Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Nov 2010 22:40 UTC, submitted by rhyder
Linux "For a fairly scruffy looking guy, I have a surprisingly healthy approach to organising my files. However, I'm constantly pushing up against the limitations of a system that is based around directories. I'm convinced that Linux needs to make greater use of tagging, but I'm also beginning to wonder if desktop Linux could abandon the hierarchical directory structure entirely."
Permalink for comment 449045
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Noodle-doodle crazyness
by deathshadow on Mon 8th Nov 2010 08:39 UTC
Member since:

or not... since I can remember having said functionality some thirty years ago on my Trash-80 Model 1... and under windblows I still have said functionality.

Excuse me as I commit a blasphemy, but they are called file extensions.

Literally, all you're talking about is adding a field to a file to say what it is. Well guess what... That's what a file extension does. You know, those things that Posix based OS don't natively support (even if the most useful software for *nix OS, Apache DOES to assign mime-types, at which point why the **** do we need mime-types again?) and for a decade OS makers have gone out of their way to try and hide. (inviting those oh so wonderful .jpg.vbs files in the door)

The only 'improvement' could be allowing more than one of them per file... and if you're going to allow more than one of them per file then that's no different than any other filesystem metadata, which the majority of people cannot be bothered to do anything with.

Take images for example, in most cases you're lucky to get anything more meaningful in a filename than SCC0168275.jpg and if exif data is present it's because the camera set it automatically (so the internal date is usually sometime in January 1980)...

Same for word documents where if you're lucky the writer may have filled out "noydb" as the name and "eff yew" as the organization. I still remember about ten years ago a secretary sitting down to use a fresh Word install, and yelling out in the office "Lands sake what I need to fill out all this crap for? Can't I just type a letter?!?"

Metadata - bah... If people can't be bothered to organize their files into directory -- a simple matter of wildcard copy or drag and drop in any OS -- What would make anyone actually think they'd take the time to fill out all that extra stuff either.

But what do I know -- I'm the nutjob who turns off all that database driven 'search indexing' crap as annoyingly slow and forces the OS to show me file extensions, and ALWAYS wants to see 'detail' view with an actually filesystem TREE on the right.

Spatial navigation, plasmoids (or whatever the hell KDE calls them), icon/thumbnail views, "search indexing" that slow the computer down worse than win 3.1 on a 286. Useless **** garbage.

But again there's a reason I consider Win98 to be the pinnacle of UI design and everything since to be the slow slide down to oblivion; Though at least Windows still lets me set things back to being useful.

Of course this 'amazing new idea' is talked about in *nix terms, where of course 1980's technology is considered innovative. As I've said many times, chalk it up to the back-room Unix server geeks being left out of the REAL computer revolution of the 80's and early 90's.

Reply Score: 2