4 ms·
You have to realize though that this software doesn't take away your heiracichal system, it just gives you another way to look at it. Recently I've been cleanin
by vlunkr 11y ago
You have to realize though that this software doesn't take away your heiracichal system, it just gives you another way to look at it. Recently I've been cleaning up my music library and I'm seeing some of the shortcomings of the current system. What do you do with a compilation album? Have a folder for each artist or put them all together, (Which would separate them from others works by the same artist)? iTunes or whatever media player you use will probably list them in both locations depending on how you sort or whatever. I find this to be a useful feature, why wouldn't you like to have the option to do that sort of thing from the command line?
- stormbrew 11y agoThat iTunes view is still a hierarchy, though. More accurately, it's still a DAG. The hierarchy is not the problem here, it's the rigidity of trying to put something in only one part of that hierarchy.
- andrewflnr 11y agoTags are still a DAG, too. I don't see what you're trying to prove here.
- zaphar 11y agoTags are unordered sets that can be viewed in a DAG format if desired. Tag's themselves do not specify a DAG though.
- ozim 11y agoSpot on, for file system now it should not be a problem to have links in different places in hierarchy. You can have "favoriteSong.mp3" in catalogue with artist name and use links to put it in catalogue with "ultimate super songs". But I think people are not aware of possibilities.
- neohaven 11y agoIt's multiple, interwoven hierarchies, which you can look at by "seeing" a particular DAG (a subset of the actual graph). You can see this twin representation conceptually as Artist->Album->Song and also as Compilation->Artist->Song, the latter being a small folder with symlinks to the actual song directly. It's really just two different trees.
- JadeNB 11y ago> You have to realize though that this software doesn't take away your heiracichal system, it just gives you another way to look at it. I think that this is extremely important. You mention iTunes, which does its best to pretend that there's no hierarchical file system underlying it. There is, of course, but—ugh, one look at it will make you long for a totally flat file structure. I think that it's important that any hierarchical-file-system 'killer' actually not replace (or render meaningless), but only supplement, the often-useful hierarchical structure; and it looks like this tool does that. (In case that looks like an argument, let me say explicitly that I am agreeing with you.)