5 ms·

It was my comment that described it as gaslighting. I think it's a reasonable use of the term when in the thread the mod says it's partially your fault you can

It was my comment that described it as gaslighting. I think it's a reasonable use of the term when in the thread the mod says it's partially your fault you can no longer see the size of a folder, the way you have been accustomed to doing for the last 30 years. "Well, a big part of the problem is how few people actually follow through with requests using the mechanism." No, Google, I think a big part of the problem is that you didn't implement a feature that has been a staple of computers for decades. https://support.google.com/drive/thread/3970069?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/thread/3970069?hl=en

jeffbee 6y ago
Wait. Neither Unix directories nor Windows folders nor Mac folders track the size of their contents. The only way to get the "size of a folder" in any of these environments is to enumerate all of their contents recursively and add up the sizes of all the files, using some kind of tool, because this information is not stored in the directory or folder. Now who is gaslighting?
- rdsnsca 6y ago
  On macOS: right click a folder, pick "Get Info" from the contextual menu and you get a window with all the info on the folder , including size and number of files in it.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    ... which recursively enumerates the contents and adds up their sizes.
    - Bud 6y ago
      Nope. The original comment said "using some kind of tool". That's false.
      - beervirus 6y ago
        Well, yes, that’s exactly what it does. Operating systems include many tools.
        Bud 6y ago
        In this case, as you already know (or should), no external or extra "tool" is needed. You hit "get info" and it tells you. Boom. Done.
        beervirus 6y ago
        That’s still a tool, even if it’s included with the OS. This is getting a little bit silly. But the comment that started this discussion was just making the point that this stuff isn’t built into the filesystem.
- stonogo 6y ago
  First, many filesystems do track recursive size. This feature is present in any filesystem that supports quotas. But this argument is a red herring. Any service that charges a unit price should make the unit cost of a service-set available easily to the customer. Failing to do so is user-hostile. "Unix directories nor Windows folders nor Mac folders" charge the user per byte.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    > This feature is present in any filesystem that supports quotas. That's not true. No Linux filesystem supports recursive size tracking even though they mostly support quotas. The quotas are enforced and tracked by the block/extent and inode allocators.
    - stonogo 6y ago
      CephFS is the first counterexample that comes to mind. Recursive size and filecounts are available through extended file attributes (e.g. getfattr -d -m ceph.dir.* /path/to/dir) and can be made to be default in e.g. ls -l output.

jeffbee 6y ago

Wait. Neither Unix directories nor Windows folders nor Mac folders track the size of their contents. The only way to get the "size of a folder" in any of these environments is to enumerate all of their contents recursively and add up the sizes of all the files, using some kind of tool, because this information is not stored in the directory or folder. Now who is gaslighting?

rdsnsca 6y ago
On macOS: right click a folder, pick "Get Info" from the contextual menu and you get a window with all the info on the folder , including size and number of files in it.
- beervirus 6y ago
  ... which recursively enumerates the contents and adds up their sizes.
  - Bud 6y ago
    Nope. The original comment said "using some kind of tool". That's false.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      Well, yes, that’s exactly what it does. Operating systems include many tools.
      - Bud 6y ago
        In this case, as you already know (or should), no external or extra "tool" is needed. You hit "get info" and it tells you. Boom. Done.
        beervirus 6y ago
        That’s still a tool, even if it’s included with the OS. This is getting a little bit silly. But the comment that started this discussion was just making the point that this stuff isn’t built into the filesystem.
stonogo 6y ago
First, many filesystems do track recursive size. This feature is present in any filesystem that supports quotas. But this argument is a red herring. Any service that charges a unit price should make the unit cost of a service-set available easily to the customer. Failing to do so is user-hostile. "Unix directories nor Windows folders nor Mac folders" charge the user per byte.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  > This feature is present in any filesystem that supports quotas. That's not true. No Linux filesystem supports recursive size tracking even though they mostly support quotas. The quotas are enforced and tracked by the block/extent and inode allocators.
  - stonogo 6y ago
    CephFS is the first counterexample that comes to mind. Recursive size and filecounts are available through extended file attributes (e.g. getfattr -d -m ceph.dir.* /path/to/dir) and can be made to be default in e.g. ls -l output.