3 ms·
> Why can’t folders be automatically treated like singular archives when I try to do operations on them for which that makes sense? Why do I have to think about
by unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> Why can’t folders be automatically treated like singular archives when I try to do operations on them for which that makes sense? Why do I have to think about these details?
Operating systems do blur the boundaries of this a bit, now -- you can explore zip files as if they were folders, mount disk images from files, and you can work with folders as bundles (e.g. a macOS application is a disguised bundle, an RTFD document is a directory with contents etc.)
Some applications (like mail apps) have always done a good job of handling (combining, compressing) folders so they can be moved/sent as files.
The problem is all of these application things are probably best done at a GUI level. At a filesystem/command line level you want the distinction to be explicit.
Of course a few OSes ditch the distinction entirely and concern themselves only with objects -- OS/400 for example. Which might be closer to the world you are imagining.
- CRConrad 5y ago> Operating systems do blur the boundaries of this a bit, now -- you can explore zip files as if they were folders, mount disk images from files, and you can work with folders as bundles (e.g. a macOS application is a disguised bundle, an RTFD document is a directory with contents etc.) Also, AIUI, "Save entire page" in some browsers. You might think that should be a single .html file, but it's usually an .html file plus a directory of stuff linked in that file / on that Web pge, that the browser (and sometimes the OS) then does its best to pretend is just a single file.