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 448923
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not just tagging
by Zifre on Sat 6th Nov 2010 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Not just tagging"
Member since:

Only if by "we" you mean Linux. Non-Linux systems have had transactional filesystems for years now (ZFS, HAMMERFS), and support for versioning in the filesystem (VMS).

Nope, that's an entirely different type of transaction. The only "real" transactional file systems (i.e. allow multiple user-level transactions that can be cancelled individually) that I am aware of are TxF for Windows Vista/7, and TxOS for Linux:

You're right, it does. ZFS snapshot your filesystem(s), do your updates. If it fails, roll-back the snapshot and carry on. If it succeeds, you either keep the snapshot just-in-case, or you delete it. Works beautifully, even across full OS upgrades.

That works fine when you only need to do one transaction at a time. There is no reason why a file manager shouldn't be able to do atomic copies or atomic unpacking of archives. Snapshotting the entire file system is not a very general or elegant way to solve the problem.

Uhm, what do you call your index, if not a database?

It is a database, but it's part of the file system (i.e. not updated by applications). Look at BFS on Haiku or BeOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2