Hacker News Reader

Comment by transfire | Hacker News Reader

Would you be happier if we called files "objects" instead? It's just a name given to a on-disk data structure. Call it what you will. In the end it is just a stream of bits.

However I agree with you at a higher level. Our computer "file" systems have not evolved. And now they are being displaced by hundreds of isolated apps the manage out content. e.g. You might own the Jungle Book in your Nook account, but your copy of Peter Pan is on Amazon. Worse still, you don't even own these books anymore, they are instead a lease, which can be revoked at any time.

View on HN

Actually it seems correct to me to put books and files in the superset called "objects", but not name that superset "files" by itself.

Ownership and portability of a book is one thing that becomes relevant when price includes mark up to be paid to own it.

"Actually it seems correct to me to put books and files in the superset called "objects", but not name that superset "files" by itself."

What's different about the stream of bits on a disk that represents a "book" compared to the stream of bits that represents a "file"?

Technically none, even in the physical world! Both files and books are ultimately made up of {Book | Files} < Content < Paper < Trees.

But from a consumer point of view, which is extremely important, files and books in the real world are poles apart. So why not treat them such online?

"Files and books in the real world are poles apart."

Specifics?

I mean, from my POV as a consumer a Kindle book that I can carry around with me is much closer to a physical book than one of your flip books (which appear to require an active internet connection in order to work?)

Owning a book is doable online as well. Clone, provide it to the user who bought it.

I'm actually still digging this one but "active internet" connection - yes - that's again doable. Localstorage() /something probably? Or wait for a future to be more online.

For example, a school girl yearns for a 'fairy tale book' Elsa, The Snow Princess and not a 'physical file' from Disney Office.

She doesn't yearn for "ink stains on paper from a Chinese factory" either, if you want to look at it that way.

So you mean difference between books and files is merely philosophical?

Because technically I agree with you that it's only the presentation and nature of 'binding' that makes for all the difference.

No, I'm saying that the article is claiming a difference that doesn't actually exist.

If it's being transferred over the internet, it's a file.

Electronic books are a subset of files, not a disjoint set, just as paper books are a subset of "paper with ink on it".

How does

> Electronic books are a subset of files

follow from

> paper books are a subset of "paper with ink on it"

I'd argue that paper books are not a subset of paper files, therefore, in online realm also electronic books should NOT be a subset of electronic files. It is a disjoint set by your logic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com