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."
Thread beginning with comment 448920
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No
by sorpigal on Sat 6th Nov 2010 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No"
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

it might be difficult in a system that is inherently multiuser since users probably want to use different tags

This is solved by permissions, as usual. If a file is read only you cannot tag it. Controlling tag writing via a separate ACL might be possible in the future as well.

Alternatively you could just agree on a user-space solution. Might actually be easier to agree on than fs-level tagging.

Any system that does not store tags directly in the files is useless. The only way to get useful, universal tagging is to store it in a place we can all agree on and we can all agree on the filesystem.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No
by phoenix on Sat 6th Nov 2010 20:29 in reply to "RE[3]: No"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"it might be difficult in a system that is inherently multiuser since users probably want to use different tags

This is solved by permissions, as usual. If a file is read only you cannot tag it. Controlling tag writing via a separate ACL might be possible in the future as well.
"

That's completely useless, then. Afterall, if I have read-only access to a file, I can copy the file to anywhere I want. Thus, why shouldn't I be able to tag it as well?

"Alternatively you could just agree on a user-space solution. Might actually be easier to agree on than fs-level tagging.

Any system that does not store tags directly in the files is useless. The only way to get useful, universal tagging is to store it in a place we can all agree on and we can all agree on the filesystem.
"

Good luck with that. How long has the debate been going on about Extended Attributes, where to store them, and how to access them? ;)

Edited 2010-11-06 20:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No
by sorpigal on Sat 6th Nov 2010 20:41 in reply to "RE[4]: No"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

if I have read-only access to a file, I can copy the file to anywhere I want. Thus, why shouldn't I be able to tag it as well?

You should be able to copy it to anywhere and then tag the copy. This is just common sense: I don't want your tags on my file. I can see the argument that says that tags should be an overlay describing a particular person only, but the fact that you lose those when transferring the file to someone else makes it almost worthless.

EDIT: I would just like to add: Consider tags on files as they exist today. JPEGs, MP3s, hell even MS Word supports a kind of tagging for .doc files. These tags are per-file and cannot be adjusted without write access, yet they are undeniably useful. The only problem with them is that for each new file type you have to learn a new tagging system, which means that any software dealing with tagging becomes enormously complex. I'm suggesting that tagging in files is established and accepted and works; all we need is a universal system for tagging in files.

Good luck with that. How long has the debate been going on about Extended Attributes, where to store them, and how to access them?

It's been a long time but finally someone who isn't a security researcher has a good use for them.

Edited 2010-11-06 20:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2