File Management Idea (from John Stultz)
Hey, So I'm John*. I don't blog. This isn't even
my blog. I'm just borrowing it.
So with all the discussion on the planet gnome about future UI changes,
along with the long time rumbling about improving file storage, I
figured I'd throw this small idea for file management out into the fray.
Here's a quick summary of the idea:
A fair amount of file data is managed by users not as files in folders,
but as objects in applications. Ask most Mac users where their music
is, and they don't say "In their user folder, under the iTunes library
folder", they'll just say "it's in iTunes". The same is likely true of
their photos and iPhoto.
So my idea is this: Don't fight user perception. Leverage file
management applications like Rhythmbox and F-Spot as top level storage
objects. Let them act like magic directories. They already deal with
searching, tagging, and storing meta-data, so lets not re-implement that
on the filesystem level.
If a user downloads a music file, they can just save to Rhythmbox in the
save-as dialog. Rhythmbox or any other file management application
functionally becomes a place to store things.
Here is the slide deck with more details.
Of course, I'm not a gnome developer. I'm just a user. So really this is
a bit of a personal vanity slide deck pitching my little homer-mobile of
an idea. But maybe, just maybe, a gnome developer might see it and think
of a better way to achieve something similar.
And since this is a blog post, here is a video of a cat:
* I'm speaking for myself in this post, and not for my employer.
Comments
This should be done in filesystem
It's not re-implementing if you apply the searching, tagging, and meta-data to the file system, but rather moving those features out of several programs and into a lower-level, system global feature set. You argue against re-implementing non-hierarchical organization, but every program you mention has in fact re-implemented non-hierarchical organization as a primary feature.
If this is in the file system, then the programs that run on the system pretty much automatically inherit the organization features, and only have to concern themselves with viewing/playing/editing, rather than with all that and finding, which is ostensibly one of the primary jobs of the file system. This even has the benefit of applying the SAME search features to any application, including the file browser, so you are not constrained by your choice of organizational application. You don't have to get a script to import your old music library data (play counts, ratings, etc.) into a new player. The data is handled by the file system, so you can swap out applications or just pull up the same list of files in the file browser.
I hate your idea
I use both Mac and Windows machines regularly and I absolutely can not stand the notion that Itunes knows where my music should be and I need not concern myself with it. The same is true for iPhoto. This concept makes it nearly impossible to :
backup data files and be sure they are backed up.
Move data files from one machine to another.
Use another application to view or manage files.
Group files by significance (all the files for 1 project together regardless of type)
I have a paper filing cabinet in my office.
Your idea is equivalent to storing files written in pencil in a separate folder from those written in pen and those separate from files typed.
Ludicrous!
I like his ideas.
I don't really understand the concerns you mention. The average user I see at work hasn't a clue how to get around the file system, and one of my routine tech support calls is helping people find a file when they can't remember where they saved it. For the vast majority of users, the less they see of the file system, the better. Backup could either be handled by a separate application, such as Time Machine or TimeVault; or from the application itself, such as how you backup bookmarks from within Firefox. If you're writing scripts, you're knowledgeable enough to know where the files are located.
I don't see how the arrangement mentioned here would make it any more difficult for a user to move files from one machine to another (though this would typically trip up any less-experienced user, regardless of how you do it), but the best way to do that would be through the backup utilities, whether provided by a separate backup utility or the program itself.
Using another application to access the files was mentioned in the slide deck when he mentioned how you can use F-Spot to access photos and it gives you the option to edit them in the Gimp. I love this feature, and is the most frequent method I use to access the Gimp.
I truly don't know how often the average user group things according to significance, but I don't see this happening very often with the average person. Even if it does, nobody is suggesting we get rid of folders altogether. You could still drag items from their respective handler application to another folder to keep a copy of it, or just make a link to the original file. Also, with people using the Internet so often, I believe it is becoming more natural for people to use search to find related objects than to use folders, so using tags and metadata and exposing that to the operating system's search would be more helpful.
Your paper filing cabinet analogy is specious at best. I don't know of anyone who uses a filing cabinet to store all their music, DVDs, photographs, and books together with their documents. That's why we have CD and DVD cases, photo albums, and book cases. Different types of media benefit from different kinds of storage in the real world, just as they benefit from different programs being used to access them on a computer.
I like your idea.
I've put your idea on Brainstorm.Ubuntu:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/17237/
Post new comment