects in an organized manner, without the use of a filesystem? How exactly do storage models become irrelvent when dealing with important or sensitive information? Do you just let the app in question manage it and then be at the mercy of the app's developers?



(03-23-2016, 04:52 AM)Alien Wrote:
Quote:I have no idea what you are suggesting
That's the first sensible thing you've said in a while.
Your arguments are devolving into a wall of meaningless blather without providing any points or examples to back it up. Is that intentional?

Everything he said was correct.  I research and write filesystems for a living, and can state with authority that all POSIX requires is a byte granular interface.  You talk about saving and reading, but those are the moral equivalent of OSI layer 7 operations, while filesystems don't even live in that space.  As long as applications can call pread() and pwrite(), then the navigation to or from the files is an irrelevant exercise in managing metadata either mentally or programmatically.

Heirarchy is a convenient fiction that allows you to mentally divide the (completely flat) address space afforded by a drive.  There are many abstractions that could work in that space, and hierarchy isn't necessarily the most relevant, because it assumes scarcity.
03-24-2016, 03:04 AM,
Post: #218
RE: *cough*
Thank you. All I wanted was a coherent argument with something to back it up. Would you mind linking to one of the abstractions though?
My logic is infallible. Resistance is futile.
03-24-2016, 03:21 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-24-2016, 03:27 AM by Jehannum.)
Post: #219
RE: *cough*
(03-24-2016, 03:04 AM)FuturDreamz Wrote: Thank you. All I wanted was a coherent argument with something to back it up. Would you mind linking to one of the abstractions though?

I have collaborated with these guys on some semi-related NVRAM stuff before.  It proposes a provenance-based namespace.

Some more user-relevant things I can think of are a key-value hash, that might contain many hierarchical structures at each key (so, in the key "my special buttplug", you might have several "folders" in which you could organize the various CAD thingamabobs you need to 3D print your special buttplug). That'd allow you to link a single image (value) to several keys, like "mom" and "christmas" and "drunk" all at once.
03-24-2016, 04:32 AM,
Post: #220
RE: *cough*
Hmm. LIIS only needed a SQL database, but it was intended solely to convert existing records to a digital archive while new records are stored in a specialized system.
My logic is infallible. Resistance is futile.
03-24-2016, 05:21 AM,
Post: #221
RE: *cough*
"I once ordered some stuff from China, so I am now an authority on transport vessel design."
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
ClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbieClubbie
03-24-2016, 05:47 AM,
Post: #222
RE: *cough*
(03-24-2016, 05:21 AM)Alien Wrote: "I once ordered some stuff from China, so I am now an authority on transport vessel design."

Also, as all men are Socrates, all databases are SQL.
03-24-2016, 10:28 AM,
Post: #223
RE: *cough*
(03-23-2016, 10:23 PM)Jehannum Wrote:
(03-21-2016, 08:49 PM)roo Wrote: I'm OK with paths being like that.  Again, it matches the real-life paradigm of files and folders.  And I recognize that symlinks/aliases failed to solve that problem with the masses.  Even Windows failed with all of the desktop shortcuts.  I think apps like Photos don't make it any easier to find my stuff.  I have to meticulously enter meta data to make Photos useful, and if I'm that meticulous with my files, I'll know what directory I filed them under.

That's not say that enhancements to the Finder like tagging are bad.  I think they're great.  It helps the Finder find.  But other tools like Launchpad or any number of launchers in the past are just as anemic now as they've been in the past.  Funny thing about tools like Launchpad is that the first thing people as for is folders.

Obfuscating the file system presents design problems that simply haven't been solved, and I'm not confident that they will be any time soon.  I think that as non-visual UIs begin to dominate there will be new opportunities, but they're going to rely heavily on that metadata.

Hierarchical filesystems are just your preferred obfuscation, not any more or less artificial than searchable metadata.

Point taken. However, I'm not unique in that preference, I'm in a majority.  People understand the paradigm.  Sure, there are people who have asked me if I understand "folders."  :guh:   But until someone is able to provide an alternative that doesn't rely on a human brain to comprehending the system, the ability to entirely remove access to my preferred or any other obfuscation doesn't exist.
03-24-2016, 10:51 AM,
Post: #224
RE: *cough*
(03-24-2016, 10:28 AM)roo Wrote:
(03-23-2016, 10:23 PM)Jehannum Wrote:
(03-21-2016, 08:49 PM)roo Wrote: I'm OK with paths being like that.  Again, it matches the real-life paradigm of files and folders.  And I recognize that symlinks/aliases failed to solve that problem with the masses.  Even Windows failed with all of the desktop shortcuts.  I think apps like Photos don't make it any easier to find my stuff.  I have to meticulously enter meta data to make Photos useful, and if I'm that meticulous with my files, I'll know what directory I filed them under.

That's not say that enhancements to the Finder like tagging are bad.  I think they're great.  It helps the Finder find.  But other tools like Launchpad or any number of launchers in the past are just as anemic now as they've been in the past.  Funny thing about tools like Launchpad is that the first thing people as for is folders.

Obfuscating the file system presents design problems that simply haven't been solved, and I'm not confident that they will be any time soon.  I think that as non-visual UIs begin to dominate there will be new opportunities, but they're going to rely heavily on that metadata.

Hierarchical filesystems are just your preferred obfuscation, not any more or less artificial than searchable metadata.

Point taken. However, I'm not unique in that preference, I'm in a majority.  People understand the paradigm.  Sure, there are people who have asked me if I understand "folders."  :guh:   But until someone is able to provide an alternative that doesn't rely on a human brain to comprehending the system, the ability to entirely remove access to my preferred or any other obfuscation doesn't exist.
Plus you want your system to be able to handle files that are in an unexpected format.
03-24-2016, 02:46 PM,
Post: #225
RE: *cough*
http://bgr.com/2016/03/23/galaxy-s7-revi...r-reports/
My logic is infallible. Resistance is futile.


Forum Jump: