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from the fact that Android's share menu addresses many of these concerns, his point still stands: files are not an outdated, archaic concept.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 524520
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by tupp
by lucas_maximus on Sat 30th Jun 2012 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tupp"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Sorry I wasn't clear, One of the early prototypes at Apple before Steve took control of it.

From the book itself.

even deeper locked-in idea is the notion of the file. Once upon a time, not too long ago, plenty of computer scientists thought the idea of the file was not so great.

World Wide Web, Ted Nelson’s Xanadu, conceived of one giant, global file, for instance. The first iteration of the Macintosh, which never shipped, didn’t have files. Instead, the whole of a user’s productivity accumulated in one big structure, sort of like a singular personal web page. Steve Jobs took the Mac project over from the fellow who started it, the late Jef Raskin, and soon files appeared. UNIX had files; the Mac as it shipped had files; Windows had files. Files are now part of life; we teach the idea of a file to computer science students as if it were part of nature. In fact, our conception of files may be more persistent than our ideas about nature. I can imagine that someday physicists might tell us that it is time to stop believing in photons, because they have discovered a better way to think about light—but the file will likely live on.

The file is a set of philosophical ideas made into eternal flesh. The ideas expressed by the file include the notion that human expression comes in severable chunks that can be organized as leaves on an abstract tree— and that the chunks have versions and need to be matched to compatible applications. What do files mean to the future of human expression? This is a harder question to answer than the question “How does the English language influence the thoughts of native English speakers?” At least you can compare English speakers to Chinese speakers, but files are universal. The idea of the file has become so big that we are unable to conceive of a frame large enough to fit around it in order to assess it empirically.

Lanier, Jaron (2010-01-18). You Are Not A Gadget: A Manifesto (p. 13). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.


The second are I have highlighted is the exact mental trap that you are falling into.

Edited 2012-06-30 12:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by tupp
by tupp on Sat 30th Jun 2012 15:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by tupp"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Sorry I wasn't clear, One of the early prototypes at Apple before Steve took control of it.

This description sounds like prototype which had the sole purpose of merely demoing Apple's version of the Xerox/3-rivers GUI. The file and folder icons were there (just like the Alto and Perq), but there was no content, hence, it had no "files." The intention for the actual OS was to eventually have a file system.


From the book itself.

Sounds like a fundamentalist about to quote scripture.

The text that you quoted and highlighted is B.S.

Also, why don't you come up with some original thought, instead of quoting someone else's conjecture?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by tupp
by lucas_maximus on Sat 30th Jun 2012 16:15 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by tupp"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How is it bullshit to quote from a book? (it isn't scripture FFS).

Have you read the book? I happen to agree with the idea.

Files and Directories are coming from the idea that you represent all day as though it was in a file cabinet.

A better way to represent data is a RDMS (possibly) but in the same way thinking relationally limits how you think, but I am sure you will say "That is just a set of files".

Words limit human thought whether you try to claim other wise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I

The same way a concept limits it (such as files), which was what was explained in the quote that you obviously didn't read.

Edited 2012-06-30 16:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2