The Insider News - CodeProject

Informal Protocol[^]:
There’s an important distinction here, and that’s separating files as UI from files as API. iOS (and, to a lesser but growing extent, Mac OS) has proven the value that users should not have to manage their own file system, that files as UI is a poorer user experience. You shouldn’t have to worry about where photos are stored in your photo library; iPhoto will manage collections of photos for you and they get stored on your disk somewhere.... This is a good thing, it’s a significant advancement forward in human/computer interaction design, and it’s the model that computing on all platforms will be following going forward. Files as API, however, are as important as ever. Besides being organizational chaos for a user to manage, a file system can be thought of as a structured way of mapping lots of pieces of separate data to a physical disk.

Are the days of hierarchichal file systems numbered?

Terrence Dorsey wrote:
You shouldn’t have to worry about where photos are stored in your photo library;
iPhoto will manage collections of photos for you and they get stored on your
disk somewhere

Bleah. I want to control. I have to keep porn separate from family photos.

Definitely an iFan who wrote the article.

=====
\ | /
 \|/
  |
  |-----|
  |     |
  |_    |
   _)   | /
   _)  __/_
   _)  ____
  |    /|
  |   / |
  |     |
  |-----|
  |
=====
 ===
  =

Having a clean acc, and a separate pr0n acc on XBMC has worked for me so far Laugh | :laugh:

Apple wants you to buy some expensive extra hardware for copying your photos from an apple device to something else. Because only iPhoto knows where and how your photos are stored, you can only use the devices accepted by iPhoto for that purpose. What a great world! And so many people buy that apple crap!

30 years on and Apple are still stealing ideas from Smalltalk-80 and presenting them as innovation.

One day, the vision of everything as an Object may actually take off.

Rob Grainger wrote:
One day, the vision of everything as an Object may actually take off.

Well until they get down to the turtles anyway.

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius

Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt

You're forgetting of course that Turtles are objects too!

It's an issue of tagging and content. Since the filename is often not enough, additional information is required to figure out what goes where. The future is automatic content extraction for searching/indexing of images so that you simply ask for e.g. "pictures of my daughter in Madrid" and the system returns those photos that show that person in that place by means of sophisticated pattern-recognition algorithms.

But a smart user puts those photos on a directory named "pictures of my daughter in Madrid", done.

Last night I was looking for some old pictures and I didn't even know what pictures I had so asking by description would be useless.

For some reason this article really annoyed me. While I agree that there could be some improvement to the file systems we're using now, I'm not quite sure how, and every alternative I've ever seen has been, in my opinion, worse - not the Glorious Answer to All our Problems.
Files as the UI work, even if it's sometimes annoying to have to remember where you put something and how you named it, which is more than what can be said for the alternatives (which, at best, appear to work with less effort until you want to do something even slightly out of the ordinary, and it will simply not work at all).

Terrence Dorsey wrote:
Are the days of hierarchichal file systems numbered?

Again?

Terrence Dorsey wrote:
a file system can be thought of as a structured way of mapping lots of pieces of separate data to a physical disk.

It has a real-world analogue. It can be seen as a physical "file system". With files in folders.

Terrence Dorsey wrote:
You shouldn’t have to worry about where photos are stored in your photo library;

"It has to be accessible anywhere, whether it's stored on your PC with 60 Terabye harddisk, your phone, or your car-key."

Photo's are an overly simple example. What about Visual Studio solutions? And should it really not matter whether I open it from a test-folder or a production-folder? Smile | :)

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]