4 ms·

Desktop = desktop computer. I put forward a counterargument to a point made in the second half of the article regarding desktop computers. Some people like til

Desktop = desktop computer. I put forward a counterargument to a point made in the second half of the article regarding desktop computers. Some people like tiling window managers, other people prefer stacking window managers. I feel constricted by tiling windows managers which is why I don't use them. I readily stack and deliberately overlap windows daily, and it's part of my workflow. But, at least with a *nix based system you have your choice. Replacing folders with metadata would make it more unwieldy. Files and folders are a familiar, logical, and easy metaphor that readily lends itself to a graphical environment. Heaps of data (at least in the non-programming sense) with excellent metadata is a second rate version of the former. It's been proposed and tried many times with little success because it doesn't lend itself to easy access of data, except when there are few content blobs ("files") in existence.

icebraining 13y ago
except when there are few content blobs ("files") in existence Or many. Isn't that why search engines won to "directories"?
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Well, no, they didn't. Search engines are useful when you've got a haystack of stuff and you're looking for a needle. They're particularly useful when you're looking for something novel, usually an answer to a question. Often you don't know where the content is and you probably didn't create it either. They have two benefits: removing the tedium of hunting intelligently through an unknown haystack for some content, and doing it faster than could be done manually. They also come with the benefit of returning alternate results. The file/directory model is useful when you know roughly (or exactly) where something is. It's easier and often quicker to clicky clicky all the way to your content than it is to describe what you're looking for, waiting, wading through possibly irrelevant results, and then refining your query if you didn't succeed first time around. This model also has the benefit of returning related content (other files in the same directory), as opposed to alternate results. It's for this reason the file system is going to live on, simply because there are many daily situations in which clicking or tapping on directories to get to a file is easier and perceptually quicker. Both filesystems and search engines are useful in different scenarios, which is why we use both depending on which is easier in a given scenario.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Very few users are organization savvy enough to use deep hierarchies of folders and files to organize their data. They are lazy and just throw it in one place, relying on LRU caches (when new and active) and search (when old and inactive) to find what they need. Developers are quite a different breed from mass conventional users. We still need file systems if only because we are more savvy enough to use it. Also, our tools tend to be low level and file oriented.
    - kunai 13y ago
      Not quite; my parents both organize pictures into folders very well and organize them by date and tag them with metadata. They don't do the same for documents, but because every document of theirs tends to be unique, there really isn't any need to. Also note that these are the same parents who haven't the slightest idea of what a kernel is.
      - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
        However, I bet your parents know what filing cabinets and floppy disks are, while your kids most definitely do (or will) not! Pictures and music were also some of the first content classes to be de-filed [1] with apps like iTunes and iPhoto (the file hierarchy is still there, its just hidden from most users). I think this is one of those rare cases where the future is just staring us right in the face, like when Apple got rid of the floppy disk on the imac, or when CD ROM similarly went away. It doesn't mean file systems die right away, but they will become invisible to most users in one or fewer generations. [1] A funny punny
- TheCoelacanth 13y ago
  Search engines didn't win out over the directory model on the web; the two models coexist. Traditional web browsing uses the directory model. Search engines supplement that by allowing you to jump to locations based on a search, but they don't replace the traditional following of links.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Traditional web browsing uses hypermedia (i.e., links), but that doesn't necessarily implement a directory. For example, HN is filled with links, but there's no hierarchy implied, so it's not a directory. Directories on the web exist, but they're mostly very small and localized (e.g., website navigation). Web-wide directories like DMOZ were all but obsoleted by search engines.

icebraining 13y ago

except when there are few content blobs ("files") in existence Or many. Isn't that why search engines won to "directories"?

kintamanimatt 13y ago
Well, no, they didn't. Search engines are useful when you've got a haystack of stuff and you're looking for a needle. They're particularly useful when you're looking for something novel, usually an answer to a question. Often you don't know where the content is and you probably didn't create it either. They have two benefits: removing the tedium of hunting intelligently through an unknown haystack for some content, and doing it faster than could be done manually. They also come with the benefit of returning alternate results. The file/directory model is useful when you know roughly (or exactly) where something is. It's easier and often quicker to clicky clicky all the way to your content than it is to describe what you're looking for, waiting, wading through possibly irrelevant results, and then refining your query if you didn't succeed first time around. This model also has the benefit of returning related content (other files in the same directory), as opposed to alternate results. It's for this reason the file system is going to live on, simply because there are many daily situations in which clicking or tapping on directories to get to a file is easier and perceptually quicker. Both filesystems and search engines are useful in different scenarios, which is why we use both depending on which is easier in a given scenario.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Very few users are organization savvy enough to use deep hierarchies of folders and files to organize their data. They are lazy and just throw it in one place, relying on LRU caches (when new and active) and search (when old and inactive) to find what they need. Developers are quite a different breed from mass conventional users. We still need file systems if only because we are more savvy enough to use it. Also, our tools tend to be low level and file oriented.
  - kunai 13y ago
    Not quite; my parents both organize pictures into folders very well and organize them by date and tag them with metadata. They don't do the same for documents, but because every document of theirs tends to be unique, there really isn't any need to. Also note that these are the same parents who haven't the slightest idea of what a kernel is.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      However, I bet your parents know what filing cabinets and floppy disks are, while your kids most definitely do (or will) not! Pictures and music were also some of the first content classes to be de-filed [1] with apps like iTunes and iPhoto (the file hierarchy is still there, its just hidden from most users). I think this is one of those rare cases where the future is just staring us right in the face, like when Apple got rid of the floppy disk on the imac, or when CD ROM similarly went away. It doesn't mean file systems die right away, but they will become invisible to most users in one or fewer generations. [1] A funny punny
TheCoelacanth 13y ago
Search engines didn't win out over the directory model on the web; the two models coexist. Traditional web browsing uses the directory model. Search engines supplement that by allowing you to jump to locations based on a search, but they don't replace the traditional following of links.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Traditional web browsing uses hypermedia (i.e., links), but that doesn't necessarily implement a directory. For example, HN is filled with links, but there's no hierarchy implied, so it's not a directory. Directories on the web exist, but they're mostly very small and localized (e.g., website navigation). Web-wide directories like DMOZ were all but obsoleted by search engines.