Yeah, great! How am I supposed to build websites without using directories..?
Simple. I store all of my pages/forums/users/etc... in a MySQL database, and then images and support files just rest on the root directory. I'm sure if I was really cunning I could even store the images in the database too... but there's no need for subfolders in websites.
Besides... you can't build websites in the Finder... or did you not notice that there is no FTP support? Apple killing folder's doesn't mean that Cyberduck won't have folders.
Ever notice how iPhoto and iTunes both have moved away from the folder paradigm? That's because they introduce artifical limitations that have no business existing in a computer's filesystem. I honestly don't know what direction Apple will go with the Finder, but I hope that it is sort of an hybrid of iTunes and iPhoto optimised for file managment. There would be no folders needed in such a system.
Folders were good when there wasn't a robust search and metadata system for organising files. But now that we do have one built into the os, there is no reason to have folders.
Descriptions of several features and interfaces not present in shipping versions of Apple Computer's Mac OS X operating system have recently turned up in company patent filings, AppleInsider has discovered.
Hrmpf.com has some more details on the patents - there are some weird extra star-trekish metadata analysis things (where your computer uses voice recognition to add extra metdata) and also iBrowse (another spotlight broweser)- interesting- but can Apple make it reality
Simple. I store all of my pages/forums/users/etc... in a MySQL database, and then images and support files just rest on the root directory. I'm sure if I was really cunning I could even store the images in the database too... but there's no need for subfolders in websites.
Besides... you can't build websites in the Finder... or did you not notice that there is no FTP support? Apple killing folder's doesn't mean that Cyberduck won't have folders.
No matter what there will be SOME sort of categorization present, but hopefully not as complicated. I'd like to see something like Aperture where you have projects in which each image is located. It's so much easier to keep things organized.
If I were designing such a system for OS X, however, there would have to be some other support for metadata which emulates the old style of directory paths. Many applications rely on paths to function (especially UNIX software), so removing that functionality altogether wouldn't be possible.
I for one have been looking for features exactly like those described in the patents. This is borrowing from some basic Windows/Internet Advanced search features, improving upon them and integrating them into finder.
a.) you can't change the name (computer, search for all my yellow files! wtf?!?)
Actually you can. In the Finder's menu bar, go to Finder > Preferences > Labels
I renamed the color orange to "Currently Working On", yellow to "Need to Review", and green to "Ready to Publish". I use this to label all my web pages.
Hrmpf.com has some more details on the patents - there are some weird extra star-trekish metadata analysis things (where your computer uses voice recognition to add extra metdata) and also iBrowse (another spotlight broweser)- interesting- but can Apple make it reality
I hope so...I think it's time for Apple to break free from the 1984 file management concepts.
It's time to let metadata take over. With metadata and a decent metadata browsing app (the Finder or iBrowse or whatever) that can easily filter files using the existing metadata (via a nice interface and via voice commands), we'd be in for a treat.
Actually you can. In the Finder's menu bar, go to Finder > Preferences > Labels
I renamed the color orange to "Currently Working On", yellow to "Need to Review", and green to "Ready to Publish". I use this to label all my web pages.
Anyone notice in the illustration it's entitled iFinder ??
Yes, I noticed, and I quelled an urge to hurl. I'm sick to death of iStuff. iMac & iTunes were about all I could stomach. It's been old since iMovie, and iWork just made me cringe. Thank g*d the apps in it aren't iPages & iKeynote.
If they get rid of the file system, they better get spotlight to work right...half the time spotlight doesn't find what I'm looknig for.
You probably just don't know how to use it. I bet 100 bucks you just type stuff in the menu in the top-right corner and cross your fingers.
Making a better interface for Spotlight is a different story...the current Finder interface is terrible...and the Spotlight menu is a hit or miss for most people.
I think it's time for Apple to break free from the 1984 file management concepts.
Long overdue, yes.
Only time now to sloppily toss out a few related thoughts, several snipped from several older posts, without coherently reformulating them:
Nowadays I feel like my data is increasingly being held hostage by filesystem-enforced/imposed limitations, with files/folders still being used as the primary method for organizing it.
I think we're rapidly outgrowing the traditional desktop/office metaphor; it doesn't scale well (at least in usability) with larger and ever-increasing collections of files. The filesystem storage model as a data organizing metaphor seems misplaced.
I can imagine a future where the way we currently manage files/folders might look similar to how assembly language now does to most programmers.
One perspective is that the more "personal, isolated" desktop metaphor is being superseded by the more "social, connected" web metaphor. And the newer web metaphor more easily downscales than the older desktop metaphor upscales.
The desktop metaphor can and will continue to serve us, but more alternatives to it are emerging.
I'd like more intuitively sophisticated information managers/organizers as primary interfaces for my data, not more tediously perpetuated file managers/organizers.
Now, off to pre-celebrate my birthday (and Pi Day) by dropping off my iMac G5 at the Apple Store for repair (again) ...
You probably just don't know how to use it. I bet 100 bucks you just type stuff in the menu in the top-right corner and cross your fingers.
Making a better interface for Spotlight is a different story...the current Finder interface is terrible...and the Spotlight menu is a hit or miss for most people.
Also, Spotlight IS a file system.
The problem is that the very powerful underlying code is hampered by a terrible interface..Apple also has to open it up further for 3rd party software houses.
The silly "find as you type" concept must go. We need to have options.
Simple. I store all of my pages/forums/users/etc... in a MySQL database, and then images and support files just rest on the root directory. I'm sure if I was really cunning I could even store the images in the database too... but there's no need for subfolders in websites.
Besides... you can't build websites in the Finder... or did you not notice that there is no FTP support? Apple killing folder's doesn't mean that Cyberduck won't have folders.
Yes. Those static web sites truly benefit from all your files being in a MySQL database. Especially when you compete against Apache2 it makes so much sense.
The problem is that the very powerful underlying code is hampered by a terrible interface..Apple also has to open it up further for 3rd party software houses.
The silly "find as you type" concept must go. We need to have options.
I rarely use Spotlight. In fact, I tested it when Tiger was first installed and moved on.
How come? I categorize and organize my files by areas of interest/study.
My pdf documents are broken down by their subject areas. Then if there is a large folder of similar subjects I'll refine it yet again.
I rarely use Spotlight. In fact, I tested it when Tiger was first installed and moved on.
How come? I categorize and organize my files by areas of interest/study.
My pdf documents are broken down by their subject areas. Then if there is a large folder of similar subjects I'll refine it yet again.
But if you could just add an "area of interest" metadata tag, you wouldn't need to use folders... and you'd have the added advantage that files inbetween two areas can be tagged with more than one item of metadata. The beauty of metadata is that, unlike Folders where each file can only be in ONE place, files can have any amount of metadata.
Yes. Those static web sites truly benefit from all your files being in a MySQL database. Especially when you compete against Apache2 it makes so much sense.
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Are you saying that storing files in databases instead of a filesystem is better or worse?
In fact, I'm fascinated by the idea of no folders. It makes perfect sense (not being sarcastic, although I realize it may sound so).
livatlantis': A Dream.
I can almost picture Steve Jobs on stage, explaining, "Throw anything into OS X, and it will organize it for you. You don't need to remember where you put your photos or movies or documents, it's all in the OS database. Just throw in some information, and boom! - It's there."
"Of course, we know you need folders for some occasions. You need structure to create websites, to build applications... We are not doing away with folders. You can always have folders just like in Tiger.
But the beauty is that they won't be neccessary to use your compter. You won't need to depend on in. Let your computer organize it."
Then there could be a demo of the concept - a 3D world, a massive universe of information (camera floating around millions of icons in black space). Then there's sound of keyboard keys clicking.
A few of those millions of icons suddenly light up, and others fade away. The user is then presented with just the icons he/she is looking for.
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Are you saying that storing files in databases instead of a filesystem is better or worse?
I don't know about them, but every CMS I build stores files in a database. It's far easier to manage and flexible, but there is a speed hit involved (though that's because of the environment, not the concept of a DBFS).
Is anyone here familiar with the Reiser4 filesystem? If Apple worked with Namesys to develop a version of that filesystem with the necessary plugins for OS X it would be the holy freakin' grail.
Comments
i dont even use it anymore, spotlight is all i use now.
Originally posted by Fotek2001
Yeah, great! How am I supposed to build websites without using directories..?
Simple. I store all of my pages/forums/users/etc... in a MySQL database, and then images and support files just rest on the root directory. I'm sure if I was really cunning I could even store the images in the database too... but there's no need for subfolders in websites.
Besides... you can't build websites in the Finder... or did you not notice that there is no FTP support? Apple killing folder's doesn't mean that Cyberduck won't have folders.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Folders are dying? Keep deluding yourself.
Originally posted by CharlesS
Uh, what?
Ever notice how iPhoto and iTunes both have moved away from the folder paradigm? That's because they introduce artifical limitations that have no business existing in a computer's filesystem. I honestly don't know what direction Apple will go with the Finder, but I hope that it is sort of an hybrid of iTunes and iPhoto optimised for file managment. There would be no folders needed in such a system.
Folders were good when there wasn't a robust search and metadata system for organising files. But now that we do have one built into the os, there is no reason to have folders.
Descriptions of several features and interfaces not present in shipping versions of Apple Computer's Mac OS X operating system have recently turned up in company patent filings, AppleInsider has discovered.
Hrmpf.com has some more details on the patents - there are some weird extra star-trekish metadata analysis things (where your computer uses voice recognition to add extra metdata) and also iBrowse (another spotlight broweser)- interesting- but can Apple make it reality
Originally posted by ctachme
Simple. I store all of my pages/forums/users/etc... in a MySQL database, and then images and support files just rest on the root directory. I'm sure if I was really cunning I could even store the images in the database too... but there's no need for subfolders in websites.
Besides... you can't build websites in the Finder... or did you not notice that there is no FTP support? Apple killing folder's doesn't mean that Cyberduck won't have folders.
No matter what there will be SOME sort of categorization present, but hopefully not as complicated. I'd like to see something like Aperture where you have projects in which each image is located. It's so much easier to keep things organized.
If I were designing such a system for OS X, however, there would have to be some other support for metadata which emulates the old style of directory paths. Many applications rely on paths to function (especially UNIX software), so removing that functionality altogether wouldn't be possible.
Love it. Can't wait to use it.
Originally posted by rok
a.) you can't change the name (computer, search for all my yellow files! wtf?!?)
Actually you can. In the Finder's menu bar, go to Finder > Preferences > Labels
I renamed the color orange to "Currently Working On", yellow to "Need to Review", and green to "Ready to Publish". I use this to label all my web pages.
Originally posted by hrmpf
Hrmpf.com has some more details on the patents - there are some weird extra star-trekish metadata analysis things (where your computer uses voice recognition to add extra metdata) and also iBrowse (another spotlight broweser)- interesting- but can Apple make it reality
I hope so...I think it's time for Apple to break free from the 1984 file management concepts.
It's time to let metadata take over. With metadata and a decent metadata browsing app (the Finder or iBrowse or whatever) that can easily filter files using the existing metadata (via a nice interface and via voice commands), we'd be in for a treat.
Originally posted by Michael_Moriarty
Actually you can. In the Finder's menu bar, go to Finder > Preferences > Labels
I renamed the color orange to "Currently Working On", yellow to "Need to Review", and green to "Ready to Publish". I use this to label all my web pages.
*slaps forehead* how did i not notice that?
Originally posted by bluedalmatian
Anyone notice in the illustration it's entitled iFinder ??
Yes, I noticed, and I quelled an urge to hurl. I'm sick to death of iStuff. iMac & iTunes were about all I could stomach. It's been old since iMovie, and iWork just made me cringe. Thank g*d the apps in it aren't iPages & iKeynote.
Originally posted by whispercb
If they get rid of the file system, they better get spotlight to work right...half the time spotlight doesn't find what I'm looknig for.
You probably just don't know how to use it. I bet 100 bucks you just type stuff in the menu in the top-right corner and cross your fingers.
Making a better interface for Spotlight is a different story...the current Finder interface is terrible...and the Spotlight menu is a hit or miss for most people.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I think it's time for Apple to break free from the 1984 file management concepts.
Long overdue, yes.
Only time now to sloppily toss out a few related thoughts, several snipped from several older posts, without coherently reformulating them:
Nowadays I feel like my data is increasingly being held hostage by filesystem-enforced/imposed limitations, with files/folders still being used as the primary method for organizing it.
I think we're rapidly outgrowing the traditional desktop/office metaphor; it doesn't scale well (at least in usability) with larger and ever-increasing collections of files. The filesystem storage model as a data organizing metaphor seems misplaced.
I can imagine a future where the way we currently manage files/folders might look similar to how assembly language now does to most programmers.
One perspective is that the more "personal, isolated" desktop metaphor is being superseded by the more "social, connected" web metaphor. And the newer web metaphor more easily downscales than the older desktop metaphor upscales.
The desktop metaphor can and will continue to serve us, but more alternatives to it are emerging.
I'd like more intuitively sophisticated information managers/organizers as primary interfaces for my data, not more tediously perpetuated file managers/organizers.
Now, off to pre-celebrate my birthday (and Pi Day) by dropping off my iMac G5 at the Apple Store for repair (again) ...
Originally posted by kim kap sol
You probably just don't know how to use it. I bet 100 bucks you just type stuff in the menu in the top-right corner and cross your fingers.
Making a better interface for Spotlight is a different story...the current Finder interface is terrible...and the Spotlight menu is a hit or miss for most people.
Also, Spotlight IS a file system.
The problem is that the very powerful underlying code is hampered by a terrible interface..Apple also has to open it up further for 3rd party software houses.
The silly "find as you type" concept must go. We need to have options.
Originally posted by ctachme
Simple. I store all of my pages/forums/users/etc... in a MySQL database, and then images and support files just rest on the root directory. I'm sure if I was really cunning I could even store the images in the database too... but there's no need for subfolders in websites.
Besides... you can't build websites in the Finder... or did you not notice that there is no FTP support? Apple killing folder's doesn't mean that Cyberduck won't have folders.
Yes. Those static web sites truly benefit from all your files being in a MySQL database. Especially when you compete against Apache2 it makes so much sense.
Originally posted by melgross
Also, Spotlight IS a file system.
The problem is that the very powerful underlying code is hampered by a terrible interface..Apple also has to open it up further for 3rd party software houses.
The silly "find as you type" concept must go. We need to have options.
I rarely use Spotlight. In fact, I tested it when Tiger was first installed and moved on.
How come? I categorize and organize my files by areas of interest/study.
My pdf documents are broken down by their subject areas. Then if there is a large folder of similar subjects I'll refine it yet again.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
I rarely use Spotlight. In fact, I tested it when Tiger was first installed and moved on.
How come? I categorize and organize my files by areas of interest/study.
My pdf documents are broken down by their subject areas. Then if there is a large folder of similar subjects I'll refine it yet again.
But if you could just add an "area of interest" metadata tag, you wouldn't need to use folders... and you'd have the added advantage that files inbetween two areas can be tagged with more than one item of metadata. The beauty of metadata is that, unlike Folders where each file can only be in ONE place, files can have any amount of metadata.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Yes. Those static web sites truly benefit from all your files being in a MySQL database. Especially when you compete against Apache2 it makes so much sense.
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Are you saying that storing files in databases instead of a filesystem is better or worse?
In fact, I'm fascinated by the idea of no folders. It makes perfect sense (not being sarcastic, although I realize it may sound so).
livatlantis': A Dream.
I can almost picture Steve Jobs on stage, explaining, "Throw anything into OS X, and it will organize it for you. You don't need to remember where you put your photos or movies or documents, it's all in the OS database. Just throw in some information, and boom! - It's there."
"Of course, we know you need folders for some occasions. You need structure to create websites, to build applications... We are not doing away with folders. You can always have folders just like in Tiger.
But the beauty is that they won't be neccessary to use your compter. You won't need to depend on in. Let your computer organize it."
Then there could be a demo of the concept - a 3D world, a massive universe of information (camera floating around millions of icons in black space). Then there's sound of keyboard keys clicking.
A few of those millions of icons suddenly light up, and others fade away. The user is then presented with just the icons he/she is looking for.
And that's what Spotlight will do.
Originally posted by ctachme
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Are you saying that storing files in databases instead of a filesystem is better or worse?
I don't know about them, but every CMS I build stores files in a database. It's far easier to manage and flexible, but there is a speed hit involved (though that's because of the environment, not the concept of a DBFS).
Is anyone here familiar with the Reiser4 filesystem? If Apple worked with Namesys to develop a version of that filesystem with the necessary plugins for OS X it would be the holy freakin' grail.