4 ms·

> But I see no evidence or cause to believe any of the alternate anti-file approaches have anything better to offer, present better. I think it’s fairly clear

by zepto 5y ago

> But I see no evidence or cause to believe any of the alternate anti-file approaches have anything better to offer, present better. I think it’s fairly clear that the iOS photos app is easier to navigate than a folder with tens of thousands of files. Even the notes app presents the notes in a more useful way than a folder would. Other obvious examples are things like notion or roam research, or any number of systems where the file metaphor just isn’t natural. Many people today use a web browser to view pages of text and multimedia connected via hyperlinks. This technology hides the underlying implementation which may be files, or may be databases or other kinds of store. It is more successful than the earlier file based protocols such as FTP and Gopher. > I'd point out that we have no replacement for the filesystem. It’s not clear what this is supposed to mean. We have many other kinds of data store, e.g. relational databases, graph database, time series databases etc.

rektide 5y ago
>> I'd point out that we have no replacement for the filesystem. > It’s not clear what this is supposed to mean. i was super clear. what else have we presented users as a consistent cross system abstraction/means to handle data? nothing. you have nothing. i dont understand your arguments on ios photos or notes. google photos is one big folder full of files, and some photos can be tagged or organized. this would fit into either a filed symlinking paradigm or a use of extended attributes. i have zero clue ehy you think these apps are anything other than files and folders, but obfuscated.
- zepto 5y ago
  > i was super clear. what else have we presented users as a consistent cross system abstraction/means to handle data? nothing. you have nothing. The web. > i dont understand your arguments on ios photos or notes. google photos is one big folder full of files, and some photos can be tagged or organized. this would fit into either a filed symlinking paradigm or a use of extended attributes. i have zero clue ehy you think these apps are anything other than files and folders, but obfuscated. I have never used or mentioned Google photos. It sounds like you haven’t looked at iOS photos, which is what I mentioned. If you had you would never claim that extended attributes or symlinking would replace the experience. You also simply ignored the other examples, like notion, or roam research. None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files. If files were better, that’s what we’d be using, since we had networked filesystems before we had the web.
  - rektide 5y ago
    > The web. this is intangible & ungraspable. it compares in no way to files. if you think it does compare to files, explain how. chiefly i see the web as in no way offering the user-directed malleability that a personal computer has. the web never achieved the vision of writability that Tim Berners-Lee imagined. it should. but it hasn't. > None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files. this is not what files are though. they're also symlinks and extended attributes. and again i'd argue that most every system is better when it has files under it. tools like Roam are better when there's user-manageable files underneath: the excellent open source Foam (https://foambubble.github.io/foam/ https://foambubble.github.io/foam/) does just that, and is easier to manage for it, while retaining the non-file-centric linked-web-of-documents feel that Roam/Zettlekastan-notes is known for. the alternates you cite aren't alternatives: they're all doable, easily, as files and folders. to not afford the common-man's offering for these applications is a travesty & a crime. my father greatly prefers managing photos by folders. it's the only system that has made sense to him. he's found every alternative jarring & frustrating. there's a common ground, something tangible & real about the OS having constructs & tools for managing digital things, and my dad gets it, & can use it. not being subject to each application's intangible, abstract digital entities, having "real" digital entities is empowering. > You also simply ignored the other examples, like notion, or roam research. still not sure what any of your arguments are. you cite applications but don't provide even an elementary review of how or what characteristics are different, how the experience is different. your parade of other applications is just adding more chaff. i think your analysis is weak.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > this is intangible & ungraspable. it compares in no way to files. if you think it does compare to files, explain how. The web allows people to accomplish computing tasks without needing to deal with files. Of course it’s not a 1-1 comparison. That’s the point. Files are not necessary. > chiefly i see the web as in no way offering the user-directed malleability that a personal computer has. the web never achieved the vision of writability that Tim Berners-Lee imagined. it should. but it hasn't. I agree, but files don’t solve that problem. >> None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files. > this is not what files are though. they're also symlinks and extended attributes. None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files with symlinks and extended attributes. > and again i'd argue that most every system is better when it has files under it. tools like Roam are better when there's user-manageable files underneath: the excellent open source Foam (https://foambubble.github.io/foam/ https://foambubble.github.io/foam/) does just that, and is easier to manage for it, while retaining the non-file-centric linked-web-of-documents feel that Roam/Zettlekastan-notes is known for. the alternates you cite aren't alternatives: they're all doable, easily, as files and folders. to not afford the common-man's offering for these applications is a travesty & a crime. It’s not the common man’s offering. Almost nobody wants files. That’s why systems that are not file-centric have vastly outcompeted file-centric systems. Files add an additional cognitive burden. > my father greatly prefers managing photos by folders. it's the only system that has made sense to him. he's found every alternative jarring & frustrating. He’s obviously in the minority now. > there's a common ground, something tangible & real about the OS having constructs & tools for managing digital things, and my dad gets it, & can use it. not being subject to each application's intangible, abstract digital entities, having "real" digital entities is empowering. I agree with this in part, and I don’t personally like the way the web works. However I don’t think files are an adequate solution, and I am not denying the reality that the web and fileless apps do in fact work better for most users. Files are no more ‘real’ than any other digital entity. They are just old and have a lot of tools around them, but they also have limitations. Also see other people’s comments about the issues of file formats. > You also simply ignored the other examples, like notion, or roam research. > still not sure what any of your arguments are. you cite applications but don't provide even an elementary review of how or what characteristics are different, how the experience is different. your parade of other applications is just adding more chaff. i think your analysis is weak. You seem to understand that there are Apps that don’t use files and present what you call ‘abstract digital entities’. You seem to understand that these have prevailed because people like them. You seem to understand that this has happened even though they don’t expose files to the end user.
jayd16 5y ago
The web uses files extensively. Its not like downloads aren't files. Any page is a file. I don't think arguing that 'the main ui is not a file browser' is enough to show that a web browser is a shoebox app.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The web uses files extensively. Not these days. Almost all web content is dynamically generated from one kind of indexed data store or another. > Its not like downloads aren't files. The fact that you can download some files is similar to the fact that shoebox apps can export files. It may be true but it doesn’t change anything. > Any page is a file. This isn’t true. But even if it were, I doubt you’d convince rektide that this would meet his definition of ‘files’.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    >> The web uses files extensively. > Not these days. > Almost all web content is dynamically generated from one kind of indexed data store or another. Which are generated from files. >> Any page is a file. > This isn’t true. But even if it were, I doubt you’d convince rektide that this would meet his definition of ‘files’. You are correct here, but every web page is generated from a file or bunch of files. And there is still static websites.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Which are generated from files. No they are not. >> Any page is a file. >>> This isn’t true. But even if it were, I doubt you’d convince rektide that this would meet his definition of ‘files’. >> You are correct here, but every web page is generated from a file or bunch of files. This is simply untrue. Hacker News for example is made of web pages which are not generated from a file or bunch of files. > And there is still static websites. So what? Nobody said that no websites are based on files. Only that most web pages are not.
      - ghoward 5y ago

by zepto 5y ago

rektide 5y ago

>> I'd point out that we have no replacement for the filesystem. > It’s not clear what this is supposed to mean. i was super clear. what else have we presented users as a consistent cross system abstraction/means to handle data? nothing. you have nothing. i dont understand your arguments on ios photos or notes. google photos is one big folder full of files, and some photos can be tagged or organized. this would fit into either a filed symlinking paradigm or a use of extended attributes. i have zero clue ehy you think these apps are anything other than files and folders, but obfuscated.

zepto 5y ago
> i was super clear. what else have we presented users as a consistent cross system abstraction/means to handle data? nothing. you have nothing. The web. > i dont understand your arguments on ios photos or notes. google photos is one big folder full of files, and some photos can be tagged or organized. this would fit into either a filed symlinking paradigm or a use of extended attributes. i have zero clue ehy you think these apps are anything other than files and folders, but obfuscated. I have never used or mentioned Google photos. It sounds like you haven’t looked at iOS photos, which is what I mentioned. If you had you would never claim that extended attributes or symlinking would replace the experience. You also simply ignored the other examples, like notion, or roam research. None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files. If files were better, that’s what we’d be using, since we had networked filesystems before we had the web.
- rektide 5y ago
  > The web. this is intangible & ungraspable. it compares in no way to files. if you think it does compare to files, explain how. chiefly i see the web as in no way offering the user-directed malleability that a personal computer has. the web never achieved the vision of writability that Tim Berners-Lee imagined. it should. but it hasn't. > None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files. this is not what files are though. they're also symlinks and extended attributes. and again i'd argue that most every system is better when it has files under it. tools like Roam are better when there's user-manageable files underneath: the excellent open source Foam (https://foambubble.github.io/foam/ https://foambubble.github.io/foam/) does just that, and is easier to manage for it, while retaining the non-file-centric linked-web-of-documents feel that Roam/Zettlekastan-notes is known for. the alternates you cite aren't alternatives: they're all doable, easily, as files and folders. to not afford the common-man's offering for these applications is a travesty & a crime. my father greatly prefers managing photos by folders. it's the only system that has made sense to him. he's found every alternative jarring & frustrating. there's a common ground, something tangible & real about the OS having constructs & tools for managing digital things, and my dad gets it, & can use it. not being subject to each application's intangible, abstract digital entities, having "real" digital entities is empowering. > You also simply ignored the other examples, like notion, or roam research. still not sure what any of your arguments are. you cite applications but don't provide even an elementary review of how or what characteristics are different, how the experience is different. your parade of other applications is just adding more chaff. i think your analysis is weak.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > this is intangible & ungraspable. it compares in no way to files. if you think it does compare to files, explain how. The web allows people to accomplish computing tasks without needing to deal with files. Of course it’s not a 1-1 comparison. That’s the point. Files are not necessary. > chiefly i see the web as in no way offering the user-directed malleability that a personal computer has. the web never achieved the vision of writability that Tim Berners-Lee imagined. it should. but it hasn't. I agree, but files don’t solve that problem. >> None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files. > this is not what files are though. they're also symlinks and extended attributes. None of these things are done better by simply having folders full of files with symlinks and extended attributes. > and again i'd argue that most every system is better when it has files under it. tools like Roam are better when there's user-manageable files underneath: the excellent open source Foam (https://foambubble.github.io/foam/ https://foambubble.github.io/foam/) does just that, and is easier to manage for it, while retaining the non-file-centric linked-web-of-documents feel that Roam/Zettlekastan-notes is known for. the alternates you cite aren't alternatives: they're all doable, easily, as files and folders. to not afford the common-man's offering for these applications is a travesty & a crime. It’s not the common man’s offering. Almost nobody wants files. That’s why systems that are not file-centric have vastly outcompeted file-centric systems. Files add an additional cognitive burden. > my father greatly prefers managing photos by folders. it's the only system that has made sense to him. he's found every alternative jarring & frustrating. He’s obviously in the minority now. > there's a common ground, something tangible & real about the OS having constructs & tools for managing digital things, and my dad gets it, & can use it. not being subject to each application's intangible, abstract digital entities, having "real" digital entities is empowering. I agree with this in part, and I don’t personally like the way the web works. However I don’t think files are an adequate solution, and I am not denying the reality that the web and fileless apps do in fact work better for most users. Files are no more ‘real’ than any other digital entity. They are just old and have a lot of tools around them, but they also have limitations. Also see other people’s comments about the issues of file formats. > You also simply ignored the other examples, like notion, or roam research. > still not sure what any of your arguments are. you cite applications but don't provide even an elementary review of how or what characteristics are different, how the experience is different. your parade of other applications is just adding more chaff. i think your analysis is weak. You seem to understand that there are Apps that don’t use files and present what you call ‘abstract digital entities’. You seem to understand that these have prevailed because people like them. You seem to understand that this has happened even though they don’t expose files to the end user.

jayd16 5y ago

The web uses files extensively. Its not like downloads aren't files. Any page is a file. I don't think arguing that 'the main ui is not a file browser' is enough to show that a web browser is a shoebox app.

zepto 5y ago
> The web uses files extensively. Not these days. Almost all web content is dynamically generated from one kind of indexed data store or another. > Its not like downloads aren't files. The fact that you can download some files is similar to the fact that shoebox apps can export files. It may be true but it doesn’t change anything. > Any page is a file. This isn’t true. But even if it were, I doubt you’d convince rektide that this would meet his definition of ‘files’.
- ghoward 5y ago
  >> The web uses files extensively. > Not these days. > Almost all web content is dynamically generated from one kind of indexed data store or another. Which are generated from files. >> Any page is a file. > This isn’t true. But even if it were, I doubt you’d convince rektide that this would meet his definition of ‘files’. You are correct here, but every web page is generated from a file or bunch of files. And there is still static websites.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Which are generated from files. No they are not. >> Any page is a file. >>> This isn’t true. But even if it were, I doubt you’d convince rektide that this would meet his definition of ‘files’. >> You are correct here, but every web page is generated from a file or bunch of files. This is simply untrue. Hacker News for example is made of web pages which are not generated from a file or bunch of files. > And there is still static websites. So what? Nobody said that no websites are based on files. Only that most web pages are not.
    - ghoward 5y ago