3 ms·

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 dir

by 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

by dejan 17y ago

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