On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 05:52, Michael Hall <mhall...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > >> Locating/searching is one thing . And the actual storage of the >> files is another thing . >> >> Let's not mix those two things together. >> > A filesystem, hierachical or not, is nothing more than a simple database > with a specially crafted primary key. I guarantee you there is no tree > structure on your hard disk, it's an illusion presented to you by the > filesystem.
The low-level structure of the filesystem can be indeed anything. However , the API exposed by all filesystems is standardized . This is why all programs can work with files , no matter which filesystem is being used. The discussion about the directory file structure emerged when you've mentioned that saving a file should done in some new kind of place , instead of a usual (hierarchical) file path . Let's take an example : open Gimp , draw an image , save . How could Gimp save in some kind of new "database" ? You'd have to modify the Gimp to make it capable to save data in a database instead of a normal file. So there are two possibilities : - leave the file systems alone , and continue to use them even if the directory tree gives headaches to some users - store everything in a new kind of "database" , and patch every single application in order make it capable to work with the new "database" . Huge effort for minimal gain . The obvious choice is to continue using directory tree , and only build some fancy GUI that partially hides it from the user . But when opening/saving files in applications the user will still see the _real_ filesystem . >> However it's hard to imagine how could someone backup the photos if >> the files are stored "nobody knows where" and are accessible with >> multiple search paths . This sounds like chaos . >> > The same way you backup any database, either in full or in part. It takes > no more effort to say "Give me all the data with a name starting with > /home/user/Pictures" than to say "Give me all the data tagged as being a > picture". > > >> So you are thinking to have the metadata stored in a small database. >> And integrate into the desktop the ability to manage the files with >> labels , and search for them. > > That's all a filesystem is, metadata stored in a small database with > pointers to disk locations. > > >> So I would take this idea much more seriously if i had heard you guys >> speaking of designing a new modern filesystem that adds support for >> file metadata , file tagging , and advanced search capabilities . > > Linux filesystems have supported extended attributes for file metadata for > years. Such a filesystem would also need to provide tools (and a library) for allowing the creation of tags and searching for tags. -- Adrian -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
