Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jun 2012 22:55 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes "Whenever there is a conversation about the future of computing, is discussion inevitably turns to the notion of a 'File'. After all, most tablets and phones don't show the user anything that resembles a file, only Apps that contain their own content, tucked away inside their own opaque storage structure. This is wrong. Files are abstraction layers around content that are necessary for interoperability. Without the notion of a File or other similar shared content abstraction, the ability to use different applications with the same information grinds to a halt, which hampers innovation and user experience." Aside from the fact that a file manager for Android is just a click away, and aside from the fact that Android's share menu addresses many of these concerns, his point still stands: files are not an outdated, archaic concept. One of my biggest gripes with iOS is just how user-hostile the operating system it when it comes to getting stuff - whatever stuff - to and from the device.
Thread beginning with comment 524484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

poladark,


I wouldn't deny the benefit of tagging/meta data. For sure, it's definitely a useful means of working with files. However one should not assume that metadata and directory hierarchies are mutually exclusive, they are not. A lot of the file-systems-are-bad posts may be wrongly assuming that they are. There's no reason one can't have both at the same time.

A hierarchy is a natural way of organising and keeping related things together. It's why we have things like bookmark folders, email folders - these weren't invented for the computer's sake but for the direct benefit of users to be able to organise their stuff. It gives a kind of "spatial" locality to an otherwise chaotic pile containing everything. Hierarchical organisation isn't something we invented for computers either, but is something we learn to do at a very young age. When we go to school, we have subject-specific folders and notebooks, which is better than keeping everything in one big pile - meta tags or not. Directories offer a clean/logical separation of things that don't belong together, that's hard to express with tags alone.

There may come a time when school students go all digital, hopefully they'll have access to a platform that allows them to organise things in a way which is most suitable without being locked into a dogmatic paradigm.

Let's not write off hierarchies as a useful organisational tool, ok?

Note: I treat "file" as a synonymous term for "content", they mean the same thing as far as what we're talking about.

Edited 2012-06-30 09:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

poladark Member since:
2009-07-15

However one should not assume that metadata and directory hierarchies are mutually exclusive, they are not. A lot of the file-systems-are-bad posts may be wrongly assuming that they are. There's no reason one can't have both at the same time.

I agree. I would argue that a flexible tagging system could be used with great benefit to build other systems such as hierarchies though. We've been building tagging systems on top of hierarchies for decades now and none of the solutions have been completely satisfactory.

Also a good flexible tagging system could be used to make multiple file representation systems simultaneously in those cases where it's not a clear-cut choice what the best representation strategy is.

A hierarchy is a natural way of organising and keeping related things together.

Here I have to disagree. A lot of studies have been made on this and a natural way of keeping related things together is to put them in piles. This is why real desks often look the way they do, rather than stuff being always tucked away neatly in drawers.

I have no idea how a pure pile-based file system would work though ;)

A lot of people do have problems with tree-like file systems today. If it comes naturally, why do people evidently have a problem with it? Veteran computer users are a bit too quick to discard opinions from fresh and untainted users of computer-based products.

Directories offer a clean/logical separation of things that don't belong together, that's hard to express with tags alone.

Don't get me wrong, there are very good uses for hierarchical organizational layouts but different usage tasks have different requirements. The trick is to balance the needs of people looking to use data in different ways. Forcing everyone to use the same approach regardless of their needs is not optimal either.

There may come a time when school students go all digital, hopefully they'll have access to a platform that allows them to organise things in a way which is most suitable without being locked into a dogmatic paradigm.

Amen to that.

Let's not write off hierarchies as a useful organisational tool, ok?

Never! Let's also not write off other organizational models as inferior to the tree.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

poladark,

"We've been building tagging systems on top of hierarchies for decades now and none of the solutions have been completely satisfactory."

Well, I think microsoft has done a horrible job in particular with metadata, so I hope your not referring to them. Yet truth be told, they're the only ones who *could* make metadata a useful integrated function of windows. This says nothing of the inability to make metadata an integrated feature of an OS built from scratch to combine hierarchical storage and metadata tagging.

Heck even linux suffers from legacy posix stuff, look at how little support our file managers have for extended file attributes. The lack of integration totally discourages their use.


"Here I have to disagree. A lot of studies have been made on this and a natural way of keeping related things together is to put them in piles. This is why real desks often look the way they do, rather than stuff being always tucked away neatly in drawers."

To me, this seems to be an example of disorganisation that should be discouraged. Even in the physical world I would hope that these guys are using manila folders or staples to keep documents from becoming a royal mess. Fundamentally though just having multiple categorised piles offers some weak organisation, just don't shuffle all the papers into one bin and then expect to make sense of it later.


"I have no idea how a pure pile-based file system would work though"

Well, perhaps a quasi equivalency could be to treat a physical pile on the desk like a virtual desktop on linux. A pile could be a task/document, or set of them that are related to one another, just like the virtual desktop. The main problem with virtual desktops is that they're neither persistent nor are they labelled for future retrieval. Like a pile, I ought to be able to leave a virtual desktop untouched for weeks and then come back to it again later. Also, I ought to be able to hand the whole pile over to someone else.

Actually, this sounds like an awesome idea to me.


"A lot of people do have problems with tree-like file systems today. If it comes naturally, why do people evidently have a problem with it?"

Maybe MS Bob was before it's time? Today it might get a more receptive audience...Not even kidding, if the aim is to dumb down devices, why reinvent the wheel?


"The trick is to balance the needs of people looking to use data in different ways. Forcing everyone to use the same approach regardless of their needs is not optimal either."

Yes, but the thing is hierarchical storage is a superset of having a giant heap of things. There will be those who choose to keep everything together in one place, but so what? I don't see how the support for hierarchies has hurt them at all. If ever they're ready to start organising stuff, the hierarchy should be there for them.


"Never! Let's also not write off other organizational models as inferior to the tree."

I'm glad you've kept your cool, some others take things way too personally!

Reply Parent Score: 2