Hacker News Reader

Comment by makeitdouble | Hacker News Reader

Feels comparable to how folders in file systems are there for the user to make sense of it, but technically they work in ways that easily break that mental model.

View on HN

I think Folders are more an example where neither the technical implementation nor the mental model fit the real world particularly well (in the general case).

That's where a spatial file manager comes in!

It's a Unix system! I know this!

Clever girl!

That's interesting, in what ways do directories break the mental model?

Folder, not directory. Try nesting these inside each other: https://www.amazon.com/Pendaflex-Folders-Classic-Positions-6...

I mean, maybe everyone here is so used to the word, but try nesting these inside each other: https://www.amazon.com/Classic-Address-Phone-Directory-Refil...

Since directories are just references that tell you where a resource is located and don't actually contain the resource, that's not very difficult.

We don't usually put directories inside other directories though.

For "normal" people they represent a unique and finite set of files under a specific hierarchy.

The technical implementation allows us to put the same files in as many folder as we want, folders recursing on themselves, "smart folders" that don't have any stable set of files, remotely synched folders etc.

The hierarchy model means that they're not suitable for some uses that the technology could support. If I have a picture of my family member and my dog, I don't want to put them exclusively in a 'family member' folder or 'dog' folder. I ideally want a hard link in both, but that's not trivial. This sounds silly - people generally name their folders by event rather than like tags - but that's a consequence of the interface rather than an inherent quality of storage. In reaction to this & us rapidly having more personal media and files, we're now seeing a shift towards interfaces that treat the entire filesystem as a flat, searchable index - including indexing that recognises the family members and pets.

> I ideally want a hard link in both, but that's not trivial

Yes it is. First put the file in one folder, and then make the hardlink in the other.

Trivial step 1: open Powershell with elevated permissions.

I just looked it up, and while you apparently do need evelated permissions to create a symlink on Windows (???), I think you don't need elevated permissions to make a hard link. So really your step 1 is "open PowerShell".

So the only reason it's not "trivial" is because you don't happen to always have a terminal window open.

Personally I do almost all of my file management from the shell.

Terminal windows are not well integrated into things like file pickers and download windows. Even if power users use them, they're not used by most people and aren't part of the common, low-friction UX.

Yes. I see gmail's approach of maskerading tags as folders as really genius.

It's simple enough, until the user hits the limits, start wanting more and and discoves that there's no limit and they can actually do more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com