4 ms·

I'm not convinced. This seems like you are forgetting about every piece of malware ever. It seems hyperbolic to say that the filesystem is served "well for deca

I'm not convinced. This seems like you are forgetting about every piece of malware ever. It seems hyperbolic to say that the filesystem is served "well for decades". Besides, it's not abandoned, it's just no longer shared storage. I don't see the problem. Apps have plenty of ways to share files without it, and sharing via filesystem is almost always the wrong way.

ubercow13 8y ago
Are the other ways good? If I create a file in app A, choose 'send to' app B to tweak it, open this file and a bunch of others in a batch processing app C using the file selector, in the end where is my file? Where's the most recent version, and can I go back to it in app A? How many redundant obsolete copies are still on my device in different apps?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Not only that, suppose a system update disables app A. It only quits as soon as you open it and the developer has abandoned it. Fine, it's just a photo viewer, I'll get another one. Wait, where are my photos now?
- izacus 8y ago
  When you pass around file URIs between apps (using Intents for example), the target app gets permission to process the URI (which can be a file or something else). So no redundant obsolete copies. This mechanism has been in Android for years now.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Still, unless the system allows for a general file viewer, I may eventually lose the access to a file, simply because the application I used to initiate the chain of intents disappears from the store / stops working / whatever.
    - iggldiggl 8y ago
      Of course the original app must also permit the receiving app permanent access to that file in the first place, plus the receiving app can only ask the OS for permanent access to a relatively limited number of files. And for files that might be opened through multiple apps (say you downloaded a picture - now you could reasonably launch a photo editor for that file directly through your browser, or through a file explorer, or your gallery or ...), each sending app will generate its own URI and the receiving app has no guaranteed way to decide whether those URIs all refer to the same app or not.
      - iggldiggl 8y ago
        > whether those URIs all refer to the same app or not. that should read "whether those URIs all refer to the same file or not."
    - ggggtez 8y ago
      > disappears from the store That's not how it works. It doesn't go and uninstall every copy.
syn0byte 8y ago
Physical windows don't serve us well when you consider every burglary ever. We should just not put windows in buildings, everyone can rely on their HVAC provider which promises 5 9s uptime to keep from suffocating. Besides, its not like we are just sealing the buildings completely, just limiting access to HVAC staff. Nope, No problem at all.

ubercow13 8y ago

Are the other ways good? If I create a file in app A, choose 'send to' app B to tweak it, open this file and a bunch of others in a batch processing app C using the file selector, in the end where is my file? Where's the most recent version, and can I go back to it in app A? How many redundant obsolete copies are still on my device in different apps?

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
Not only that, suppose a system update disables app A. It only quits as soon as you open it and the developer has abandoned it. Fine, it's just a photo viewer, I'll get another one. Wait, where are my photos now?
izacus 8y ago
When you pass around file URIs between apps (using Intents for example), the target app gets permission to process the URI (which can be a file or something else). So no redundant obsolete copies. This mechanism has been in Android for years now.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Still, unless the system allows for a general file viewer, I may eventually lose the access to a file, simply because the application I used to initiate the chain of intents disappears from the store / stops working / whatever.
  - iggldiggl 8y ago
    Of course the original app must also permit the receiving app permanent access to that file in the first place, plus the receiving app can only ask the OS for permanent access to a relatively limited number of files. And for files that might be opened through multiple apps (say you downloaded a picture - now you could reasonably launch a photo editor for that file directly through your browser, or through a file explorer, or your gallery or ...), each sending app will generate its own URI and the receiving app has no guaranteed way to decide whether those URIs all refer to the same app or not.
    - iggldiggl 8y ago
      > whether those URIs all refer to the same app or not. that should read "whether those URIs all refer to the same file or not."
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    > disappears from the store That's not how it works. It doesn't go and uninstall every copy.

syn0byte 8y ago

Physical windows don't serve us well when you consider every burglary ever. We should just not put windows in buildings, everyone can rely on their HVAC provider which promises 5 9s uptime to keep from suffocating. Besides, its not like we are just sealing the buildings completely, just limiting access to HVAC staff. Nope, No problem at all.