Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Jul 2012 22:18 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes The article I'm about to link to, by Oliver Reichenstein, is pretty terrible, but it's a good way for me to bring up something I've been meaning to talk about. First, the article: "Apple has been working on its file system and with iOS it had almost killed the concept of folders - before reintroducing them with a peculiar restriction: only one level! With Mountain Lion it brings its one folder level logic to OSX. What could be the reason for such a restrictive measure?" So, where does this crusade against directory structures (not file systems, as the article aggravatingly keeps stating) come from?
Thread beginning with comment 528269
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Interesting
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 26th Jul 2012 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I agree. As a Windows user from Windows 95 to Windows XP (~1997 to late 2006) and a Linux user from late 2006 to now and the foreseeable future, Windows Vista's "Library" concept has got to be the most fucked up, confusing, retarded, bullshit new "feature" of ANY OS. Period. Well, besides Metro and GNOME 3, anyway.

But seriously... whoever decided to put that feature in Windows needs to be shot.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Interesting
by lucas_maximus on Thu 26th Jul 2012 07:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I find libraries quite useful, because I actually understand how something works without throwing a hissy fit everytime something changes.

The first macintosh while in development didn't have the notion of files ... it had the idea of a "scrapbook" until steve jobs took over development.

Edited 2012-07-26 07:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Interesting
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 27th Jul 2012 02:48 in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Raskin's mac was nothing like what it ended up becoming. Pointing that out seems to lend creditability to the idea that files and folders are a bad idea by relating it to the insanely great product that the first mac was, but in reality, that was one of several good decisions the team made prior to launch that lead to its success. The first mac did have files and directories, so if you think it was a good product then those must not be that bad either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Interesting
by milatchi on Mon 30th Jul 2012 22:06 in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting"
milatchi Member since:
2005-08-29

I find libraries quite useful, because I actually understand how something works without throwing a hissy fit everytime something changes.

I understand how they work also as I am sure many other OSNews users do; regardless, they are more of a hindrance than a help. To echo others: they add an additional unnecessary layer of abstraction to the process of finding and accessing a file.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Interesting
by tidux on Sun 29th Jul 2012 01:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

I think that the Filesystem Hierarchy Standards of Linux and the BSDs are smart and logical; the full text of "man hier" should be in any *nix for dummies book. I completely agree with you about Windows. In 3.x I knew where my stuff was. In 9x I knew where my stuff was. In XP I mostly knew where my stuff was. In NT6.x I have no fucking clue what the actual directory structure is and it pisses me off. BeOS, Haiku, and OS X make a good compromise between traditional *nix layouts and the "everything for this program in one lump" layout pioneered by DOS, with /boot/apps/ and /Applications/ respectively.

Reply Parent Score: 2