Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Jul 2012 22:18 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes The article I'm about to link to, by Oliver Reichenstein, is pretty terrible, but it's a good way for me to bring up something I've been meaning to talk about. First, the article: "Apple has been working on its file system and with iOS it had almost killed the concept of folders - before reintroducing them with a peculiar restriction: only one level! With Mountain Lion it brings its one folder level logic to OSX. What could be the reason for such a restrictive measure?" So, where does this crusade against directory structures (not file systems, as the article aggravatingly keeps stating) come from?
Permalink for comment 528261
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not mutually exclusive
by Alfman on Thu 26th Jul 2012 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Not mutually exclusive"
Member since:


"But it isn't... Directories in conventional file systems simply don't work the same as real world "directories". There are massive differences. For simplicity, lets just say we are comparing directories to drawers in a desk:"

I disagree, when speaking about the *concept* of a directory, it's pretty close to how people already organise things in the real world. An office can have file cabinets, labelled drawers, labelled files, individual documents in the files. A disk directory is a very good representation of these abstractions, and I dare say anyone already familiar with the physical equivalents would automatically be comfortable with an identically structured disk directory. Do you really think otherwise?

Heck, if you wanted to loose a level of abstraction, you could get ridiculously literal and render graphical representations of unique rooms, cabinets, drawers, files, etc. It would show the exact same information as the directory layout, would that make you happy? I think most people are mature and educated enough to understand directories without office pictographs to correlate to the physical world.

All your points seem to revolve around an implementation of the directory abstraction rather than the concept of a directory itself. Please note I'm defending the concept of a directory, not a specific implementation.

"They are useful of course (symlinks, network shares, etc.), but we can't just pretend that it is all simple - it isn't. We made it complicated over time - admittedly to fulfill real needs, but that doesn't mean it is without complexity."

Well, that's true, but the debate about whether directories should be overloaded for other purposes is different from the debate about whether they should exist. Even without any of those "features" you brought up, directories still have an undeniably useful role in allowing users to organise files.

"You can choose for yourself. You can choose not to buy an Apple computer, can't you?"

In the case of apple, yes, but it does nothing to dispel criticism of their practices.

Reply Parent Score: 4