3 ms·
This is an interesting concept. But why to do this on a file system level? Web and desktop based applications like Google Photos and iTunes offers some catalogi
by miohtama 7y ago
This is an interesting concept. But why to do this on a file system level? Web and desktop based applications like Google Photos and iTunes offers some cataloging and search capabilities that should cover most of the use cases.
Would this later be connected to something like Spotlight on OSX?
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y agoOne advantage to a FS over a program is that it gets to be really interoperable for free; pretty much everything can work on raw files, and the unix ecosystem is very good at inter-operating with filesystems as an "API".
- JadeNB 7y agoIsn't this like asking "why do this in a uniform way, when each application could do it in its own way?" (Also, (1) even if "should cover most of the use cases" is correct, why not cover all of the use cases?; and (2) the mere presence of more powerful tools can encourage ingenuity to use them in ways that wouldn't have been imagined if we only had purpose-built, specialised tools.)
- Nerada 7y agoFor me it's simply that I'd much rather not give up my photographs to Google.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoBecause (select formats of) photos and music aren't the only things that people want tagged. If I want to tag RAW pictures, or TV shows, or Word documents, or assets for a game, or notes, or ...., neither Google Photos nor iTunes can help me. Moreover, such a tagging system belongs to an OS-wide service; it's not something that should be implemented on its own by every application dealing with particular media types.