3 ms·

You still haven't answered my question. I have a set of documents, a subset of which I'd like to copy onto my USB drive. I also have a set of pictures, a subse

by sid0 15y ago

You still haven't answered my question. I have a set of documents, a subset of which I'd like to copy onto my USB drive. I also have a set of pictures, a subset of which I'd like to copy onto my USB drive. My USB drive already has a set of documents and a set of pictures, and I'd like to get a subset of the documents and a subset of the pictures onto internal storage so that I can plug out my USB drive afterwards and still access them. Can you come up with a way of doing all that that doesn't involve a filesystem or a poor imitation of it?

sunchild 15y ago
I'm not sure what type of "documents" you're referring to, but the images could be handled as with any other media import upon attaching the drive – i.e., within the image browsing app. As for moving images to the USB drive, that's an export from the image browsing app.
- sid0 15y ago
  I'm not sure what type of "documents" you're referring to Aha, therein lies the rub. These documents could be essentially arbitrary files, and there's no substitute to a general purpose file manager for them. Writing an app for every single file format that could be present on the USB drive is highly inefficient compared to the usual file manager. My basic point is that filesystems are a well-established standard, and practically everything on your computer supports them. If you'd like to deviate from such a standard, you'd better have a very good reason for doing so.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    I think the point you're missing is that most people only manipulate data that clearly belongs to some application. So, for most people, the relevant application managing their data and abstracting away the underlying file system is a valid option. If that doesn't work for you, then okay. You're not most people.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      Oddly, Microsoft used to be app centric and moved to being file centric with Windows 95. The idea being that you cared less about the app and more about the document you were using. Apple is going back and saying you care about the app as the dominant focus. This is interesting. For example, my mom knows the document she wants to open is her 2009 tax return document. The fact that it is a PDF or she reads it with Adobe Reader -- I'm fairly certain she doesn't know. If I were to layout every application she has installed and told her to find the one to open to access her tax documents I honestly don't think she'd have a clue. She'd probably try Word. I suspect she's not alone on this.
      - sunchild 15y ago
        I'd bet that nine times out of ten, she's going to open that PDF as an email attachment. Then it's up to the OS to match the file with the app. I often think that email is the real file system today.
      - danssig 15y ago
        The tool drives the user. Your mom works this way because, as you said, windows 95 is file oriented. If it were app oriented as Mac OS X is, I bet she would have the opposite behavior.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    If the file type is arbitrary, and doesn't correspond to an app, then you're using your internal hard disk as a file store. There are better solutions for that.
    - sid0 15y ago
      Such as?
  - jad 15y ago
    You're missing the point. iOS devices have file systems. The simple fact is that people just don't understand them very well. Most normal users just put everything on their desktop because it's the only way they can ever find them again. Maybe you can provide a practical example of a case where you need to move files onto your system that can't be opened by any of the applications installed on your system. I can't think of a single time I've needed to do that. Files don't have inherent value. They're only useful if you have software that can make use of them.
    - sid0 15y ago
      Maybe you can provide a practical example of a case where you need to move files onto your system that can't be opened by any of the applications installed on your system. I never said the files couldn't be opened by any of the applications on my system -- I just said the files couldn't be managed by any of them. Note the very important difference. Regardless, here's an instance that came up just a few days ago: I have multiple computers and have software to deal with a certain file format installed only on some of them. I needed to back up the contents of a USB stick containing some such files on a computer that didn't have the software.
- shriphani 15y ago
  Ok, didn't expect I had to do this on HN but here goes: -> Write code, -> Dump logs to app.log, app.err -> Is there an err browsing app you're aware of ? If that ever happened to someone on HN, the consequences: -> If apple implemented something so broken, some nutter would explain to me what extension to use. -> If MS implemented it, there would be a #1 post on HN with the title "MS file management is broken beyond repair and company is irrelevant" I expect to be downvoted for this but it is impossible to have a fair discussion about Microsoft products.
  - benaston 15y ago
    "...write code..." Congratulations, you are part of the less than one percent of the world workforce that are developers. As a developer, even I only need full filesystem access when I am developing, which is a fraction of my time. Having full filesystem access is an important use case, you can have it. For the rest of the world, it is a usability barrier.
jad 15y ago
I think others have explained this, but I'll give it a try anyway. Plug an SD card with photos on it into the iPad camera connection kit, and plug that into the iPad. The Photos app opens, you tap the photos you want to import, and you're done. Your other cases are simple extensions of this example. The fact that an iPad can't do this right now with more file types or with a USB drive is not an inherent limitation of the approach.
- sid0 15y ago
  You really think we should write an app for every file type? As a developer who believes in abstracting common code out, I find the notion frankly idiotic.

by sid0 15y ago

sunchild 15y ago

I'm not sure what type of "documents" you're referring to, but the images could be handled as with any other media import upon attaching the drive – i.e., within the image browsing app. As for moving images to the USB drive, that's an export from the image browsing app.

sid0 15y ago
I'm not sure what type of "documents" you're referring to Aha, therein lies the rub. These documents could be essentially arbitrary files, and there's no substitute to a general purpose file manager for them. Writing an app for every single file format that could be present on the USB drive is highly inefficient compared to the usual file manager. My basic point is that filesystems are a well-established standard, and practically everything on your computer supports them. If you'd like to deviate from such a standard, you'd better have a very good reason for doing so.
- scott_s 15y ago
  I think the point you're missing is that most people only manipulate data that clearly belongs to some application. So, for most people, the relevant application managing their data and abstracting away the underlying file system is a valid option. If that doesn't work for you, then okay. You're not most people.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Oddly, Microsoft used to be app centric and moved to being file centric with Windows 95. The idea being that you cared less about the app and more about the document you were using. Apple is going back and saying you care about the app as the dominant focus. This is interesting. For example, my mom knows the document she wants to open is her 2009 tax return document. The fact that it is a PDF or she reads it with Adobe Reader -- I'm fairly certain she doesn't know. If I were to layout every application she has installed and told her to find the one to open to access her tax documents I honestly don't think she'd have a clue. She'd probably try Word. I suspect she's not alone on this.
    - sunchild 15y ago
      I'd bet that nine times out of ten, she's going to open that PDF as an email attachment. Then it's up to the OS to match the file with the app. I often think that email is the real file system today.
    - danssig 15y ago
      The tool drives the user. Your mom works this way because, as you said, windows 95 is file oriented. If it were app oriented as Mac OS X is, I bet she would have the opposite behavior.
- sunchild 15y ago
  If the file type is arbitrary, and doesn't correspond to an app, then you're using your internal hard disk as a file store. There are better solutions for that.
  - sid0 15y ago
    Such as?
- jad 15y ago
  You're missing the point. iOS devices have file systems. The simple fact is that people just don't understand them very well. Most normal users just put everything on their desktop because it's the only way they can ever find them again. Maybe you can provide a practical example of a case where you need to move files onto your system that can't be opened by any of the applications installed on your system. I can't think of a single time I've needed to do that. Files don't have inherent value. They're only useful if you have software that can make use of them.
  - sid0 15y ago
    Maybe you can provide a practical example of a case where you need to move files onto your system that can't be opened by any of the applications installed on your system. I never said the files couldn't be opened by any of the applications on my system -- I just said the files couldn't be managed by any of them. Note the very important difference. Regardless, here's an instance that came up just a few days ago: I have multiple computers and have software to deal with a certain file format installed only on some of them. I needed to back up the contents of a USB stick containing some such files on a computer that didn't have the software.
shriphani 15y ago
Ok, didn't expect I had to do this on HN but here goes: -> Write code, -> Dump logs to app.log, app.err -> Is there an err browsing app you're aware of ? If that ever happened to someone on HN, the consequences: -> If apple implemented something so broken, some nutter would explain to me what extension to use. -> If MS implemented it, there would be a #1 post on HN with the title "MS file management is broken beyond repair and company is irrelevant" I expect to be downvoted for this but it is impossible to have a fair discussion about Microsoft products.
- benaston 15y ago
  "...write code..." Congratulations, you are part of the less than one percent of the world workforce that are developers. As a developer, even I only need full filesystem access when I am developing, which is a fraction of my time. Having full filesystem access is an important use case, you can have it. For the rest of the world, it is a usability barrier.

jad 15y ago

I think others have explained this, but I'll give it a try anyway. Plug an SD card with photos on it into the iPad camera connection kit, and plug that into the iPad. The Photos app opens, you tap the photos you want to import, and you're done. Your other cases are simple extensions of this example. The fact that an iPad can't do this right now with more file types or with a USB drive is not an inherent limitation of the approach.

sid0 15y ago
You really think we should write an app for every file type? As a developer who believes in abstracting common code out, I find the notion frankly idiotic.