4 ms·

Without having actually read the paper yet (still downloading). I always feel like these sort of things are nice, but you still want a hierarchy underneath it a

Without having actually read the paper yet (still downloading). I always feel like these sort of things are nice, but you still want a hierarchy underneath it all. For example, I have a document which I want to put onto a USB stick for a friend. I have no idea how their search metaphor lets me do this. I search for the document, but now how do I "move" it? Does "moving" even make sense? Now I'm not doubting that they do have an answer for this, but is the answer something that will be easy to explain? If you just start with hierarchy, and put a working search over the top of it, then it has a nice model that is easy to explain. All files have an address (like a URL), but if you don't know (or can't be bothered to type) the address, then you use the search box (like google).

johnny22 16y ago
hmm. first thing that popped in my mind: I'd say you don't "move" files. You can only "give" them. does that make sense?
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  Hierarchical filesystems have an inherent sense of place, but are non-HFS about meaning. "This has to do with to these ideas." That doesn't translate to storage, though - if it has to take up space, where does it go? This is why I think non-HFS ideas work better as indexes on top of existing systems. We don't have the right metaphors yet.
  - terry 16y ago
    I'd think the opposite; if you were combining hfs and non-hfs at a visible level, the way to do it would be to have a non-hierarchical storage system underneath with superficial hierarchical (and other) views. This would give you the flexibility to change your schema without breaking file paths while still being able to organize and name things sanely. As far as metaphors, I'd say think of calling someone on a landline vs. a cell phone. With the cell, you don't have to specify where or who joe is (/people/friends/joe/house|work|carphone|vacation|etc.) in order to reach him since joe's 1 cellphone number rings wherever he happens to be. Another example is folders on the iphone -- moving an app into a folder with other apps doesn't actually move the app from /homescreen/app1 to /homescreen/games/app1 on the iphone hard disk (as far as I know...), it just changes the superficial hierarchical view of the data.
zokier 16y ago
I would imagine that you could mark the intended storage destination(s) into the files tags.

johnny22 16y ago

hmm. first thing that popped in my mind: I'd say you don't "move" files. You can only "give" them. does that make sense?

silentbicycle 16y ago
Hierarchical filesystems have an inherent sense of place, but are non-HFS about meaning. "This has to do with to these ideas." That doesn't translate to storage, though - if it has to take up space, where does it go? This is why I think non-HFS ideas work better as indexes on top of existing systems. We don't have the right metaphors yet.
- terry 16y ago
  I'd think the opposite; if you were combining hfs and non-hfs at a visible level, the way to do it would be to have a non-hierarchical storage system underneath with superficial hierarchical (and other) views. This would give you the flexibility to change your schema without breaking file paths while still being able to organize and name things sanely. As far as metaphors, I'd say think of calling someone on a landline vs. a cell phone. With the cell, you don't have to specify where or who joe is (/people/friends/joe/house|work|carphone|vacation|etc.) in order to reach him since joe's 1 cellphone number rings wherever he happens to be. Another example is folders on the iphone -- moving an app into a folder with other apps doesn't actually move the app from /homescreen/app1 to /homescreen/games/app1 on the iphone hard disk (as far as I know...), it just changes the superficial hierarchical view of the data.

zokier 16y ago

I would imagine that you could mark the intended storage destination(s) into the files tags.