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from the fact that Android's share menu addresses many of these concerns, his point still stands: files are not an outdated, archaic concept.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 524501
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by tupp
by tupp on Sat 30th Jun 2012 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by tupp"
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

But a Filesystem is an entirely human solution to the problem of data storage. Storing data does not *require* a file system. This is the leap you are making, and you are wrong. File systems only suit those systems that want to expose data storage to a human.

No. File systems primarily exist to allow both humans and computers to safely and effectively deal with large, complex groups of data and code.

You are correct, that storing data does not require a file system. Most hand calculators store computation data between each entry.

However, it wouldn't be wise to try storing a large amount of complex data without files, such as one needs when (for instance) digitally editing a feature film. One static electrical discharge (or other data corruption) and ZAPP! -- there goes your entire project and all the hours you worked down the drain. Plus, without files, how would you store (and transfer from the camera) all of the gigabytes of the many takes of footage?


Hierarchical file systems even more so. Look at the way Palm did it with Palm OS. There was no file system, all "files" we're actually databases of resources, these lived in memory and were directly edited, not cached.

My phone uses Palm OS, and I guarantee that it uses a file system, with actual files that can be stored on mini SD cards.


The original Mac had a file system, but what you saw was only half the picture. Again, a file was forked, had a data fork and a resource fork and OFS had no hierarchical notions at all.

No. The original Mac had folders and sub folders, and files. I used one, but you don't have to take my world for it -- merely look at a screenshot from the original Mac: http://toastytech.com/guis/mac11sortview.gif


The whole notion of files and storage comes from the original sequential storage on magnetic tape. Where there was no option but to store as a single block of data.

No. Punch cards and punch tape were storage, too.

Storage in files and directories became a necessity once data and programs got too big and complex.


Also, to address your claims about fragmentation - nice try. No, look at the physical storage on a hard drive at an inode level. It's rare for an entire file to be a contiguous block of inodes. Depends on the file system dynamics, but a file could be split across multiple sectors quite easily. Especially something larger than a few hundred megabytes.

Not that it matters to our discussion, but it certainly is not rare for an entire file to in a contiguous block of inodes. This contiguous state is often found when a drive first sees use.

Furthermore, give me a blank drive and when I copy into it the entire contents of another drive, almost all of the files will be contiguous.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by tupp
by lucas_maximus on Sat 30th Jun 2012 14:06 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by tupp"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


No. File systems primarily exist to allow both humans and computers to safely and effectively deal with large, complex groups of data and code.

You are correct, that storing data does not require a file system. Most hand calculators store computation data between each entry.

However, it wouldn't be wise to try storing a large amount of complex data without files, such as one needs when (for instance) digitally editing a feature film. One static electrical discharge (or other data corruption) and ZAPP! -- there goes your entire project and all the hours you worked down the drain. Plus, without files, how would you store (and transfer from the camera) all of the gigabytes of the many takes of footage?


http://www.osnews.com/thread?524520

You are falling into a mental trap.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by tupp
by tupp on Sat 30th Jun 2012 15:48 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by tupp"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

http://www.osnews.com/thread?524520

You are falling into a mental trap.

You need to learn to think for yourself.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?524546

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by tupp
by Delgarde on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 01:46 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by tupp"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Storage in files and directories became a necessity once data and programs got too big and complex.


Not quite. *Organised* storage becomes a necessity, but not necessarily a filesystem in the sense that we'd recognise it.

Reply Parent Score: 2