4 ms·

Then again, for many tasks, a tree truly is the best way to structure files (start broad and then home in on a file even if you have no clue about the filename

by tjoff 14y ago

Then again, for many tasks, a tree truly is the best way to structure files (start broad and then home in on a file even if you have no clue about the filename or what the file contains or even the type of the file) and any file management system that doesn't recognize this is seriously flawed. I got hooked by WinFS (then again it was many many years since I last heard anything about it), a traditional filesystem with a database layer on top seems like a good start.

w0utert 14y ago
Agreed. For example trees of source code seem to fit the hierarchical structure very well, because it can (almost) map directly to projects, modules, submodules and classes, and conveniently separate them from e.g. build products or configuration files. Trees are not evil, but they are not the holy grail of file management either. From a historical point of view, a traditional filesystem with a database layer on top seems to be the most logical way to go. Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone did it the other way around: create a whole new way of organizing files that doesn't use trees, and allow layering some kind of 'tree view' on top of that.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  If not for a specific few lines of code explicitly forbidding hard linked directories, all of the modern file systems would actually be directional graphs.
Someone 14y ago
Truly? So, what is the best way to make a hierarchy of, say MP3s: - year-performer-composer-star rating - genre-year-song title - album title-song title - ... You get the same problem almost everywhere. Is it year-project or project-year or maybe customer-year-quarter-project? Yes, for many tasks, a tree is a good way to structure information. The problem is that the choice of tree can be widely different for different tasks (for example, 'that song you played last week', 'that minute-long guitar riff by X') I think a hierarchy should be like an index in a database: set by an expert to match the most common access pattern, but not enforcing other access patterns. Hierarchical file systems are good at the former, but atrocious at the latter. And we sort-of already have WinFS, in the form of full-text indexes on file systems.
- antihero 14y ago
  Well without a tree structure you're still going to have an issue with the names. Personally I use Album Artist/Album/DiscTrack. Artist - Title.ext But say we did away with folders - you'd have to put all that data in the filenames to sort properly anyway!
  - neutronicus 14y ago
    Naaaaaah, you'd just have metadata!
  - aprendo 14y ago
    I think the last time I used the filesystem to browse my music was in 2003. And it was dreadful. I use a music library app in which I can decide which way my music is ordered. Albums from oldest to youngest? No problem. Artists alphabetically? Sure thing. Artists alphabetically and their albums in chronological order? No problem. The music library app is especially tuned for ways to view my music that make sense for music. It makes those easily accessible. The file system is wholly inadequate for that task. The library app takes care of the underlying folder structure – but that’s an implementation detail I absolutely do not care about. I don’t even know how it looks. (I just looked it up, it’s “Artist” – “Album”, the same structure I used before I started using a library app.) I’m not sure that the file system is really so bad (at least I’m relatively comfortable with it) but I do think that for certain specialized tasks it’s massively preferable to have dedicated apps. Music and photos are my two prime examples.
    - bgruber 14y ago
      "Albums from oldest to youngest? No problem. Artists alphabetically? Sure thing. Artists alphabetically and their albums in chronological order? No problem." from the "to each his own" file: i have never understood why anyone would care about sorting their music in any of these ways. To me, none of these are ways to "view my music that make sense for music." On the other hand, I find a directory structure for albums and everything else chucked into a giant directory to work just fine, as it supports the sort order I do sometimes care about, mtime. Normal search tools like locate work pretty well too. In previous comments on related articles on HN, I have pointed out that files, and to a lesser extent directories, are good because they serve as a universal protocol-of-sorts for dealing w/ blobs of data. That allows you to use the system that works for you, and me to use the system that works for me, and yet we can still share files and move between systems etc. with little headache. I am actually sympathetic to moving to a tag-like system that supports hierarchical tags (gmail style), so that multiple organizational structures can be imposed onto a mess of files. I also find it funny that that's more or less how unix file systems work under the hood.
bodo_leer 14y ago
> start broad and then home in on a file even if you have no clue about the filename or what the file contains or even the type of the file But this file system does not construct itself and if you made a mistake while sorting a file you hit the search field after a while anyway, because you can't find the file in any subfolder. You're right, a mixture of both will probably the next step. But it seemed to me that MS isn't trying something new with windows 8 and the metro interface, did they?

by tjoff 14y ago

w0utert 14y ago

Agreed. For example trees of source code seem to fit the hierarchical structure very well, because it can (almost) map directly to projects, modules, submodules and classes, and conveniently separate them from e.g. build products or configuration files. Trees are not evil, but they are not the holy grail of file management either. From a historical point of view, a traditional filesystem with a database layer on top seems to be the most logical way to go. Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone did it the other way around: create a whole new way of organizing files that doesn't use trees, and allow layering some kind of 'tree view' on top of that.

gizmo686 14y ago
If not for a specific few lines of code explicitly forbidding hard linked directories, all of the modern file systems would actually be directional graphs.

Someone 14y ago

Truly? So, what is the best way to make a hierarchy of, say MP3s: - year-performer-composer-star rating - genre-year-song title - album title-song title - ... You get the same problem almost everywhere. Is it year-project or project-year or maybe customer-year-quarter-project? Yes, for many tasks, a tree is a good way to structure information. The problem is that the choice of tree can be widely different for different tasks (for example, 'that song you played last week', 'that minute-long guitar riff by X') I think a hierarchy should be like an index in a database: set by an expert to match the most common access pattern, but not enforcing other access patterns. Hierarchical file systems are good at the former, but atrocious at the latter. And we sort-of already have WinFS, in the form of full-text indexes on file systems.

antihero 14y ago
Well without a tree structure you're still going to have an issue with the names. Personally I use Album Artist/Album/DiscTrack. Artist - Title.ext But say we did away with folders - you'd have to put all that data in the filenames to sort properly anyway!
- neutronicus 14y ago
  Naaaaaah, you'd just have metadata!
- aprendo 14y ago
  I think the last time I used the filesystem to browse my music was in 2003. And it was dreadful. I use a music library app in which I can decide which way my music is ordered. Albums from oldest to youngest? No problem. Artists alphabetically? Sure thing. Artists alphabetically and their albums in chronological order? No problem. The music library app is especially tuned for ways to view my music that make sense for music. It makes those easily accessible. The file system is wholly inadequate for that task. The library app takes care of the underlying folder structure – but that’s an implementation detail I absolutely do not care about. I don’t even know how it looks. (I just looked it up, it’s “Artist” – “Album”, the same structure I used before I started using a library app.) I’m not sure that the file system is really so bad (at least I’m relatively comfortable with it) but I do think that for certain specialized tasks it’s massively preferable to have dedicated apps. Music and photos are my two prime examples.
  - bgruber 14y ago
    "Albums from oldest to youngest? No problem. Artists alphabetically? Sure thing. Artists alphabetically and their albums in chronological order? No problem." from the "to each his own" file: i have never understood why anyone would care about sorting their music in any of these ways. To me, none of these are ways to "view my music that make sense for music." On the other hand, I find a directory structure for albums and everything else chucked into a giant directory to work just fine, as it supports the sort order I do sometimes care about, mtime. Normal search tools like locate work pretty well too. In previous comments on related articles on HN, I have pointed out that files, and to a lesser extent directories, are good because they serve as a universal protocol-of-sorts for dealing w/ blobs of data. That allows you to use the system that works for you, and me to use the system that works for me, and yet we can still share files and move between systems etc. with little headache. I am actually sympathetic to moving to a tag-like system that supports hierarchical tags (gmail style), so that multiple organizational structures can be imposed onto a mess of files. I also find it funny that that's more or less how unix file systems work under the hood.

bodo_leer 14y ago

> start broad and then home in on a file even if you have no clue about the filename or what the file contains or even the type of the file But this file system does not construct itself and if you made a mistake while sorting a file you hit the search field after a while anyway, because you can't find the file in any subfolder. You're right, a mixture of both will probably the next step. But it seemed to me that MS isn't trying something new with windows 8 and the metro interface, did they?