1. i am a bit afraid that the entire system would rely on one single system wide database, well, metabase. I instantly recall "registry" on windows. prove me wrong
Someone with more technical experience with this stuff would have to say. My impression is that the registry is a different animal. It appears to control low-level data about the hardware, the user accounts, preferences, code libraries and such that I don't think our idea of a database-driven filesystem would deal with. The registry seems to be part kernel and extensions a la OS 9, part framework and part database. I thin it might just be for reasons of predictability. If all metadata is stored in one place, all apps always know where to find what they're looking for. The BD makes sure that the apps and the users aren't overwhelmed with impertinent stuff.
I've also wondered why a decentralized DB system wouldn't be preferred for the security/failsafe reasons you're thinking of. That's the one big reason I can think of.
Quote:
2. why does this makes a central Finder much less important? The Macintosh Finder will always be the center of all user (inter-) activity. Otherwise it wouldn't be a Macintosh Os. imho. I don't say mac os X will steadily stay the same like it is. Of course there will be improvements, finetunings and so on BUT the finder will remain as the center of all activity.
The reason I think the Finder will become less important and "just another app" in a truer sense is that, with all these apps plugging into this DB under the hood, you don't need to find things through the Finder nearly as much any more. Think about it: if your toolset -- the apps- can see or communicate with one another with no intermediary, i.e., the Finder because they all read form the same database and can interpret data for one another, when would you use the Finder? Imagine something akin to what the iLife suite does now, but pervasive and totally non-linear. There will be occasion, but if you have your workflow using a bunch of apps that are in the Dock when you start up, you would mostly go straight into that workflow from there and skip the middleman as it were. This is all to say that people can change how they work, and newer users or those who look for this will likely have an easier time of it. Current users wouldn't have to change how they work per se. It's not like the Finder would be crippled or disappear, just that it would be an extra step.
I imagine there's going to be some collective letdown if/when this database-driven metadata system comes out for consumers. The subtle differences in how one can work will probably catch on slowly and people will need time to realize what they could do with it that they couldn't do before. I don't think much will need to change on the outside.
Quote:
btw, services are an example of how different apps could use the same house, no?
Services are just an extension of pasteboard (aka, clipboard) functionality, but that's the gist of what it's trying to do. If the database were a car, the current pasteboard would be a bicycle -- with training wheels.
Imagine something akin to what the iLife suite does now, but pervasive and totally non-linear. There will be occasion, but if you have your workflow using a bunch of apps that are in the Dock when you start up, you would mostly go straight into that workflow from there and skip the middleman as it were. This is all to say that people can change how they work, and newer users or those who look for this will likely have an easier time of it. Current users wouldn't have to change how they work per se. It's not like the Finder would be crippled or disappear, just that it would be an extra step.
I've seen this concept proposed a couple times now, and though I'm intrigued by it, I don't quite "see" it, so to speak.
Whether the Finder is spatial or non-, hierarchically-based or non-, grouped in dynamic sets or non- (or some complex mix of all of those), wouldn't we still use the Finder to sort and group our projects? Surely, you're not saying a user could be able to sort through and access *all* of her data from the Dock, each individual application, or an Open/Save dialog...?
It all seems a bit vague. Could you present a very specific real world scenario using this metadata-savvy post-Finder OS X, be it home, business, or "pro"?
I keep hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.4 Tiger having a meta data driven file system
...just like you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.3 Panther having a meta data driven file system" and you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.2 Jaguar having a meta data driven file system."
On the one hand, it seems inevitable. On the other hand, holding your breath may not be wise...
...just like you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.3 Panther having a meta data driven file system" and you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.2 Jaguar having a meta data driven file system."
On the one hand, it seems inevitable. On the other hand, holding your breath may not be wise...
I never said before that I was hearing about a meta-data driven Finder in either Jaguar or Panther. Or were you just talking in the general sense that we can't expect anything until WWDC?
You may not have heard it, but it certainly has been posted and talked about for the two previous versions, often as a "sure thing." "Well, when the new Finder and metadata-driven filesystem are released in 10.2..." Oh how quickly we forget See also: the Cocoa Finder, although people seem to have finally given up on that one...
You may not have heard it, but it certainly has been posted and talked about for the two previous versions, often as a "sure thing." "Well, when the new Finder and metadata-driven filesystem are released in 10.2..." Oh how quickly we forget See also: the Cocoa Finder, although people seem to have finally given up on that one...
Oh, oh, oh! I just know Tiger's gonna have metadata. And Aqua other than blue. And 64-bit through and through. And date-sortable column view. And...
No, it seems like Apple is taking their time with this one. Which I don't mind so much, actually, as it's going to be a sea change (it seems to me) if done right, with a UI that allows you to really use that information.
Say, John. What's your take on MS's approach to metadata in Longhorn? Have you browsed through MSDN's Longhorn UE documents, and are you intrigued... or dismissive of what you see?
Surely, you're not saying a user could be able to sort through and access *all* of her data from the Dock, each individual application, or an Open/Save dialog...?
Oh, no, not at all. I don't think the Finder is going anywhere in at least some form. We'll always need the catch-all type of file search and "digging" tool like it. I just mean that the Finder won't be where you begin your session, your day or whatever. Right now, the Finder launches automatically whenever you turn on your Mac or log in. I think you'll be able to skip that required step in the future. I think it will cease to be locked into the Dock like it is now.
Of course, open and save dialogs might become even more like the Finder so you won't need to access it through its own icon or start it up on its own. The Finder would kind of dissolve into a framework that other apps can use in some selective way most of the time, with a stand-alone Finder for other occasions, which there still be be a fair amount of. Of course the Source view/pane that the iApps use and is also now present in the open and save dialogs is another example of how apps can manage their native and associated files.
Applications from the NeXT side of the fence also use reference libraries directly in the apps. Stone's Create has a Resource Library, a bunch of files that you can organize and access from its own palette. No major voodoo, you can also access these things in the Finder easily enough. The now defunct Caffeine Software's TIFFany app has an action catalog where you can access, create, organize your various image editing tools and presets. Keynote is pretty close, but they choose to open Finder windows to access things like the image library and example layouts. It would be rather trivial to simple create a small catalog or browser palette to get to these things. SketchUp lets you organize and place components from a small browser window and drop items into your model. They're all forms of a Finder-like search and browse system. It is one area where I think we will see a kind of application integration from where it is now. Instead of making one app do all the caretaking, every app will be given the tools to do it more thoroughly, a more custom job, and take what they need from others.
Ultimately, I wonder if we'll have icons and closed files and interact with documents in the way the Finder works too. Our computers one day might be able to keep everything open and ready for access without having to double-click on an icon to open it. Maybe they will just stay open and you put them out of sight so you can peek at them at any time. How will apps work then? The Finder might not go away, but it would change quite a bit from what we know now. anyway, that's another can of worms.
I didn't mean to say that the Finder would go away, just that managing files within your apps and workflow would get streamlined and make use of the Finder more sparing. Ok, I'm babbling. Not sure what I just said, but maybe it's clearer speculation?
Say, John. What's your take on MS's approach to metadata in Longhorn? Have you browsed through MSDN's Longhorn UE documents, and are you intrigued... or dismissive of what you see?
My reaction is that at least they're doing something.
Quote:
No, it seems like Apple is taking their time with this one. Which I don't mind so much, actually, as it's going to be a sea change (it seems to me) if done right, with a UI that allows you to really use that information.
Ah, another optimist "Of course they're working on it...how could they not be?" Maybe the possibility that they aren't working on it is too terrifying? I wonder if/when people will give up, if it comes to that. 10.6? 10.9? Ah, secrecy...it's partly exciting, but also partly evil...
Maybe Apple is waiting for *sigh* Microsoft? Perhaps Apple needs to keep its implementation of metadata compatible with that in Longhorn and therefore are holding off implementing it until Longhorn has shipped...
Maybe Apple is waiting for *sigh* Microsoft? Perhaps Apple needs to keep its implementation of metadata compatible with that in Longhorn and therefore are holding off implementing it until Longhorn has shipped...
Remember when Apple was a leader in this area? Those were the days...
Comments
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
1. i am a bit afraid that the entire system would rely on one single system wide database, well, metabase. I instantly recall "registry" on windows. prove me wrong
Here's a discussion about metadata that might help.
Someone with more technical experience with this stuff would have to say. My impression is that the registry is a different animal. It appears to control low-level data about the hardware, the user accounts, preferences, code libraries and such that I don't think our idea of a database-driven filesystem would deal with. The registry seems to be part kernel and extensions a la OS 9, part framework and part database. I thin it might just be for reasons of predictability. If all metadata is stored in one place, all apps always know where to find what they're looking for. The BD makes sure that the apps and the users aren't overwhelmed with impertinent stuff.
I've also wondered why a decentralized DB system wouldn't be preferred for the security/failsafe reasons you're thinking of. That's the one big reason I can think of.
2. why does this makes a central Finder much less important? The Macintosh Finder will always be the center of all user (inter-) activity. Otherwise it wouldn't be a Macintosh Os. imho. I don't say mac os X will steadily stay the same like it is. Of course there will be improvements, finetunings and so on BUT the finder will remain as the center of all activity.
The reason I think the Finder will become less important and "just another app" in a truer sense is that, with all these apps plugging into this DB under the hood, you don't need to find things through the Finder nearly as much any more. Think about it: if your toolset -- the apps- can see or communicate with one another with no intermediary, i.e., the Finder because they all read form the same database and can interpret data for one another, when would you use the Finder? Imagine something akin to what the iLife suite does now, but pervasive and totally non-linear. There will be occasion, but if you have your workflow using a bunch of apps that are in the Dock when you start up, you would mostly go straight into that workflow from there and skip the middleman as it were. This is all to say that people can change how they work, and newer users or those who look for this will likely have an easier time of it. Current users wouldn't have to change how they work per se. It's not like the Finder would be crippled or disappear, just that it would be an extra step.
I imagine there's going to be some collective letdown if/when this database-driven metadata system comes out for consumers. The subtle differences in how one can work will probably catch on slowly and people will need time to realize what they could do with it that they couldn't do before. I don't think much will need to change on the outside.
btw, services are an example of how different apps could use the same house, no?
Services are just an extension of pasteboard (aka, clipboard) functionality, but that's the gist of what it's trying to do. If the database were a car, the current pasteboard would be a bicycle -- with training wheels.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Imagine something akin to what the iLife suite does now, but pervasive and totally non-linear. There will be occasion, but if you have your workflow using a bunch of apps that are in the Dock when you start up, you would mostly go straight into that workflow from there and skip the middleman as it were. This is all to say that people can change how they work, and newer users or those who look for this will likely have an easier time of it. Current users wouldn't have to change how they work per se. It's not like the Finder would be crippled or disappear, just that it would be an extra step.
I've seen this concept proposed a couple times now, and though I'm intrigued by it, I don't quite "see" it, so to speak.
Whether the Finder is spatial or non-, hierarchically-based or non-, grouped in dynamic sets or non- (or some complex mix of all of those), wouldn't we still use the Finder to sort and group our projects? Surely, you're not saying a user could be able to sort through and access *all* of her data from the Dock, each individual application, or an Open/Save dialog...?
It all seems a bit vague. Could you present a very specific real world scenario using this metadata-savvy post-Finder OS X, be it home, business, or "pro"?
C'mon, I double-dog-dare you.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Whoops, missed this the first time! Can't now. I'll try tonight... maybe.
watching
I keep hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.4 Tiger having a meta data driven file system
...just like you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.3 Panther having a meta data driven file system" and you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.2 Jaguar having a meta data driven file system."
On the one hand, it seems inevitable. On the other hand, holding your breath may not be wise...
Originally posted by John
...just like you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.3 Panther having a meta data driven file system" and you kept "hearing so much about this new release of Mac OS X.2 Jaguar having a meta data driven file system."
On the one hand, it seems inevitable. On the other hand, holding your breath may not be wise...
I never said before that I was hearing about a meta-data driven Finder in either Jaguar or Panther. Or were you just talking in the general sense that we can't expect anything until WWDC?
Mike
Originally posted by John
You may not have heard it, but it certainly has been posted and talked about for the two previous versions, often as a "sure thing." "Well, when the new Finder and metadata-driven filesystem are released in 10.2..." Oh how quickly we forget
Oh, oh, oh! I just know Tiger's gonna have metadata. And Aqua other than blue. And 64-bit through and through. And date-sortable column view. And...
No, it seems like Apple is taking their time with this one. Which I don't mind so much, actually, as it's going to be a sea change (it seems to me) if done right, with a UI that allows you to really use that information.
Say, John. What's your take on MS's approach to metadata in Longhorn? Have you browsed through MSDN's Longhorn UE documents, and are you intrigued... or dismissive of what you see?
Originally posted by Hobbes
Surely, you're not saying a user could be able to sort through and access *all* of her data from the Dock, each individual application, or an Open/Save dialog...?
Oh, no, not at all. I don't think the Finder is going anywhere in at least some form. We'll always need the catch-all type of file search and "digging" tool like it. I just mean that the Finder won't be where you begin your session, your day or whatever. Right now, the Finder launches automatically whenever you turn on your Mac or log in. I think you'll be able to skip that required step in the future. I think it will cease to be locked into the Dock like it is now.
Of course, open and save dialogs might become even more like the Finder so you won't need to access it through its own icon or start it up on its own. The Finder would kind of dissolve into a framework that other apps can use in some selective way most of the time, with a stand-alone Finder for other occasions, which there still be be a fair amount of. Of course the Source view/pane that the iApps use and is also now present in the open and save dialogs is another example of how apps can manage their native and associated files.
Applications from the NeXT side of the fence also use reference libraries directly in the apps. Stone's Create has a Resource Library, a bunch of files that you can organize and access from its own palette. No major voodoo, you can also access these things in the Finder easily enough. The now defunct Caffeine Software's TIFFany app has an action catalog where you can access, create, organize your various image editing tools and presets. Keynote is pretty close, but they choose to open Finder windows to access things like the image library and example layouts. It would be rather trivial to simple create a small catalog or browser palette to get to these things. SketchUp lets you organize and place components from a small browser window and drop items into your model. They're all forms of a Finder-like search and browse system. It is one area where I think we will see a kind of application integration from where it is now. Instead of making one app do all the caretaking, every app will be given the tools to do it more thoroughly, a more custom job, and take what they need from others.
Ultimately, I wonder if we'll have icons and closed files and interact with documents in the way the Finder works too. Our computers one day might be able to keep everything open and ready for access without having to double-click on an icon to open it. Maybe they will just stay open and you put them out of sight so you can peek at them at any time. How will apps work then? The Finder might not go away, but it would change quite a bit from what we know now. anyway, that's another can of worms.
I didn't mean to say that the Finder would go away, just that managing files within your apps and workflow would get streamlined and make use of the Finder more sparing. Ok, I'm babbling. Not sure what I just said, but maybe it's clearer speculation?
PS: ?and don't call me Shirley.
Say, John. What's your take on MS's approach to metadata in Longhorn? Have you browsed through MSDN's Longhorn UE documents, and are you intrigued... or dismissive of what you see?
My reaction is that at least they're doing something.
No, it seems like Apple is taking their time with this one. Which I don't mind so much, actually, as it's going to be a sea change (it seems to me) if done right, with a UI that allows you to really use that information.
Ah, another optimist
Originally posted by KANE
Maybe Apple is waiting for *sigh* Microsoft? Perhaps Apple needs to keep its implementation of metadata compatible with that in Longhorn and therefore are holding off implementing it until Longhorn has shipped...
Remember when Apple was a leader in this area? Those were the days...