Slashdot Mirror
newdocms: Beyond the Hierarchical File System
Manuel Arriaga writes "After two years of hard work (and many scrapped versions), I have just released a (ugly, but working!) preview version of newdocms, a completely new document management system. newdocms isn't a file browser: it is a layer between the hierarchical file system (HFS) and the user, which provides a radically new way to store and retrieve documents. No longer will you browse complex directory trees or directly interact with the HFS; instead, you define any number of document attributes when saving a document and then query a database of those attributes when trying to retrieve it later on.
For the first time you have a true alternative to the hierarchical file system at the OS level. Through the modification of the KDE shared libraries, newdocms currently works with all KDE apps! (I am looking for volunteers to add support for GNOME and OpenOffice.org!) This is a testament to the power of free software: this sort of innovation could never happen if it weren't for the free software nature of the underlying systems."
I'm already using The Brain. It's *really* unique, and it works. It works very well. And, in addition to organizing files the way YOU want them organized, it also connects random thoughts, web sites, emails, etc. If you haven't seen it, check it out. It's pretty damn incredible.
It sounds basically like when you want to find a file, you go type in a few pieces of meta-data, and then hit "search". It's a way to do it, but it seems to me (and it's early, so bear with me) that it's easier for me to remember one piece of meta-data (i.e. the path to the file) than several (as it would seem with this setup, as you would have to present more than one piece of data to differentiate between different documents, let's say, created by the same author on the same day). Maybe I'm just used to a HFS, but I find it simple to open up a command prompt and type "pico /documents/foo/bar/fubar.txt".
Anyway, an interesting concept.
What Microsoft suggested something like this, everyone went mental, and I got bitch slapped for saying I thought it was a good idea.
What's wrong with hierachical systems anyway?
;-)
Well, they're pretty darn hard to spell, for one thing.
- Not confusing enough.
- No possibility of new patents.
- Lack of ability to lock users into your proprietary file system.
I didn't know HFS was broken.NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I have worked with many a user that has had problems with the concept of folders (directories). Perhaps those users can grasp this concept easier.
Microsoft couldn't have come up with this idea: the submission explicitly states that it wouldn't be possible outside the free software model. QED.
While I do think the work presented is a great idea, it seems to me that it's a lot of effort just to setup the system.
It would be ideal if the computer -- the thing that is supposed to make life easier -- did the clasification. Until that happens I cannot see myself even considering such a file access method.
-- bartman
My father is really going to understand that. Not a bad idea but the implementation appears to need work. Another interesting thing to note is that this is probably coded in C++ and is going to be a bitch once again to interface with scripting libraries. I love KDE but it is a difficult task to integrate other languages with.
Got Code?
Exactly. Users STILL have to create their own type of organization.
/documents contains documents. Duh.
/documents/work contains documents for work.
The problem is people don't want to be organized, so they look to technology to help them be lazy. Plus try explaining 'metadata' to someone. At least now you can use the file cabinet, drawers, folders, papers example to explain the layout to someone.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
The answer is in the G:\archived\userFolders\shlemiel\appfiles\textdocs \myFavEditorFiles\compDocs\scratch\WhyHierarchical FSBad.txt file.
1. "Filesystem? I don't need no stinkin filesystem!" An ideal Palm-esque computing environment wouldn't have any filesystem. There simply isn't any reason for it. Why would you store addresses in an address file or a book report in a word file? Saving/Opening files should be transparent to the end user. Versioning should be built in, yet simple to understand. Forking files can be accomplished without copying a file. This is intuitively the simplist idea.
2. If you somehow *have* to think in terms of files, then your conclusion may be to use files. However, I don't see why anybody would come up with a hierachical file system, unless they were accomidating for hardware limitations. Placing files somewhere within a huge directory tree is just too darn complicated. Why should the same file not exist in multiple directories? Why should copies of a file exist? Everything, including advanced security policies (more advanced than what is currently possible) is available for a *keyword* driven filesystem.
I believe this is a step in the right direction and I can't wait until my favorite OS (not Linux) adopts a similar feature.
"This is a testament to the power of free software: this sort of innovation could never happen if it weren't for the free software nature of the underlying systems."
... or not. As I recall, BeOS had a fully functional database driven file systerm although it did not entirely through out the hierarchical side of things either (probably a good decision in my opinion). In fact, I recall reading a while back that future versions of Windows were supposed to have database driven file systems as well.
While free software is great, let's not get too cocky about what kind of innovations it can produce when we aren't aware of what the traditional software companies have already done.
Who came up with the idea of "folders" anyway? Not hierarchical trees, but the metaphor.
The biggest problem with folders is no one wants to be a file clerk and weed, sort, and file their docs. The act of socking away a doc should as mindless as possible, not because (all) users are mindless but because they have better things to do, and shouldn't spend a minute adding keywords to every doc they might never see again.
You know how it is -- you're searching and coming up with junk, and want to yell at the computer, do what I meant, not what I said! This would be one of my first pics for AI on a personal computer.
I agree folders doesn't cut it, though as a metaphor for explaining the tree it's not bad. The problem is the tree.
I agree. Basically the only way this is different from your HFS is that it encapsulates the meta-data (that is currently in the path name) differently. I'm not sure that's any better or worse. In fact, I myself like to be able to see at a glance what all the categories of documents that I have are which is quite easy with HFS, but doesn't sound so easy here. Perhaps that's more because this is a new idea and not mature yet.
Everyone seems hot to SQL the file system, and while I think that will be the way of the future, I don't think that there is a clear view of how that works from the user's perspective yet. Remember that this is a rather large paradigm shift from what everyone is used to. It's going to take a while for this to mature to the point that Joe User is going to be able to hack it. I mean, I looked at the Save As dialog on that page, and while it looks cool it also looks counter-intuitive to me and I'm a developer! How much more will a user get confused?
All in all we're going in the right direction, but by no means are we anywhere near the goal yet.
Ben
But thankfully, it's an article about file systems.
Stop corporate
Exactly. In fact, these hierarchies do not make sense to anyone, encountering them for the first time. There's nothing user friendly about them at all, really. They aren't even alphabetically sorted, which is the least you usually expect from a file cabinet. It's just the simplest way of doing things and it seems logical to you, because you haven't worked with any other kind of file system since you're first computer experience. Admittedly, a keyword driven system would not give you a shorter syntax. But administering a system using thousands of levels of subdirectories would not do that, either. Imagine a database driven file system, combined with near-perfect speech-recognition software. Suddenly the additional keywords required do not matter so much, and the advantages of a system like this could really become obvious.
Sounds a lot like BFS.
If memory serves me correctly, the BeOS team was originally trying to do a pure database filesystem (no hierarchy), but found (in the early '90s) that the performance hit was too heavy on the hardware of the time.
That was done pre-UNIX with PICK. The whole O/S was a database.
Microsoft has been working on an Object File System for years and it is rumored that it might finaly ship in Yukon.
A database baked file system is a great idea for an O/S. But the relational model is long overdue for the garbage pail. Modern programming languages since C have used pointers or object references. If JOIN and messing arround with tables is so good why don't we all use COBOL?
One of the things that appeared in VMS a while back that was pretty cool (and pretty easy to do on a log based file system) was transactions at the file level. You could take any set of file I/O operations and wrap a transaction arround them. This meant that you could have atomic updates to any file base resource without having to suffer the pain of SQL.
It would be pretty easy to implement this on a Linux log based file system (or windows for that matter). All you do is extend the log structure so you can group operations together and implement some sort of commit flag.
You could then build an object oriented filestore database using XML flat files. OK so maybe the system is not going to be up to storing millions of records without more infrsastructure. However most programming tasks use configuration files that are unlikely to be more than a few tens of Kb and are routinely managed as in memory structures anyway.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
This is exactly what I have been wanting for almost a decade now.
..etc as well as those that are simply wallpapers and photos). More importantly, if you see a good bump texture for a certain surface, describe it as such without changing the filename.
Some uses I imagine
- Create music playlists on the fly (MoodLogic doesn't count)
- Categorize work files (Across the whole partition, find images that serves as bumps, HDRI
- Install Windows and service packs first, mark files as "windows native". Then install apps. Some OS glitch, you need to reinstall ? Backup all files with directory structure which don't have "windows native" tag alongwith c:\program files and registry. Reinstall windows, restore the backed up files. Voila, no app installations required.
I have used "The Brain" while I was in Windows, but it was nearly useless as it didn't support the two most important things:
.docs or .xls.
a) Web browsing
it should now the sites you've visited, know your bookmarks and allow you to open everything you have found with a simple click.
b) E-Mail.
When it finds an E-Mail a simple double-click should be enough to open it in your mail, show you the thread it belongs to, etc.
I guess, that I'm not the only one, who has more important things in mails than in
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
1. Paths tend to get long.
2. You have to be careful of your "current path". Some apps have weird defaults and if you're not careful, you end up with your file in a strange location.
3. Some items do not fit into the hierarchical structure. Should my porn directory be organized into movies, stills and texts or perhaps perverted, spicy and nice? Whichever atrribute I choose I will have trouble searching on the other.
Of course I can always use locate or find, but these tools only look at preset attributes (filename, last access date, substrings) and the solution from the article lets you specify your own attributes.
So where do your documents go when you save them with newdocms? As you might have noticed (if you looked at the window titles after saving something), they are stored as ~/Docs/{numeric id}.{ext}.7 All the metadata is stored in a file called ~/newdocms.db. (It is not wise to delete it!) In that file each document's attributes are associated with its unique numeric id (the one which is used as a file name).
Right.
This is astoundingly bad software engineering.
Manuel, when your software fails, and it will, and somehow that db file gets trashed you've rendered that users' files as a huge heap of unsorted data. Effectively it would be 100 times worse than never implementing your system than 10 times better. No matter how bulletproof you think your code is, it probably isn't 100% perfect so having all your eggs in one basket is unwise to say the least.
Even if your code is 100% perfect this is a mistake. What happens when a sector goes bad and this file is trashed? What happens when the first really dangerous linux worm makes it a point to delete *.db from the filesystem?
Give the files names that are coded with human readable attribs! Double up that db file! Jesus, man... build SOME kind of redundancy in your system before you throw away the old way of storing the data.
There's a reason why there is such a scramble to implement a general attribute system at the FS level on many FS projects right now(*). The time has come for OSS to start being smart about this, but cramming all your metadata into a single file and throwing the backup out the window is just a very, very poor idea.
(*) BeOS was, yet again, way ahead of it's time with BeFS.
This looks a lot like something I've used in the past - FileNET Content Management Services. FileNET lets you create meta-data for each document you save, as well as a complete version history and check-in/check-out for each document if you want to. It also allows for hierarchical storage of files as well as using the meta-data so you can still categorize things by folder if you want, but still query documents by any of the indexes that you have built. It will even add a full-text search across everything in the library if you want, and it has no problems indexing most standard formats including Word and PDF files.
Microsoft Sharepoint also allow you to store your own metadata with files - and also grab the "properties" from office files. This is not to substitute the folder tree, but in addition to it, and it's indeed a great tool (aimed more at the corporation than the individual)
:-P
But it's MS and here I am burning karma for just mentioning it. Big deal, I can spare the karma
The system I have been dreaming of for a while would be far more graphical (had a quick look at thebrain.com, it's still text with a few lines as far as I can see).
My dream system would enable you to specify file attributes such as size, path(s), name, type etc, as well as regex greps on the content, and then plot the filing system in 3D space, through which you could move with a joystick. You would be able to assign attributes to graphical features, eg make scripts cuboid, text files spherical, bigger files bigger on a logarithmic scale and so on. Related files would appear like solar systems, and by changing the importance of the file attributes you could change the way the files grouped.
Probably not what you'd want to use every day, but I'm sure I'd find a few mislaid files with such a system.
Virtually serving coffee
If you try to forget everything that you know about computers, and then abstractly think about what a filesystem should be you come to one of the following two conclusions:
Let's see. If I want to retrieve a document that's been filed I go to the bank of file cabinets, select the cabinet that has the drawer I want, open the drawer, scan folders, pull envelope from correct one, extract document.
Cabinet/drawer/folder/envelope/document
Maybe it's because there really is an analog in meatspace for the heirarchical file system.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Hierarchical file systems are as close to intuitive as you get. Everything you do in the real world, as pertains to dealing with information, mimics a hierarchical file system. Your chilton manuals are in the garage, your cookbooks and recipe boxes are in the kitchen or dining room, your computer books are by your computer. You don't look in the computer manual for how to change your oil. When you are trying to bake a cake, you don't walk out into the garage for inspiration. Having information organized into different places, and then having those places subdivided into different boxes is intuitive, and is how most organized people think.
v able\Yesterday\Tomorrow\A WeekAgoToday might be confusing, but the filesystem paradigm isn't.
1. (a) "We don't need no stinking filesystem." The ideal palmesque OS would have the same idea just demonstrated differently. You aren't going to open up your notepad to see an address. The address file is in the address program (directory). The schedule file is in the calendar program(directory). The programs you use to open the files become your folders.
1. (b) "Saving/Opening files should be transparent" The only people that would think like this in the real world have been living with someone that picks up after them all the time. When you are working on some (paper and pencil) project, and just stand up and walk away, do you exepect it to be available at the office tomorrow? When you start working on several projects in succession on your desk, and have reams of loose paper, can you easily bore your way back down. No, reasonable, organized people pick up the porject they are working on, file it away in the file cabinet/brief case/wherever it is supposed to go. There are logical beginnings and endings to your working on a project that only you can decide on. A spreadsheet, for example, do you want it to save every time you make a change... No, by their design, you would normally set up all your formulas, save that, and then every day/month/year open up the spreadsheet, plug the numbers, get the results, and save the specific results to a different file, or just look at the values produced. Not to mention, when you sit down at your desk in the morning, do you expect your desktop to know what project you want to work on? No, and you don't expect your computer to know what project you are working on either. Opening/Saving files shouldn't be and can't be transparent to the user.
I used to use a lot of floppies when growing up. I appropriated a lot of disks from other places. I used the "grab the black disk with the couple of remnant label pieces... no the other black disk... No, the one with the two small pieces of adhesive... Ooops, the one with the three pieces..." Now, I have to search all the disks everytime I want anything off of them, because I never labeled them. Saving things in well defined locations, for well defined tasks is reasonable, intuitive, and necesary task to saddle a user of any system/technology/information with.
2. I don't really need to address this point specifically, since the answer is inherent in the points above. The overly large filesystems are part of a whole system that the user doesn't really need to know about. That is why the "Desktop/..." paradigm of Windows came about, and is so useful. People working on your word processor have a reason to put the font files in one directory, the plugins in another, and the preferences in a third. The user couldn't care less. If you start the user in a directory tree just for them, then they won't be stuck in a huge file system, and can still work in a fashion that has made sense for litteraly thousands of years.
The filesystem paradigm has been around for a long time, again litterally thousands of years, because it works, it is easy, and it is how people think.
G:\Netowkrfilesystem\
Accounting\AccountsRecie
I believe metadata is a useful additional means to find files, however I would still want heirarchy as the primary storage. For most people the only metadata they ever consider is the name of a file, and this is often poorly named. I applaud the effort of the person who is doing this project though.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
I've noticed about three main types of people in the world of open source: those who fix things, those who try to improve existings things (i.e., make it run faster, smaller, etc.) and those who like to tinker and make new stuff. This person seems to fit in the third category. As far as I can tell, this person is not so much trying to "fix" the file system, but to make a new and different version and/or approach to it. This may be a good thing. But if you don't like it, don't use it.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
Actually I would LOVE to have everything accessable in a database somehow. I've been wondering about something using the userfs stuff. Not really mounting a mysql database as a usermode filesystem but having information from the system available that way.
I've found myself many times wishing I could just type "select location,filename from datastore where contents like %resume%"
SQL comes much more naturally to me than the find command does. I would love an easier way to index the contents of everyfile on my system by an arbitrary number of metadata and then have that accessable via a simple sql statement.
I remember Scott Hacker did something similar with BeFS and his webserver at somepoint but he's long gone as is BeOS.
Am I the only one that this makes sense to?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Well, yes. On a computer, I would expect it to available tomorrow *exactly* the way i left it. The only reason that I don't expect this in the real world is because it's not a feasible possibility. If it were, then I would expect it to be as I left it in the real world, too.
You commented: "My biggest concern with this new system is that if you fail to generate good keywords (I suspect this will be a big problem) it is going to be hard to browse through a likely directory to find the file."
Although I will admit that current searching technologies are not very good at determining what I actually want (e.g. misspellings, synonyms), I will say that I don't think that choosing keywords would be a problem. I believe that choosing which directory to place the file in is a more complicated problem, because you can only pick one place (without worrying about shortcuts or links). Many of the searchable keywords would be generated from the document itself: last-edited-today, various project keywords, application-based (e.g. excel-spreadsheet, letter), keywords based upon the content. Ultimately, I believe this system would be *more* tolerant of poor organization, rather than less as you state. I believe that people would adapt to it and learn to use good keywords easier than they did for hierachical filesystems. I will admit, however, that it is a flaw *whenever* people have to adapt to something, and most have alread adapted to the idea of a hierachical filesystem.
You also mention that the PalmOS filesystem implements such a filesystem poorly, but please don't crush the idea based upon one implementation. I see NO reason that application developers would have to worry about implementing a keyword filesystem any more than they would hierachical filesystem. It sounds like Palm's version isn't mature enough to be useful.
The industry is working to remove the hierachical filesystem. It's only a matter of time. Look at WindowsXP Tablet edition's note-taking program. You basically have one *file* for all of your notes... ever. You can subdivide and categorize these notes, but it's all one file.
While HFS has a number of drawbacks, it seems better to change or replace the FS instead of abstract its failures.
We still have to deal with file systems on some level. What happens to your abstracted layer when you want to copy something to a disk or burn a CD? You can't perform a file copy without breaking the abstraction, so the abstraction is broken before you begin to use it.
When you insert a Drivers CD in Windows, it may auto-run, sheilding you from the (often arcane) filing of the drivers. But unless there is an agreed format for the meta-data, your computer may not understand what is on the disc.
The system he proposes also breaks down on anything that is not new and made by the user. Document storage. Do we then only abstract the Documents folder?
While document management is a good idea, it needs to be subtle. It may take a user some time to learn the system, but that is better than crippling it to ensure first-time user ease. Macs used to come with several Tutorials on how to use the mouse and interact with the OS. We will probably need tutorials of that type again, soon.
Document management needs to spend very little time taking the user away from work. It must be integrated with the file system to work adequately, or the "switching" people will have to do to move from managed to unmanaged filing will aggravate and confuse them.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Here's something that is not stressed enough in school: the HFS is a database, with the fully qualified path name as unique ID and basic operations of update, delete, record lock, and retrieve supported across most operating systems.
Other query operations are supported such as wildcard characters and, in large OSes other than Unix, a variety of other attribute queries (a la "/usr/bin/find" but accessible from "ls").
Now the file table itself is a database, which can be readily implemented using a relational database. Microsoft NT an other OSes have had such support for quite a while now.
I'm glad to see the full relational database FS model starting to hit the mainstream. By this time researchers are looking into XML based File Systems (store metadata in XML-like syntax, support any XML query on the files).
Which brings us back to an often overlooked fact. Linux has, in general, not been at the leading edge of OS research (with the possible exception of the beowulf architecture). This is alright as for many years the goal of Linux was to reimplement Unix on the intel x386 architecture. However we must keep in mind that the really advanced OS features out there have yet to make it into Linux, things such as new environment metaphors, persistent data support, and intelligent user interactions.
I've noticed about three main types of people in the world of open source
:)
Unfortunately you overlook the fourth and largest group -- those who COMPLAIN about everything and do nothing.
Windows XP has most of the groundwork for this - Windows has actually had it for a while; for some reason the last piece (the filesystem that lets you take advantage of it all) keeps not showing up.
You want metadata on files? NTFS streams give you a place to store metadata (much like Mac resource forks but with any number of named streams).
You want to search on the metadata? The Microsoft Indexing Server will build a database and let you search on it (though it's a very strange system to use - in XP go into Administrative Tools, Computer Management, Services and Applications, Indexing Service, System and click on "Query the Catalog". You can do instant searches for all kinds of stuff, look at the help.
OLE Structured Storage is like a single file version of the filesystem we're talking about - a way of saving a bunch of objects (some of which you didn't create but that are in your document) into a file. I believe Microsoft's Office apps use it (could be wrong there though).
Right-click on an MP3 file and pick Properties in XP and go to the Summary tab. There's the metadata - the stuff the index server is going to index. If you add a new file format to the system, you can supply a DLL that will be able to supply the metadata for those files - so you download an MP3, save it on your disk, and the index server uses the DLL to get the metadata and add it to the database. It works pretty well.
I don't really have a point to all this, just listing some stuff that Windows has that "should" make it easy for Microsoft to add the OO FS someday and have it instantly work with existing apps.
- Steve
"Filesystem? I don't need no stinkin filesystem!" An ideal Palm-esque computing environment wouldn't have any filesystem.
I've been thinking along these lines for a couple years now. Suppose a computing appliance, perhaps handheld, or not, didn't have a filesystem. How would you make use of the hard disk?
Suppose the software saves everything in memory resident database. No filesystem, and no disk. Everything stays in memory. But it is virtual memory. Every page in memory has a reserved backing store page on the disk. The disk partition for this OS is just a big swap area. The total size of your usable "memory" is the swap area, not RAM. Now powering off the device becomes very fast. And so does powering on. No more "booting up" nonsense. You press the "off" button, and almost instantly the device is off. No matter how much data you have, or if you were in the middle of a huge unsaved word processing document, the device instantly powers off and back on again. No artificial concept of "saving" a file -- just like PalmOS. You don't "save" anything. In fact, no artificial concept of computer files. (For flamers: I'm not outlining a fully fleshed out implemention here, just some rough ideas, think different.)
You can still move your stuff to other computers via. "syncing" or whatever you want to call it. It's just that higher level concepts are copied, uploaded, downloaded, e-mailed, etc. rather than a file (i.e. collection of untyped, unlabeled bytes). I may move my mp3's, and they are still categorized by artist, recording, date, label, etc., etc..
I've also been thinking that a filesystem such as NTFS or ReiserFS that allows attaching huge ammounts of metadata, or small amounts of metadata to any file would be important. For instance, my 4096x2048 digital photograph of the grand canyon (big file), should still be able to have a thumbnail (say about 128 KB) attached as metadata. Since the thumbnail is part of the "directory" information of the file, merely copying the file to another location retains all the metadata. (As opposed to Windows or KDE, where the thumbnail is another little hidden file somewhere near where the original file was stored.) Heck, I might want a graphic thumbnail metadata attached to an mp3 file. Of course, I suggest ReiserFS or NTFS because there should be no limit on the number of labeled metadata attachments, nor on their size. I should be able to attach metadata "Title":"Grand Canyon", "TYPE","TIFF", or "Audio Clipping":<5 MB of audio data> just as easily. When I move the file, the metadata moves with it -- but the metadata is not seen in the primary information flow -- i.e. sequence of bytes -- that make up the "file" data.
As much as I hate Microsoft, I expect that it is they who will do stuff like this first. Ideas such as I am discussing here will encounter lots of resistance from the old school. Just look at the resistance to the topic of this article in this discussion. (I remember when we had to had to organize and save our files ourselves, and we used stupid extensions like ".jpeg" as the only metadata, and it was uphill both ways.)
Drifting to a different topic, I wonder if true innovations at higher levels come from us geeks? We put up with the most abysmal user interfaces for so long that we are not even capable of recognizing a bad user interface. We are comfortable with what we've got. I frequently see the attitude: if I can learn this stuff, then you can too. If you can't get under the hood of your 1920's car and fix it when it frequently has minor troubles, then you shouldn't be driving. Where I'm going with this is that it may take talented people who are being paid to build next generation interfaces who follow someone else's vision who is not constrained by the present.
Just some opinions. I should quit rambling now.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Case 1:
I'm your average home user, but even so I have about 100 documents I work on. However, I was smart enough to give them meaningful filenames and locations where it takes only a few seconds to find the file. Remembering attributes for each and every file would be a pain.
Case 2:
I'm a developer. I'm sorry, but I want file Y in F/O/O/BAR. I need something exact to describe where a file is at least. Anything else doesn't work.
Case 3:
I'm a mornon who doesn't give a flying-f*** about where I put my files, and I don't care what I name them. I already have documents in my C\:, C:\Windows/Temp, C:\sdf34\, and C:Documants. It takes me a couple minutes or two to find a file. What? I have to classify by keyword now? Who do you think I am? It needs to classify the files for me or I won't have any of it.
Case 4:
I'm a scientist/business man that deals with classifications on a day to day basis. I already have a database because I needed it to be efficient. If it was on the file system level, then it'd be pretty cool.
I can't think of any other positive cases where this product is useful. Thus, it's my bet that it'll be niche forever. Anybody got any other use cases that I'm obviously missing?
3. Some items do not fit into the hierarchical structure. Should my porn directory be organized into movies, stills and texts or perhaps perverted, spicy and nice? Whichever atrribute I choose I will have trouble searching on the other.
/porn/movies (contains movies)
/porn/stills (contains stills)
/porn/text (contains text)
/porn/perverted (contains symbolic links to files in the above)
/porn/spicy (ditto)
/porn/nice (ditto)
Well, in a good file system, you can make a set of directories like this: (since we're using porn as an example)
Some platforms are much better suited to doing this (unix), while others (Win) are not.
Now, having the ability to automatically generate the symbolic links would be nice.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.