So I wanted to read up some 2000s level crazy pseudo intellectual shit.
My go to is reading the criticisms of hierarchical file systems because not only are they vapid and vague criticisms they often go absolutely insane.
The cream of the crop has to be the mega essay where the author in chapter 3 of whatever he actually asserts that: >Having different file formats like PNG and JPEG or MP3 and FLAC is bad and its all the hierarchical file systems fault >If we move to user hierarchical file system this will be solved
You can't make this shit up!
So here is why I'm asking can you link to these essays? Because it looks like they are vanishing from the internet and wikipedia looks like it deleted its "criticism" section of the HFS.
Did the authors realize how retarded and stupid their writing is? Or are the major gateways deleting this shit because its stupid and not linking to it (see wikipedia).
Google is only giving me now people bitching that some server is sending them notifications about changed folders without saying what folders they are and people demanding or asking how to get folders in Gmail or some error reporting about not being able to create folders in .
So Jow Forums link me to these writings if you can. They always where amusing its like a normie grandpa from 1993 was mixed with pseudo intellectualism to give a perfect result.
The major checklist is: >The HFS is confusing folders in folders what even is this in my file cabinet folders can not be inside of other folders! >There are to many of these darn things. >There are to many of these folders things I'm getting lost. >How can we teach children or 1993 normie adults in the operation of folders? They are so confusing!
There are no alternatives or they are spectacular failures. The best failure has to be the idea to put all files on some timeline with no folder structure only when they where added/created.
OP here addendum(because word limit): Are today's kids completely intuitive with the idea of folders? And all the grandpas and normies learned it? I grow up on computers so I never found folders to be confusing so I always found the >Think of the children how can we teach the children! To be stupid.
Jaxson Parker
>So here is why I'm asking can you link to these essays? Search for them on scholar.google.com. Some of the papers are probably not available, if you are an uni student, use their VPN and you'll probably get access or rely on based Russians at sci-hub.tw.
Mason Hill
Thanks i can find things there. Only are they the pseudo intellectualism of the 2000s? With its stupidities? And the authentic 1993 grandpa writing style? Man I miss these things.
>The situation, however, has evolved. In 1992, >a “typical” >disk was approximately 300 MB. In 2009, a >typical >disk is closer to 300 GB, representing a three >order of >magnitude increase >While typical file sizes have also increased, >they have not increased by the same margin. >As >a result, users may have many gigabytes >worth of photo, >video, and audio libraries on a single pc
Looks like someone dose not understand the difference between the number of files VS file size.
Juan Howard
>Are today's kids completely intuitive with the idea of folders? I doubt it. Kids mostly use phones and tablets, which hide the file system in an effort to not confuse retards. My mom had an iPad temporarily and couldn't easily find a file explorer app for it.
Bentley Wilson
>At the same time, use of the web is now ubiquitous, >and ”Google” is a verb. With the advent of search engines, >users have learned to find data by describing what >they want (e.g., various characteristics of a photo) instead >of where it lives
Translation: >The operating system never has and never will have a search option >There was never any searching on computers whatsoever >METADATA desktop file searching is a myth!
It is deranged however the crackpot manages to stay in semi sane territory, or I'm reading to much into the broken clock here.
Colton Jones
HMM interesting. I'm not big into phones however don't they have folders for the launchers of the apps?
>iPad Here is your problem, its crapple iShit! i have a old android and it has a build in actual file browser and I can look into the actual file system. And it was on the phone from the start.
Jason Cook
Holy shit!
I guess you must be right in some parts if you actual argue both sides of the issue and answer with "YES and NO" on everything
>This can be seen in the popularity of >search as a modern desktop paradigm in such products as >Windows Desktop Search (WDS) [26]; MacOS X Spotlight >[21], which fully integrates search with the Macintosh >journaled HFS+ file system [7]; and the various >desktop search engines for Linux [4, 27]. I
VS
>At the same time, use of the web is now ubiquitous, >and ”Google” is a verb. With the advent of search engines, >users have learned to find data by describing what >they want (e.g., various characteristics of a photo) instead >of where it lives
What a disorganized mess. Did anyone proof read this shit or is everyone in academia legally insane? We are talking crazy writing on the wall with his own shit territory here.
>I'm not big into phones however don't they have folders for the launchers of the apps? They do, I forgot about that. I don't know how many people use them, though. Even then, is it the same thing to group similar apps together and to be familiar with the actual folder structure of your system?
>i have a old android and it has a build in actual file browser and I can look into the actual file system. Yes, accessing the file system directly on android is easy, but you don't need to do it. All your pictures are in the gallery app. All your music is in the music app. You don't *need* to know where your files are, because the apps do it for you. And now with all the cloud shit, your files aren't even on your device.
Asher Garcia
The original Unix was supposedly revolutionary in that its file system only provided a stream of bytes rather than an organized database. This resulted in flexible applications and its dominance. If you do need a database, it's easy to implement it on top of the simple file system layer.
David Williams
You know, they are not totally wrong. Normie phoneposters do not have any idea about file systems.
Bentley Cox
desu if the alternative approach is a flat structure which can be searched, sorted and all, it's not so bad if the problem would be too many garbage system and program files, well guess who's fault is that. linux is too deep into it's everything is a file thing it actually might be exactly what people want, see photo apps, popular ones show photos in a single stream. it's just that most implementations suck. there is no reason for folders go deeper than 3-4 levels
Alexander Ortiz
>All your pictures are in the gallery app. All your music is in the music app. factually incorrect
Josiah Ramirez
There is no reason why folders shouldn't be able to go arbitrarily deep.
Christian Green
>Even then, is it the same thing to group similar apps together and to be familiar with the actual folder structure of your system? I'm actually thinking that yes. We are talking about the idea of folders within folders.
We use shortcuts on the desktop to start programs they are icons that start things. Not about you knowing what exactly is in /sbin or C:\Windows
You have to correct me if I'm wrong I'm not deep into phones. >All your pictures are in the gallery app. All your music is in the music app This is objectively inferior and wrong.
Its hard core vendor lock in what if I want to use a different program to view my photos? What if I want to use a different viewer for my files? Edit with a different program (GIMP VS MS-Paint)?
Am I locked in this shit? Terrible! How can anyone think that browsing the files on proper computers and operating systems with thumbnails and clicking to open is wrong?
William Anderson
>if the problem would be too many garbage system and program files WEW Lad. You know nothing about how to write programs and its a good sent to have separate files. Why are you even walking into the folders of programs? Do you have extreme autism or are so mentally defective that you want to keep your photos in /root ?
And programming is the main reason why all these retarded ideas about not using a HFS are stupid.
We are talking about your personal files for the most part you organizing data for yourself.
>there is no reason for folders go deeper than 3-4 levels Why? Explain this. Why are you limiting yourself?
Lets take a scenario of your retarded limited idea lets say Elizabeth has her photos like this: Elizabeth/projects/2018 advertisement campaign/Golden Gate Bridge shoot/ And all the photos of this project are in this folder. Not to speak of having more depth with Arial photos/ Or Car drive photos/
And lets say she gives you the folder "2018 advertisement campaign" How will you place it? user/projects/2018 advertisement campaign/Elizabeth/Golden Gate Bridge shoot/ ? Not speaking of you deciding to throw the entire folder into a "RAW" or "Used footage" or "for extraction" folder.
How about if you want to drop a folder with a advanced script or program into your hierarchy?
Never have I seen someone who wants to be limited and actually struggle with this limit. This has to be the most pro pleb idea I have ever seen.
The alternatives is to keep what we have now the unlimited amount of folders in folders or bring in limits. If you want limits I suggest you stop posting here and only submit your posts on floppies with a maximal character limit of 8 over snail mail. After all who needs more?
I can see some logic in abolishing the hierarchical time system. It doesn't seem very efficient at making data searchable, hence relying on indexes. Would it be possible to reimagine the file system as one enormous database? A 'file' can be a database entry. The file data itself only needs to be a field in any given entry. You can include database fields for file type, metadata tags, permissions, dependency tags, physical location on disk, even a 'location alias' for representing the file in a traditional hierarchical folder structure. Seems like this would be more efficient than searching a file index, then referencing the file table for that file's physical location. I'm not a computer scientist, so I'm talking shit, but can someone tell me why this is wrong?
Gavin Lopez
I need to do a fast check on you answer these questions
1) You have a choice either I give you a 100TB HDD or a magically infinite TB HDD that will never run out of space.
What do you choose? Ignore other parameters there are no tricks the HDD is magic.
2) You have a choice either I give you a large mention or a magically infinite rooms house that will never run out of space.
What do you choose? Ignore other parameters there are no tricks the house is magic.
3) You have a choice either I give you a large capacity battery that will last for 1 year of use or a magically infinite capacity battery that will never run out of energy(this is semi realistic atomic batteries can give energy for 20+ years regardless how much you take energy from them (!) however they have their drawbacks).
What do you choose? Ignore other parameters there are no tricks the battery is magic.
I question anyone who would chose anything other then the infinite space options. Infinite. Without end. Everlasting.
While impossible in physical space we can have it with folders within folders. Infinite. Without end. Everlasting.
Why limit yourself? Unless you are a cat and think you distract yourself with infinite space.
yeah senpai, all those are signs a program is shit. what is RAM? when you go too deep, rather than it being of convenience to you, it becomes a nuisance, to open those subfolders rather than seeing them on a higher level, together in a single presentation, plus it obscures the contents. Elizabeth is a dumb bitch, and she could use some unfolding of her folders for the sake of quicker, easier access and better visibility.
>I can see some logic in abolishing the hierarchical time system What is wrong with it? Actually say it.
Elijah Gutierrez
> there are no x the house is magic. is this some kind of poojet meme i know nothing about lmaoing at your existence
Ayden Rivera
File system. Forgive phoneposting, father, for I have sinned.
Ryan Jackson
>yeah senpai, all those are signs a program is shit. How about you open a folder of one of your programs you use every day like your web browser or game that you play all the time. Or even a web server to realize there is a good idea of keeping all the pictures separate from all your other stuff. >what is RAM? And you have no idea what you are talking about, volumes of work can be written how this statement is insane. Are you proposing to keep all the program files in ram so they vanish after the PC powers of? you have no idea what you are talking about.
> rather than seeing them on a higher level, together in a single presentation, plus it obscures the contents You realize that no one is forcing you to use folders right? You can keep all your files in one folder named user and never have sub folders.
Only you quickly realize that its a garbage dump of files where no one can find anything this is why we use sub folders. However I recommend you keep all your files like this it will be a learning experience for you and everyone including you will be happy.
>when you go too deep, rather than it being of convenience to you, it becomes a nuisance Not for the rest of the world. Here is the thing your statement is meaningless unless you show me a scenario of use. How is this bad and what are your alternatives.
>Elizabeth is a dumb bitch, and she could use some unfolding of her folders for the sake of quicker, easier access and better visibility. The problem here user is that its the bare minimum of organised work or do you want one gigantic PHOTO folder where all photos form all shots are collected? Background used photos and materials mixed together with finished works? Stuff from other unrelated projects?
Real life scenarios keep a far deeper organization.
Because no one wants to scroll in the project photos only to find 300+ porn pictures Elizabeth downloaded before finding the rest of the related photos to the project.
No problem I understood you meant file system. I'm not pedantic we all mistype things etc.
Now answer the question >I can see some logic in abolishing the hierarchical File system What is wrong with it? Actually say it.
Anthony Allen
>there is a good idea of keeping all the pictures separate from all your other stuff. only because devs are cunts that can't keep their shit together. oh well >what is RAM? it's dumb to use precious disk io during program's run instead of doing that shit in faster volatile memory. hdds are slow, ssds are fast but have shorter life spans, both would like to have a word with you about raping their disk to death just because some brainlet programmer can't keep his 2 and 2 together in memory to make a 4 if you are one of those people unironically kys this also reminds me of chrome writing gigabytes of data on idle. and firefox, and literally any other browser that isn't forcefully put into ramdisk. also, electron applications probably do the same shit too lol user, sometimes that deep orgranization isn't warranted by anything substantial but your autism
Kayden Young
You're gonna feel really bad when Jow Forums ironically latches on to this with the predictable outcome
Dude its a simple thought experiment and plentiful in fiction (example cornucopia) youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3_KqkI9Zo Its a mathematicians meme.
The no tricks is for you to not obsess over the earth collapsing into a black hole because a infiner amount of rooms would make them collapse on themselves into a black hole etc.
And a infinite HDD could not be formatted with anything since file systems have hard limits. While imagining a everlasting atomic battery is possible to imagine (however it triggers the physicists to no end).
The idea is do you want a 1 TB HDD or a 100TB HDD for the same price and preference etc etc. And then its extended to infinity.
Because folders in folders can go on forever with no end* (the HDD space or some other thing will stop this in practice)
>>All your pictures are in the gallery app. All your music is in the music app. >factually incorrect It doesn't matter what actually happens under the hood. A normie opens his gallery app and sees all his pictures there. That's all he cares about. In his mind, that's where they live. The concept of files and folders doesn't even need to enter his mind to effectively use the device. This is what I meant when I said: >...phones and tablets [...] hide the file system... Ask a friend of yours who isn't into tech: When you take a picture with your phone, where does it go?
The original question was: >Are today's kids completely intuitive with the idea of folders? Maybe when you were little and started using computers you had to know what a folder was to do what you want. I'm arguing that this is not true today and that, since there is no longer such a need, kids won't learn about it. Obviously the ones who are interested in this type of stuff will, but that's not most kids.
Josiah Edwards
I'm just spitballing ideas because I find the thread topic interesting. Isn't one limitation of a file system that it's relatively slow to search for data compared with a database? This is why databases aren't comprised of hundreds of text files in nested folders.
Lincoln Campbell
>Obviously the ones who are interested in this type of stuff will, but that's not most kids. Streamers and PC Gamers are the only hope for zoomers.
>I'm just spitballing ideas Only you don't construct sentences like this is you are "spitballing ideas" >I can see some logic in abolishing Can you say what this "logic" is??? Share this with me. Or its this another malformed statement?
>Isn't one limitation of a file system that it's relatively slow to search Slow in what meaning? You need to qualify this or its a meaningless statement. Slow in like I the human click 10 folders to get to my stuff? (what are shortcuts to folders the post) Or Slow in like opening folders takes shit loads of time? If this then your computer must be shit or have serious problems because this is not happening on my hardware even the old stuff I have.
>database Fun fact get locate32 and index your HDD with it. It uses its own database. Search is instant(click enter and all results are shown instantly) and great with no botnet unlike google. locate32.cogit.net/
Another fun fact the HFS is a database a hierarchical database in fact, today most of the time when the word database is used they are talking about relational databases like SQL however there are other types of databases. Even a peace of paper with a table is considered a database by definition.
Imagine this example: you have a media playback software, with library function. With hierarchical file systems, in order to build a media library, that software will need to scan ALL the files individually in a given location, then construct its own index of those files. In order to maintain the library, regular indexing scans need to take place. Why not make the file system your index? Say your software could simply query the 'file database' for any file entry matching 'file type MP3 or FLAC' and return the file unique ID, file name and metadata tags.
Evan Nguyen
honey, i kno rite, but i think it's better to say it the way it is, that photos and videos are stored on the device, and that the photo app is a viewer because of people like you that think people wouldn't get it and come up with all sorts of misleading falsehoods we get shit like "i deleted the internet what do i do" seriously people are only stupid because 1. you think they are 2. you misinform them 3. you petpetuate their stupidity in modern apps folder metaphor is still common. a fucking kid will encounter that shit either on his chromebook or his icloud
Benjamin Cooper
The 'logic' is from a layman's impression of how file systems work. I'm not a computer scientist and have limited understanding. I'm looking for explanations and conversation. I was quite specific in my choice of language "*I* can see *some* logic", i.e. it's a personal interpretation, and I'm aware I do not possess all the facts. If it was a statement of absolute fact, I would have said "it is logical to abolish..."
>Slow in what meaning? You need to qualify this or its a meaningless statement. Slow compared with e.g. a relational SQL database for searching information in large datasets. If you want to make information easy to return from a query, would you store it in text files in a descriptive folder system, or in a relational database?
>Fun fact get locate32 and index your HDD with it. It uses its own database. I know we can index hierarchical file structures, but what is the computer science reason that we don't just make 'files' an entry in a relational database in the first place? Basically what is the advantage of hierarchical over relational databases?
Chase Williams
>media library I don't know what this even is. No seriously I have no idea what this is.
I keep all my music in folders and I have folders for bands (single artists are also considered a "band") and outside of this I have my mix folders where I copy files from the band folder or other sources (music from videogames or movies is in its own separate folder).
And then I copy a mix folder to a MP3 player and make it play the folder. I can even brows the folder structure in the MP3 player and simply navigate to the play (I copy it from my PC) and play it on random shuffle or sequentially.
Who needs more? What better way to listen to music then Play my favorites from X band Play all from X band Play my funky music mix containing a mixture of bands that I like.
I have my relaxing music and my funky music mix and I actually use more my mixes then anything else. Also in the band folder there are is a favorite folder where i keep all my favorite songs from this band.
What is even this thing you speak of? And how can it be better? I never used iShit.
>file type MP3 or FLAC I don't even understand. Where on the MP3 player or the PC?
On the MP3 player... why? Do you have extreme autism? All files thrown on the player are guarantied to play on it and I see no reason to look what its file type is.
On the PC ... Why? No why do you search it like this? You can simply search for *FLAC in the search box. However why?
>Slow compared with e.g. a relational SQL database for searching information in large datasets. Are you trolling? I ask one more time
Slow in what meaning? You need to qualify this or its a meaningless statement. Slow in like I the human click 10 folders to get to my stuff? (what are shortcuts to folders the post) Or Slow in like opening folders takes shit loads of time? If this then your computer must be shit or have serious problems because this is not happening on my hardware even the old stuff I have.
Is it the clicking on folders that takes time? Actually answer this.
> for searching information in large datasets >easy to return from a query, Are you talking about searching in the search box for files? And it takes time?
>It uses its own database. And you have files in a database if you want it. What is the problem here?
> in a relational database? Do you even know what you are asking here? Because this statement is so bizarre that I'm struggling to find metaphors for it because all my parody illustrations are light years more sane then what you have written.
You realize that in SQL you will NEEDD!!! To construct tables? In like you must construct a table and know what you are doing?
Forget the HFS where you don't need to construct folders and can dump everything in a folder. In SQL you MUST construct tables, and know about primary keys and joins and oh look all this stuff sounds like fun.
Oh and forget about thinking how to structure your data in folders you better start thinking about your database shame BOY! And keep the relations nice and good and know what one to one one to meany and meany to meany relations is BOY! I feel like this in this conversation youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Only you are asking me the equivalent of why not instead of smile switches to turn on the light we don't use some advanced computer build into the switch who uses AI and neural networks to detect when the switch has bean flipped from OFF to ON
Andrew Davis
>why not instead of smile switches simple switches >has bean flipped from OFF to ON has been flipped from OFF to ON
Connor Perez
Do you understand what SQL even is? Have fun thinking of a database schema and normalizing it and one to one and one to many and meany to meany relations.
BTW sorry if I came across as negative. I actually like discussions like this only I'm voicing my perplexeity at the statements written to me. Normally you can not say this to your boss if he talks about totally retarded ideas however this is what I think. >and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got… an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday Actual quote from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/I_Got_it_Yesterday_-_Senator_Ted_Stevens.ogg
The series of tubes is actually the most correct thing this man has ever talked about when discussing the internet.
“MySQLicious” solution VS “Scuttle” solution VS “Toxi” solution
You actually need to know what you are doing and there are multiple ways to get the same functionality with their own problems.
I'm actually interested why you started talking about databases. Is it because "databases" sound cool? Like inserting the word "cloud" or "AI" into your project idea?
I actually want to know what motivated you to say databases.
Its solid thinking only the fuck has this to do with a HFS? And how will non hierarchical file systems solve the problem of having the same content in different file formats???
>Your primary music collection has a few hundred albums in lossless quality FLAC. You decided to re-encode all the audio files to the much smaller 128 Kb/s MP3 format as a new parallel collection
What has this to do with a HFS????? How will tags fix this?????? If his answer is >Oh you can tag the file .MP3 or .FLAC ! Then he is a moron the same can be accomplished with a more intelligent file structure or simply using the search in the OS to find *MP3 or *FLAC in the appropriate folder. Hint storing files like this: "My-music/MP3/Album-name/Track-01.mp3” solves everything, only its not My-music/MP3/Album-name/Track-01.mp3 its My-music/Stuff I can play on my MP3 Player/Album-name/Track-01.mp3 and My-music/Master collectionAlbum-name/Track-01.mp3
Actually the structure looks like this: My-music/Master collection/Album-name/Track-01.mp3 My-music/Auto converted to other formats/Stuff I can play on my MP3 Player/Album-name/Track-01.mp3
>how do you check that every FLAC album has been encoded to MP3? And if you deleted a FLAC album, how do you know that you need to go and delete the MP3 album to match? He seams to be oblivious that if you have a master folder and have scripts who will copy from the master folder every file and convert them to whatever format you need the problem is fixed you interact with the master folder only and a script like this is only a handful of lines in bash.
For example my music folder often has .webm or .mkv music videos I play on my PC only the MP3 players will not play them. Also my MP3 player irony of ironies will not play some MP3 files however it will accept the same file converted to FLAC.
You can make a script you run in the night after you made some changes depending on what you are doing. Some can bitch about the need to do this however seriously what is the alternative?
I seriously don't know why he includes problems with having different file formats in a discussion about the hierarchical file system. How exactly will tags fix this? will tags magically make everything able to play every file format????
We know he is wrong because if we place the same files in a flat file system or tag them nothing changes the MP3 player or whatever will not have the magic capacity to play .mkv or whatever it its tagged mkv.
There are 2 solutions Force only 1 file format. Or create a conversion script (or do this by hand if you are a pleb).
The force 1 file format is basically accepting the worst common denominator and its only having MP3 files with no video because MP3 players will not play it. The conversion solution requires some resources in HDD space and processor power however the processor part can be mitigated making the script run itself at night, I suggest the witching hour or 3AM because no one actually is awake at 3AM.
Angel Cook
Reminds me of some shit I remember reading about apple and how they designed iOS, where they didn't want the user to think of files in terms of .pngs or .mp3s but instead to just have everything be sorted into whatever app can read them.
Julian Martinez
I'll design the logo
Wyatt Morales
Apple is the worst in everything and their strategy is to vendor lock every user into their shit and remove features.
With this out of the way there are benefits to tags especially searching multiple categories only most of the anti HFS brigade is to insane to actually formulate this instead we get comedy gold like: >>Tags will magically make every format compatible with everything >>You see its all the HFS fault!
Personally I'm implementing my own tags only I don't see a need to tag everything in the FS mostly I find some folders where I keep specific stuff that needs to be taged with its folder specific tags and there is no need to extend them past this folder.
So I can use a folder as a bucket with some scripts and files inside to act like a gigantic file repository where I can get photos or videos out. Oh ant its totally transferable between operating systems etc.
Only I don't see a need to abolish the HFS and see tags playing a additional role. Considering that most other taging solutions are complete closed in shit or stuff that can get striped if transferred and tag support is not everywhere I think my own implementation will work for the rest of my life for me.
The tagFS and anti-HFS brigade seams to be oblivious to this and not even capable to formulate a proper criticism of the HFS hint I know its problems are you capable of formulating them?
Oh another problem I interpreted from the mental vomit some of these intellectuals produce if I have a program and it needs to start my convert.sh script how will a tag only FS handle this? Will it search for the convert.sh tag ? OK lets say there is only 1 file with this tag. Lets ponder the tags for ever file in a common program Valve-half-life-2-level-1-map.bz Valve-half-life-2-music-startup.mp3
Wow it looks almost like we are trying to reinvent things that are supposed to be in folders.
What happens if the user ads a convert.sh to something? Will a search for this tag give 2 results? What will happen to the command run convert.sh???
Will the program fail to execute because there are 2 files tages with the same tag AKA actual filename? Will the FS have special tags that are reserved and can only be unique to prevent problems like this? Congratulations you reinvented the flat file system with all of its problems.
Have fun if a actual file name (because this is what these one time tags actual will be) has a collision and have fun rewriting your entire program.
Would it not be nice to have a folder where all this stuff is in and the files of the program refer only to the contents of this file?
And this is children why the HFS is important and actually wanting it to be abolished is extremely stupid especially for programs, something I think Jow Forums can understand.
I don't doubt my preferred solution of having a bucket folder where you throw in your photos and tag them will be popular and can be extremely useful for day to day tasks. Think of it like a portable e-mail client for data you tag. Only the HFS will always be there and having multiple bucket folders is really convenient if you want to separate your porn from your SFW stuff.
Only the HFS must be the primary way to access files my solution is more like throwing pictures into .cbz files only far better because its folders and large single files are always problematic to edit etc.
I'm still waiting for the anti HFS brigade to say what is actually wrong with the HFS and if possible talk about alternatives, because we all know talking about alternatives shows that these people are insane and nothing they speak of is remotely coherent or sane for anyone who doubts this see
Jayden Ramirez
why not both? tags makes sense for some things (namely media), and flat makes sense for other things (basically anything else) i'd imagine a lot of people arguing to move to a tag-based FS only use their computers to make and consume documents and media, and don't know much about how the rest actually works sure it makes sense for a human to want to find that picture they took of a beach in 2014 by typing "photo 2014 beach", but it doesn't make sense for say, a video game to have to make a search query for level data it put there and that only it uses
>I'M TOTALLY A GRILL user >TELL ME YOUR SECRET 0 DAYS TO GET ME WET user >SAIK!
Matthew Sanchez
>and flat makes sense for other things Did you mean to write hierarchical makes sense?
Because a flat FS is something totally different from a HFS.
A FFS is this get a USB stick place all your files on it, never use or create or copy folders on the USB drive. This is how a FFS looks HFS are bestially FFS only + folders.
You can pretend to have a real FFS by simply never creating folders, you are not forced to create them.
>why not both? Did you understand my post? I did say you can have tags however the HFS needs to be primary or you end up with a iToy. You notice that large developers like valve or games etc will ignore tags and simply use folders and files, there is no need to tag their game or program internal files.
However you can still end up with a crapple iToy you notice that I used the actual example of a auto convert script in
Gavin Morales
Its simple to write and extremely convenient. Also working with files professionally will be a pain on iToy solution (iToy is basically when everything is like normal only the DE is hiding it from the user and not giving access to it with only tag searching on one user set of created data).
My solution is the best because you can throw all your stuff in the bucket folder if you want or handle them in folders professionally like when you are on a project and required to organize files who where shot or a programming project etc.
The perfect world solution would be if all FS handled it and there was compatibility however today we only have shit and often moving files (internet or USB) will strip them of tags. >tag-based FS only use their computers to make and consume documents and media Quite possible. >took of a beach in 2014 by typing "photo 2014 beach" The only question is if these people know that in a tag system they are required to manually tag their own files and if they don't tag them "photo 2014 beach" they get shit also "photo" and "beach" need to be separate tags or they wrote shit and "2014" is a invalid tag.
The correct way to tag the files is type=photo place=beach year=2014
Also why not the weather or if there is a sunset? Oh look its basically like SQL normalization meats folders with >Namely, would you make a folder structure like “My-music/Album-name/MP3/Track-01.mp3” or “My-music/MP3/Album-name/Track-01.mp3”?
Or these jokers will quickly find their tags are imprecise and will give wrong search results.
[to be continued]
Ian Jenkins
Tagging requires thinking and the machine can give data like year or camera lens(Hey what normie idiot wants to search their photos based on camera lens or camera model? They sure will benefit from this rich metadata! That already exists in jpeg and can be searched today in every HFS) or even GPS(GPS data can be used to determine if the photo was taken on actual beache) location however its impossible to tag who is in the photo by the phone in the near future.
Then you have other problems like if the tag system is not hierarchical or pulls other tags automaticaly place=beach is invalid or stupid its supposed to be place_generic_master_type=beach place_actual=Australia_beach
Then you have shit loads of things like city country or continent these things can be determined from GPS alone however who is doing this? Is some algorithm translating >search for my beach photos from 2014 or >Search my photos from the Australian beach only To queries talking about GPS coordinates in a range? Is the place_actual=Australian Included as a tag on the file itself?
And this speaks nothing about searching for specific photos of their friends who most likely these people will need to insert on their own by hand. If they forget to tag something then their searches will not magically solve this.
In the end these people are a joke and stupid they don't even understand what a tag based system looks like and think it will magically solve all their problems. And they are to stupid to think or look into web based taging systems to realize the complexity or problems of typing shit loads of tags for one file.
And metadata exists in normie files like MP3 or jpeg that can give the same search capacity like GPS location search . So what is the issue that there is no advanced search who will use GPS coordinates with advanced parameters for GPS locations that correspond to the name Australia? That no DE actually indexes the jpeg metadata and then provides a utility to find photos made in Australia? and MP3s are taged by the producers and steam has the same thing.
I'm more interested in these intellectuals who think they figured the world out because they are more internet crazy then your typical normie grandma.
Anthony James
Once you tag multiple files flat it's having hierarchical structures again and the whole point is moot.
Samuel Green
Actually its more: 1)Search for opinion on subjects. 2) Find the anti HFS talkers 3) Realize they are funny and read them laughing why they are stupid on their points for years 4)Regularly search to find the most insane shit anti HFS guys say 5)Be sad that I can not find them on google today 6)Make thread
I apologize for nothing and I know what I am and what I'm doing.
2 files. Tag one file with "top" and the other one with "top" and "kek". Now it's just another representation of having one file one level deeper, so in a folder. flat: - File 1 top - File 2 top kek
Optimizing one "top" away (note how it's there twice) to save space:
hierarchical: Folder 1 top contains File 1 top and another folder for File 2 kek and also top, as it's rooted in top already
flat is a meme.
Smoke weed everyday, my man.
Anthony Brooks
This example is not representative of serious use. I try to interpret your example. I admit most examples of tag systems can be rewritten in folders.
I have a SFW example however its fandom specific and I don't think I need to explain some intricacies of characters form some stupid show(and the tag system needed to be specifically crafted for the idiosyncrasies of the show and its characters and fandom) and try to explain taging at the same time so I think the NSFW example will be bet because mos of you can understand the concept this solution is impossible to create in a folder system or extremely time consuming.
[to be continued]
Isaiah Campbell
Lets say you have a local porn collection. We fill focus on videos because pictures are trivial to place in folders.
Lets say you want to search for a video where a woman masturbates. Here is the first warning remember that the video can be 100% only about masturbation or the masturbation scene can be a small part of the video. So is the tag act=masturbation correct? I say you need act_generic=masturbation and act=masturbation_only act=masturbation+other_things Where inserting the specific act will also insert the act_generic=masturbation tag.
Now this is solvable in folders however lets continue. Lets say that a rating tag is used I use: video_quality=10 you notice its a number so if 4K shows up etc the number is increased and using names like HD is pointless since you can not do numeric searches on them like video_quality>7 A easy trap to fall into if you did not think about your tags.
However I also have a arousing=7 Because there are videos who are extremely arousing for me however the video quality is bad There is also a fav tag for my favorite things.
Lets say that you are also into squirting and some of your videos have squirting in them. act=squirt is a tag
Ok lets say you want to see only quality above 7 videos that have the arouses level of 5+ and who are about one girl only masturbating and she squirts the search query is
Try to force this into a folder structure. And this is not even touching on overlaps with bukakey or anal. Forcing this into a folder structure is extremely hard and will be impossible or time consuming for every possible combination of topics.
You also notice search results like this go far above the simplistic beach photo example or other normie ideas for tags. These people are to stupid to use folders for simplistic things and will not even start thinking that they need to subdivide a tag with a associated tag or use numeric values in some tags. They don't even think about their taging scheme.
For your stupid beach photos use folders you idiot you fuck yourself over with tags and have no idea how to use them. If you are to stupid for folders you will be to stupid for tags have fun not finding things because you did not add a tag to the video and rage how bad tags are. The most comical will be if idiots create a bad tag name(they used on multiple files for a long time) and will try to unfuck themselves after they realize their own mistake.
>For example when you upload a file to Jow Forums (image board web site), the server saves it with the name set to the current Unix millisecond timestamp (e.g. 1487783267847.gif). Unfortunately this simple-sounding scheme requires a great deal of care to implement correctly. The server could be unlucky and process two requests in the same millisecond, so it would need to keep track of the last issued timestamp and use a new number that is strictly greater
I think this is bullshit that is factually wrong.
Henry Reyes
>Every file in within a folder must have a unique name. (Or phrased more formally: For each directory in the file system, each item in that directory has a name different from all other items in that directory.) This seems like a reasonable design on the surface – after all, you need some way to identify and access each file – but its implications are troubling.
>Example: You browse the web and download a bunch of cat pictures one by one. You just want to name every file “Cat.jpg” because it’s the best description you can think of without spending extra mental effort. But saving them into the same folder, each file needs a unique name. So you might decide to append a number to them, like “Cat-0.jpg”, “Cat-1.jpg”, “Cat-2.jpg”, etc. – fine. Or you might start to describe each one in more detail, like “Cat-in-hat.jpg”, “Cat-sleeping.jpg”, “Cat-chase.jpg”. But eventually you will see a picture that deserves the same description, so you’ll still end up with numbered names like “Cat-in-hat-2.jpg”, etc. Either way, once you start numbering files, you need to check the highest existing number every time you save a file. This procedure increases mental burden without actually improving the information being stored – it merely works around the unique name requirement imposed by the system.
Jason Howard
>Example: You do a photoshoot and capture a series of images, say “Fred-01.jpg”, “Fred-02.jpg”, ..., “Fred-30.jpg”. You delete some outtakes, leaving holes in the sequential file numbering. If you publish this subset of photos as is, the consumer might wonder why there are gaps in the numbering, and get unintended insight into how many raws were shot. But it gets worse – your coworker Mary was shooting alongside you, and offers you her collection of photos of the same subject. In a stroke of bad luck (or great minds thinking alike?), she also named her photos “Fred-01.jpg”, “Fred-02.jpg”, ..., “Fred-19.jpg”. You want the benefit of being able to use her files, but now you are left with a dilemma on how to organize them. You can either put her files in a separate folder so that you end up with “Me/Fred-01.jpg” vs. “Mary/Fred-01.jpg”, or you can re-number her files to integrate them into your collection (e.g. add 30 to Mary’s numbers), or you can add a prefix to her files (e.g. “Mary-Fred-01.jpg”) and put them into your folder. The first option of keeping collections in separate folders is the easiest to do but makes retrieval awkward; the second and third are awkward due to poor tools for renaming files, and have a high potential for human error (misnaming, accidentally deleting, or overwriting files). In all cases, you have to take extraneous actions to merge two collections together or retrieve files from a merged collection. These extra steps stem from the hierarchical filing paradigm, not from the idea of merging data.
This idiot seams to be oblivious to using scripts to simply auto rename files in 1 folder to MD5 or whatever.
He also seams not to grasp that you don't name files Cat-1.jpg you place all cat files into a cat folder and in it simply MD5 the files in it however nowadays most files come with a number generated by whatever service they where uploaded to so there is no real need. If there are conflicts simply MD5 them.
Adrian Brooks
Alright, you have some very valid points. Maybe video containers need tag support for chapters? Machine learned computers could autofill these.
One thing is certain: Somebody is working on that right now in 10.14 with Machine Learning. Apple more or less demoed it live this year with pictures and their meme API.
I guess in the future users will only know how to search for their files, not how to find them.
iPad has a file manager, but not Finder. The signs are clear.
Matthew Wright
>100 000 files in same directory >hashing everything because "gayporn2.mkv" is not clear enough >claiming backup is difficult with traditional filesystems
The fuck is wrong with this guy? Is he just too stupid without sufficient brain capacity to manage his files? And hasn't he never heard of ZFS and snapshots?
Jaxon Thomas
Welcome to the wonderful world of anti HFS people. They are magical creatures so collect their works and share.
What is the most insane thing a anti HFS guy has written that you found on the internet?
This is the first (and hopefully the last) time I've met with them.
And 'cause you asked, here's some highlights that made feel extremely violent towards the author:
>Hence it may not be desirable or necessary to let the end user choose and manage unique file names. As we’ll see later, it might be a good idea to design a system where each file name is an auto-generated hash, but where files can be named, categorized, and queried using higher-level metadata systems.
>In hierarchical file systems, the path to a file tells us how to retrieve it, not what is inside the file. For example, “/home/john/diary.txt” tells the computer to start from the root, go into the directory named “home”, go into the subdirectory named “john”, and follow the link named “diary.txt” to access the file. It doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about what the file contains – for all we know, it could be an actual diary or a downloaded movie. To make matters worse, the meaning of the path is relative to which computer system we’re working on. The same path “/home/john/diary.txt” might exist on a distant server, but possess completely different file content.
>For example because of this behavior on large folders, I am forced to split up my photo collection – somewhere in the order of 100 000 files – into chunks of 1000 for sane browsing. I created folders like “00” for the zeroth thousand items (000~999), “01” for the first thousand (1000~1999), “02” for the next thousand (2000~2999), and so on. But in theory, this is extra effort to artificially work around a dumb file system concept. I would be thrilled if I could dump all my photos into one giant folder, and let the system software figure out how to present subsets of that data in a responsive, performant way. It’s almost as though hierarchical file systems have forsaken some of the beauty of a flat file system.
Lucas Mitchell
>>>For example because of this behavior on large folders, I am forced to split up my photo collection – somewhere in the order of 100 000 files – into chunks of 1000 for sane browsing. I created folders like “00” for the zeroth thousand items (000~999), “01” for the first thousand (1000~1999), “02” for the next thousand (2000~2999), and so on. But in theory, this is extra effort to artificially work around a dumb file system concept. I would be thrilled if I could dump all my photos into one giant folder, and let the system software figure out how to present subsets of that data in a responsive, performant way. It’s almost as though hierarchical file systems have forsaken some of the beauty of a flat file system. This statement does not even make sense.
>And 'cause you asked, here's some highlights that made feel extremely violent towards the author: And I was thinking the final straw is his "lets make editing AKA changing any file impossible for the user" (he actually says this) also I laugh so hard at these people.
>>>It’s almost as though hierarchical file systems have forsaken some of the beauty of a flat file system. He is literally doing it to himself. >Its the hierarchical file systems fault!
What has this even to do with the HFS and how is >>>the beauty of a flat file system. Solving anything???? Is he to stupid to imagine what will happen if he dumps all his pictures into one folder? What is preventing him from this?
It will be a hell to brows to the bottom if all files are flat. Is he really thinking a flat file system can solve anything? Or look differently?
Andrew Morris
If someoen doubts me or did not read the wall of text he has written CTRL+F this >Designing a tag-based file system >Immutable file objects with hash identities
>Define a “file” to be an immutable, finite sequence of bytes. In other words, a file is a list of numbers, and changing the length or any number produces a new file. A file has no name, no location, no attributes attached (timestamps, permissions, etc.), and no hidden semantics. You can picture a file as a block of numbers floating in space among other files. Define the “hash” of a file to be the SHA-256 hash of said sequence of bytes. Note that each file maps to exactly one hash; there is no ambiguity in how a file gets hashed
You cant make this shit up! congratulations he invented a brick I wish his file system was Immutable so his document was forever stuck at 0 bytes and did not permit him to write his trash.
>Notice in particular that no file has a name or any tag associated with it, and no file can be changed in place (but you can remove a file, change the content, and add a different file). Now based on those low-level file system operations, we can define an overwhelmingly powerful function Have fun retaging this new file. Also R.I.P. logs.
Christian Harris
>What offended you the most?
I don't know what happens if I have an untagged, non-extension, hash-only file on his filesystem with 1 000 000 similar files. I mean, how do I find my precious "gayporn2.mkv" from that ocean of hashes.
And I bet he knows neither.
Jaxon Miller
>>>For example because of this behavior on large folders, I am forced to split up my photo collection – somewhere in the order of 100 000 files – into chunks of 1000 for sane browsing. I created folders like “00” for the zeroth thousand items (000~999), “01” for the first thousand (1000~1999), “02” for the next thousand (2000~2999),
I pay good money to interact with this idiot and see his file structure he uses. you know how I keep my stuff? ISO date format 2016-08-07 Trip to Germany 2017-05-03 Vacation in Australia 2018-01-01 Celebration in the office
all of them are folders and all photos go into the folder the time period is about also video or other things like audio recording or some notes I made abut the trip. I think everyone can see the beauty of keeping things together based on the event in time its easier to brows then a timeline from 2000 to 2018 that can have shit loads of photos.
Noah Gomez
>And I was thinking the final straw is his "lets make editing AKA changing any file impossible for the user" (he actually says this) also I laugh so hard at these people.
So you are still a noob. Come over to the functional side and see the advantages of immutability.
Aaron Barnes
>"gayporn2.mkv" from that ocean of hashes. I think you need to search for gay porn and the search function shows you everything taged under gay porn. Or are you searching specifically for this one gay porn file? Then I think he will say to remember (is there a save filename function in his FS?) the actual file name or hash.
The really suicidal thing is that this can never work with any software or he must drop the hashing. if you have a script file and update it the hash will change (= shit stops working) if other scripts start it based on its 1 in a lifetime tag then it can be bricked by something else getting tagged 1 in a lifetime under the name.
If this tag is special and forces uniqueness you reinvented a flat file system filename.
Your complaint looks minor, this is how boorus work under the hood.
Connor Walker
What are you talking about?
1.0) Question how do you create a text document of your vacation or note? 1.1) How do you edit this file? 2) Question how do logs function if the log file can not be appended to? 3) Question how can I update any program if I can not change even 1 character in it? You actually answer this.
Has anyone noticed this is the same pajeet that's been spamming Jow Forums? It's the same pattern of almost comprehensible English but with enough flaws that it's clearly not written by a native or long-term speaker. It reeks of someone who learned it strictly in an educational environment and this same guy with the same pattern of writing has been posting shit about pajeet management and outsourcing costs for weeks.
Austin Sullivan
literally op, only a completely mentally fucked up person would still go on literally talking to themselves
Ryder Cruz
I suggest you read >Complex indirect tags
Its starts reasonable talking about tag name problems and differences in languages. So you think Ok so I keep my files taged in my way in my language. And I can handle name changes by auto mass functions and not fuckign myself over with my own tags.
>Renaming a tag is highly disruptive. For example the city of Edo changed its name to Tokyo. If you have a bunch of files tagged with the string “Edo”, then you need to read each tag file, create a new tag with the new name but same target, add the new tag file, and delete the old tag file.
>Some names are ambiguous and represent multiple distinct concepts. The word “chat” means something different in English than in French. What are you going to do, disambiguate them as “chat (English)” vs. “chat (Français)”? What if you spoke English all your life and didn’t know that the word collides with French? Other examples post-disambiguation include “Apple (company)” vs. “apple (fruit)”, and “Toronto, Ontario, Canada” vs. “Toronto, Ohio, USA”. But some names are very difficult to disambiguate, such as two different people named “John Smith” – what are you going to do, call them John 1 and John 2, or add social security numbers or birth dates to people’s names?
However the author gouges to absolute badshit land with it.
Connor Martin
>This is why databases aren't comprised of hundreds of text files in nested folders.
The real question is what he wanted with a database or how this was supposed to work. Or how he expected this to work without even having a database schema or expected it to work without the need for him to define a schema.
Jackson Wood
Lets play what is wrong with this statement. Can you see what is retarded about this?
>Tag strings are language-centric, even though what we really care about is the underlying abstract concept. For example you might tag a bunch of photos as “Canada”. Why not tag them as (Chinese) “加拿大” instead?
>Some names are ambiguous and represent multiple distinct concepts. The word “chat” means something different in English than in French. What are you going to do, disambiguate them as “chat (English)” vs. “chat (Français)”? What if you spoke English all your life and didn’t know that the word collides with French? Other examples post-disambiguation include “Apple (company)” vs. “apple (fruit)”, and “Toronto, Ontario, Canada” vs. “Toronto, Ohio, USA”. But some names are very difficult to disambiguate, such as two different people named “John Smith” – what are you going to do, call them John 1 and John 2, or add social security numbers or birth dates to people’s names?
>address these issues, let’s add one level of indirection to the tagging model. First, create a file called the tag core consisting of a unique string. In theory it could be a simple string like “tree” or “Star Wars”, but because these can suffer from issues due to renaming, uniqueness, and language-neutrality, it is better to use uniformly random garbage data as the tag core. Now take the hash of the tag core and get a result like 1ca21a98b21ccedfd10a3436d7a1a39d3acae032aa6882564c89b28081a27cdf. Next we add tags referring to the core’s hash, such as (“tree”, “English”, 1ca2...7cdf), (“樹”, “中文”, 1ca2...7cdf). At the same time, we associate other files with the tag core hash, such as (some photo hash, 1ca2...7cdf), (some video hash, 1ca2...7cdf), (some document hash, 1ca2...7cdf).
Xavier Stewart
>One extension of using tag cores is that we can create a public vocabulary of tags with universally accepted meanings. For example, there might be a publicly known tag core for the city of New York, NY, USA. When you tag your personal collection of photos, it would be beneficial to point to the publicly known tag core instead of creating your own tag core, because then you can compare your collection against other collections, or make it easier to publish in the future. And because tag cores can have arbitrary data pointing to it, it is possible to attach names in a variety of languages, links to a Wikipedia article, Earth coordinates, et cetera.
Chase Russell
Oh wow, look at all the non-technical shitters here.
The reason for having directories is entirely technical. If you put everything in /, you'd have to iterate through every single file in your filesystem every time you open a file. By using directories you're creating sublists so you only have to iterate through a subset of files when listing that directory.
You could implement a different filesystem API, but that would mean rewriting every single piece of software from scratch to support the new API, plus your new filesystem would likely be more difficult to implement.
The filesystem simply dictates how files/data are stored, you don't need to organize your data using the filesystem, except insofar as needed to provide good performance per the technical reasons mentioned before.
That's why it's common to write a frontend for organizing and tagging files which is backed by a database and SHA/UUID labeled files indexed by the first few characters in directories.
The filesystem is just a data storage backend, you don't have to use it as the frontend.
Eli Morris
>That's why it's common to write a frontend for organizing and tagging files which is backed by a database and SHA/UUID labeled files indexed by the first few characters in directories. Why do these people always hate the HFS and want to abolish it complacently?
