4 ms·

I'm having a heated argument with a person who refuses to read past point 30, because he understands files and hierarchies and thinks that anybody that can't or

I'm having a heated argument with a person who refuses to read past point 30, because he understands files and hierarchies and thinks that anybody that can't organize their computer files is just hopeless and shouldn't bother. He's the kind of person keeping this whole thing back. The future of user interfaces is one without named files and directories, I'm 100% positive about that. Real-life hierarchies of information are more organic than named things belonging to one category. Ideas are not grouped so rigidly, and neither should last year's tax return (it's financial, and it's personal, and it's governmental, and it's a form, you created it about a year ago, etc. etc. etc.). Pieces of information should be known for what they are, not what they are named. Naming them is tedious.

dejan 17y ago
Maybe the person just doesn't understand that data doesn't need "human" organizing in first place. It's us, the users, who make a mess out of it. Files and directories were fit when we had 1 GB drives. Now, with a 1 TB standard coming for laptops, sorting data is just as complex as SETI. It's not the problem in the programs as much as in the inherited cruft knowledge of rapid acceptance of personal computers. An intuitive solution doesn't have to be explained, while I spent so much time explaining folders/files although it should have been obvious. Indeed, "the only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned." Now, I am not saying filesystems == nipples, but it's one hell of a goal to aim to for such a foundation in information management. Although I wrote (long time ago) about sets/tags as a possible solution [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=709814 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=709814], I think it's just the tip of the iceberg. Lifestreams make more sense to me with each thought, as I can see how I would use it. Thinking aloud - naming files doesn't make sense as 1) information can have multiple names dependent on the perspective, 2) information is divisible, so naming should be too.
- eru 17y ago
  You are right. Current file systems already try to address these. E.g. you can have multiple links to the same file (and even mount directories on top of each other). And for divisibility: Reiser4 brought the idea that e.g. /etc/passwd can be at the same time a directory with a bunch of files (say, one per line), or a single file that is automagically aggregrated (via a plugin that understands the format). A filesystem is just a special purpose database, and there are a lot of interesting approaches left to be explored. For example, transactions would also be nice.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  "the only "intuitive" interface is the nipple." Actually, even that is learned, it's just that most babies learn the key skills a week or two before birth and are able to move right to the application. Preemies often have trouble with putting "suck" and "swallow" together, so they need to be taught how to use a nipple. ------- Files shouldn't require names, but they should accept them. After all, we're looking for good ways to describe the contents of a file, directory, or database entry. Sometimes a set of tags and associations is the way to go, but sometimes the name "2008 tax return" is a perfectly fine description. Data doesn't always need human organizing, but sometimes human organizing is useful.
  - dejan 17y ago
    You didn't name but tag that file: - "2008" - all files from/related to year 2008 - "tax" - all documents related to tax - "return" - all documents related to "return" Now, your file should be in the intersection of those tag- sets. I quoted about the nipple, it's a well know quote, but the insight in nipples is always worth recording, kids are coming. :D
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
I know it's not a new idea, but I wonder if the time has come when the filesystem model is replaced with the database model. I realize that a relational database simply trades one hierarchical structure for another, but it seems that the schema-free and arbitrary structure of a "NoSQL" model might make a better fit for the globs of data that comprise a modern storage drive. The key is in having a powerful and intuitive enough searching algorithm that you can actually find what you need.
- eru 17y ago
  Yes. Naming and tagging and hierarchies can still be useful. They should just be optional. E.g. searching works quite well in gmail, but I still use labels for some functions (most of the time my labels are just defined as the result of a search, but not always).
- bpyne 17y ago
  Relational databases are not limited to hierarchies. You can create complex graphs if you want. It's all how you model your information. They were created due to the limitations of hierarchical and network db systems. There was an interesting discussion on Artima ("Software Development Has Stalled") last week that touched on the schema-free idea. One of the participants suggested that computers could use inference to determine data relationships. (In his words, the computer is hypothetical and would need to be infinitely fast.) Presumably by computer he meant some agent doing machine learning on top of the "infinitely fast" hardware. If your idea is along the inference line, then it would be interesting to see how far inference could go. However, if you mean to simply encode relationships into each program (or into a library), then it's just a re-invention of a schema.
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    Maybe a solution will lie in adaptive neural networks.
Confusion 17y ago
Pieces of information should be known for what they are However, to be able to get to them, you will always need a unique identifier for each piece of information. I have a file named 'expenses-2010-03.ods' on my machine. I can imagine a 'file system' where this piece of data doesn't have a filename, but where it has a set of tags (or whatever other name you would like to give to the pieces of meta-information identifying the piece of information). I'll type, say, or think 'expenses' and then 'select' '2010'. Then I need to be given the choice between 'january', 'february' and 'march'. Is that much of an improvement? There is no indication that, in the foreseeable future, machines will be able to automatically provide correct meta-information. Is tagging them really less tedious than coming up with proper filenames? If I may hazard a guess, I think that in your heated argument, you are defending your position with vague ideas of futuristic sounding things that may come. However, without concreteness, you can defend your idea against anything by hiding in the vagueness. This 'person' is trying to drag you back to earth by stating a simple fact: to be able to get to information, you need to be able to identify it. You can only do that by a unique set of computer encoded units of meta-information.

dejan 17y ago

Maybe the person just doesn't understand that data doesn't need "human" organizing in first place. It's us, the users, who make a mess out of it. Files and directories were fit when we had 1 GB drives. Now, with a 1 TB standard coming for laptops, sorting data is just as complex as SETI. It's not the problem in the programs as much as in the inherited cruft knowledge of rapid acceptance of personal computers. An intuitive solution doesn't have to be explained, while I spent so much time explaining folders/files although it should have been obvious. Indeed, "the only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned." Now, I am not saying filesystems == nipples, but it's one hell of a goal to aim to for such a foundation in information management. Although I wrote (long time ago) about sets/tags as a possible solution [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=709814 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=709814], I think it's just the tip of the iceberg. Lifestreams make more sense to me with each thought, as I can see how I would use it. Thinking aloud - naming files doesn't make sense as 1) information can have multiple names dependent on the perspective, 2) information is divisible, so naming should be too.

eru 17y ago
You are right. Current file systems already try to address these. E.g. you can have multiple links to the same file (and even mount directories on top of each other). And for divisibility: Reiser4 brought the idea that e.g. /etc/passwd can be at the same time a directory with a bunch of files (say, one per line), or a single file that is automagically aggregrated (via a plugin that understands the format). A filesystem is just a special purpose database, and there are a lot of interesting approaches left to be explored. For example, transactions would also be nice.
lotharbot 17y ago
"the only "intuitive" interface is the nipple." Actually, even that is learned, it's just that most babies learn the key skills a week or two before birth and are able to move right to the application. Preemies often have trouble with putting "suck" and "swallow" together, so they need to be taught how to use a nipple. ------- Files shouldn't require names, but they should accept them. After all, we're looking for good ways to describe the contents of a file, directory, or database entry. Sometimes a set of tags and associations is the way to go, but sometimes the name "2008 tax return" is a perfectly fine description. Data doesn't always need human organizing, but sometimes human organizing is useful.
- dejan 17y ago
  You didn't name but tag that file: - "2008" - all files from/related to year 2008 - "tax" - all documents related to tax - "return" - all documents related to "return" Now, your file should be in the intersection of those tag- sets. I quoted about the nipple, it's a well know quote, but the insight in nipples is always worth recording, kids are coming. :D

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

I know it's not a new idea, but I wonder if the time has come when the filesystem model is replaced with the database model. I realize that a relational database simply trades one hierarchical structure for another, but it seems that the schema-free and arbitrary structure of a "NoSQL" model might make a better fit for the globs of data that comprise a modern storage drive. The key is in having a powerful and intuitive enough searching algorithm that you can actually find what you need.

eru 17y ago
Yes. Naming and tagging and hierarchies can still be useful. They should just be optional. E.g. searching works quite well in gmail, but I still use labels for some functions (most of the time my labels are just defined as the result of a search, but not always).
bpyne 17y ago
Relational databases are not limited to hierarchies. You can create complex graphs if you want. It's all how you model your information. They were created due to the limitations of hierarchical and network db systems. There was an interesting discussion on Artima ("Software Development Has Stalled") last week that touched on the schema-free idea. One of the participants suggested that computers could use inference to determine data relationships. (In his words, the computer is hypothetical and would need to be infinitely fast.) Presumably by computer he meant some agent doing machine learning on top of the "infinitely fast" hardware. If your idea is along the inference line, then it would be interesting to see how far inference could go. However, if you mean to simply encode relationships into each program (or into a library), then it's just a re-invention of a schema.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  Maybe a solution will lie in adaptive neural networks.

Confusion 17y ago

Pieces of information should be known for what they are However, to be able to get to them, you will always need a unique identifier for each piece of information. I have a file named 'expenses-2010-03.ods' on my machine. I can imagine a 'file system' where this piece of data doesn't have a filename, but where it has a set of tags (or whatever other name you would like to give to the pieces of meta-information identifying the piece of information). I'll type, say, or think 'expenses' and then 'select' '2010'. Then I need to be given the choice between 'january', 'february' and 'march'. Is that much of an improvement? There is no indication that, in the foreseeable future, machines will be able to automatically provide correct meta-information. Is tagging them really less tedious than coming up with proper filenames? If I may hazard a guess, I think that in your heated argument, you are defending your position with vague ideas of futuristic sounding things that may come. However, without concreteness, you can defend your idea against anything by hiding in the vagueness. This 'person' is trying to drag you back to earth by stating a simple fact: to be able to get to information, you need to be able to identify it. You can only do that by a unique set of computer encoded units of meta-information.