> Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
> regarding dumbing-down. I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
> think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
> by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
> pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
> actual rodent.
I guess in a sense what's going on here is that these words act as kinds
of "dog whistle". I don't think the argument that "directory" is better
technically than "folder" is really strong, so I can totally imagine
a different version of the world's history where those two terms end up
used in exactly reversed ways where Unix (and win32) ends up using
"folder" while Windows's user-facing docs ends up calling it
"directory".
But which one you choose to use says who you're intending to talk to.
> If I think of the main non-digital directory I have dealt with in my
> life it was a telephone directory. That also did not contain further
> directories within itself.
Regarding the technical argument. I think the crux of the matter is
that directories do not *contain* anything, they just tell you where to
find something, which is indeed technically more correct for Unix style
filesystems since an inode can be referenced this way from several
directories at the same time.
The FAT filesystem did not enjoy this little used property, and indeed
FAT's directories arguably do "contain" files (or at least contain the
equivalent of inodes).
Not sure how useful this discussion can be for "Debian users", tho :-)
Stefan
