File systems sucks!
Computers came to the people from the world of engineers. And in the world of engineers, implementation always prevails over the interface. Here and with file system so. Despite the huge jump from punched cards to EXT3 or NTFS, the file system interface remains so
like this:
Yes, the same racks (discs) with boxes and drawers (folders), in which punch cards (files) are stored. Girls are either Search Companion or the user. I am worried about the question why transfer the principle of the file system device to the interface of working with it? My folders are often baffled. In which folder should we put the working paper, technical task, photos from work, from leisure, from corporate exit to barbecue, etc. And if you rise to a higher level, then what value as a unit of information does the folder carry? And no! This is just a tag, and a tag with a one-to-one link, that is, only one tag can be assigned to one unit of normal content. The problem of one-segmentation can be solved in two ways:
')
Method 1
Tag each other. Then we get a dull helpless hierarchical rubricator.
Method 2
Use shortcuts in other folders. Sorry, a lesson for perverts.
In general, catch, as they say, nothing special.
Surprisingly, it would seem, after switching to an operating system hostile to the user, like Linux, I realized how easy and simple it is to live without having to put everything into folders. My music and video are downloaded to one place, and the interface is the UPnP AV server, which itself defines tags for content: tags by artists, albums, genres, years, etc. songs; video - actors and directors plus TV shows - seasons and series. I even honestly do not know what and how it happens in my folder called media.
I upload photos from the camera into one container and the bash script lays them into folders by itself, turning them, making thumbnails and adding them to the web browsing interface.
Programs in Linux are also put in such a way that I do not even suspect that there is a file system and that it is somehow arranged.
Alas, you have to deal with folders and files when working with documents, because the lack of a tagging mechanism at the FS level makes it impossible for me to put everything in one folder and forget about its structure.
But, despite the fact that the tags are cool and I love them very much, there are two problems with them too:
1. Sometimes you do not know how to run content (see tags of this topic).
2. I and, probably, many more people are very lazy, unlike sofrus , who uploaded covers for all my mp3s to assign tags to all content.
Here! This is exactly the place where there is a turn of engineering! Consider how much automatic tagging subsystems can be made.
Films, music - authors, performers, directors, actors, years, genres.
Images - date, time, place of shooting, time of year, characters in photos through the face recognition system.
I don't want to write about documents, everything is too simple.
With this approach, you can even get information aggregation. For example, using the tags “Anapa” and “2008”, you can instantly get a report about the holidays spent in Anapa in 2008 from texts and photos, and then removing “2008” and adding “Photos” + “Summer”, you can see a retrospective of your holidays in Anapa. Flight of fantasy is not limited!
Naturally, with a tagging system, browsing the content becomes a search, and the main presentation is its results.
Some steps in this direction have already been made by Windows Desktop Search or Spotlight, but they are desperately lacking support from the file system.
For those who refuse to folders seems something unthinkable and terrible, think about the fact that you most likely use the search-oriented file system every day. It's Google. :)
like this:
Yes, the same racks (discs) with boxes and drawers (folders), in which punch cards (files) are stored. Girls are either Search Companion or the user. I am worried about the question why transfer the principle of the file system device to the interface of working with it? My folders are often baffled. In which folder should we put the working paper, technical task, photos from work, from leisure, from corporate exit to barbecue, etc. And if you rise to a higher level, then what value as a unit of information does the folder carry? And no! This is just a tag, and a tag with a one-to-one link, that is, only one tag can be assigned to one unit of normal content. The problem of one-segmentation can be solved in two ways:
')
Method 1
Tag each other. Then we get a dull helpless hierarchical rubricator.
Method 2
Use shortcuts in other folders. Sorry, a lesson for perverts.
In general, catch, as they say, nothing special.
Surprisingly, it would seem, after switching to an operating system hostile to the user, like Linux, I realized how easy and simple it is to live without having to put everything into folders. My music and video are downloaded to one place, and the interface is the UPnP AV server, which itself defines tags for content: tags by artists, albums, genres, years, etc. songs; video - actors and directors plus TV shows - seasons and series. I even honestly do not know what and how it happens in my folder called media.
I upload photos from the camera into one container and the bash script lays them into folders by itself, turning them, making thumbnails and adding them to the web browsing interface.
Programs in Linux are also put in such a way that I do not even suspect that there is a file system and that it is somehow arranged.
Alas, you have to deal with folders and files when working with documents, because the lack of a tagging mechanism at the FS level makes it impossible for me to put everything in one folder and forget about its structure.
But, despite the fact that the tags are cool and I love them very much, there are two problems with them too:
1. Sometimes you do not know how to run content (see tags of this topic).
2. I and, probably, many more people are very lazy, unlike sofrus , who uploaded covers for all my mp3s to assign tags to all content.
Here! This is exactly the place where there is a turn of engineering! Consider how much automatic tagging subsystems can be made.
Films, music - authors, performers, directors, actors, years, genres.
Images - date, time, place of shooting, time of year, characters in photos through the face recognition system.
I don't want to write about documents, everything is too simple.
With this approach, you can even get information aggregation. For example, using the tags “Anapa” and “2008”, you can instantly get a report about the holidays spent in Anapa in 2008 from texts and photos, and then removing “2008” and adding “Photos” + “Summer”, you can see a retrospective of your holidays in Anapa. Flight of fantasy is not limited!
Naturally, with a tagging system, browsing the content becomes a search, and the main presentation is its results.
Some steps in this direction have already been made by Windows Desktop Search or Spotlight, but they are desperately lacking support from the file system.
For those who refuse to folders seems something unthinkable and terrible, think about the fact that you most likely use the search-oriented file system every day. It's Google. :)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/68092/
All Articles