So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
Why do we insist on the file name to be the unique identifier of the file when it is crystal clear that is both wrong and impossible?
That's not clear at all. Well, except of course you can have two with the same name, just not in the same directory.
Clinging to this primitive restricted filing concept in 2019 is narrow-minded.
Only inasmuch as humans are using the files.
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
-
@dkf said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@pie_flavor said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
The OS assigns a GUID when the file arrives.
The simple mechanism is to use a pair: a filesystem ID (which can be computed at creation from a reasonable RNG) and a local ID that's only unique within the FS. You could pretend that the whole ID is the concatenation of these, or that you have a tuple: I don't care which.
I'm having a lot of fun watching people recreate what's essentially identical to a normal directory structure except with incomprehensible random sequences of characters.
-
@dcon said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
-
@boomzilla said in [So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...](/post
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
BNF Yes. Yes, that works. More confusion for all.
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
I dare you to write a function PathGetFileName().
All of us folks probably have written one of those. It's really not that hard. And just because
.
is a separator for a file extension does not imbue it with other special properties - meaning there's no reason a directory can't use it. Or that it cann't be used multiple times in a file name.Why is there : for the root when it could have been another
/
or\
?Don't forget about
\\?\
.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
I'm having a lot of fun watching people recreate what's essentially identical to a normal directory structure except with incomprehensible random sequences of characters.
Solving a "problem" that doesn't need solving by introducing a new problem. I believe the next step is calling this a Civilised Filesystem™.
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@dcon The fact that
.
is both a separator and a regular character allowed in the name (except when it is a special character for current and parent directory!) speaks volumes of brillant design of existing filesystems and their naming conventions.Because it's not special. Windows doesn't force you to use file extensions. (It will do it's damnedest to try and make you) But I can just as easily name a file
x.txt
and have the contents be a zip file - and have a program read that as a zip file.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@dcon said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
Real world filesystems (well, operating systems) are fundamentally broken and there's nothing we can do about it. At least not until an opportunity comes to create a brand new ecosystem that has cut all compatibility ties with everything that was before it. And when (well, if) such opportunity comes, we better be prepared with the best designs possible, because we're going to be stuck with them for another two centuries.
-
@loopback0 said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
I'm having a lot of fun watching people recreate what's essentially identical to a normal directory structure except with incomprehensible random sequences of characters.
Solving a "problem" that doesn't need solving
Manual memory management didn't "need" solving either. And even to this day there are people who don't think it was a big deal ( @dkf, to name one).
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@dcon said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
Real world filesystems (well, operating systems) are fundamentally broken and there's nothing we can do about it.
Yes, that's why no one uses computers.
At least not until an opportunity comes to create a brand new ecosystem that has cut all compatibility ties with everything that was before it. And when (well, if) such opportunity comes, we better be prepared with the best designs possible, because we're going to be stuck with them for another two centuries.
And then you'll make a differently "fundamentally broken" system.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@dcon said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
Real world filesystems (well, operating systems) are fundamentally broken and there's nothing we can do about it.
Yes, that's why no one uses computers.
Yes, using fundamentally broken tools is impossible.
At least not until an opportunity comes to create a brand new ecosystem that has cut all compatibility ties with everything that was before it. And when (well, if) such opportunity comes, we better be prepared with the best designs possible, because we're going to be stuck with them for another two centuries.
And then you'll make a differently "fundamentally broken" system.
That's just a wishful thinking on your part. Show that there is indeed something broken about my design, and then we'll talk.
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@dcon said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
Real world filesystems (well, operating systems) are fundamentally broken and there's nothing we can do about it.
Yes, that's why no one uses computers.
Yes, using fundamentally broken tools is impossible.
Pretty much. In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
At least not until an opportunity comes to create a brand new ecosystem that has cut all compatibility ties with everything that was before it. And when (well, if) such opportunity comes, we better be prepared with the best designs possible, because we're going to be stuck with them for another two centuries.
And then you'll make a differently "fundamentally broken" system.
That's just a wishful thinking on your part. Show that there is indeed something broken about my design, and then we'll talk.
Let people use it for a week.
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.No, you guys were masturbating and asking to be slapped by a pair of complicator's gloves.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@dcon said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
Real world filesystems (well, operating systems) are fundamentally broken and there's nothing we can do about it.
Yes, that's why no one uses computers.
Yes, using fundamentally broken tools is impossible.
Pretty much.
Now I'm afraid to ask what you think of PHP.
In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
The only laughable thing is your irrational fear of new ideas.
At least not until an opportunity comes to create a brand new ecosystem that has cut all compatibility ties with everything that was before it. And when (well, if) such opportunity comes, we better be prepared with the best designs possible, because we're going to be stuck with them for another two centuries.
And then you'll make a differently "fundamentally broken" system.
That's just a wishful thinking on your part. Show that there is indeed something broken about my design, and then we'll talk.
Let people use it for a week.
So you don't actually have anything interesting to say. I'd say I'm disappointed, but actually I expected just that.
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.No, you guys were masturbating and asking to be slapped by a pair of complicator's gloves.
You must be thinking of different topic. Don't know which one, but definitely not this.
-
@ixvedeusi said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
Starting Point:
myfile (GUID1)
Step 1: copy myfile
=> myfile (GUID1), myfile copy (GUID2)
Step 2: rename "myfile copy" to "myfile.backup"
=> myfile(GUID1), myfile.backup (GUID2)
Step 3: there is no step 3Step 3: Edit myfile(GUID1). Screw it up beyond repair.
Step 4: Recover myfile from myfile.backup.How do I do that? Now, that's a simple rename (or copy, if I still need the backup to recover from another screw-up), replacing the screwed-up file. It's exactly as if I never edited it.
If I understand your proposed system, any attempt to recover from the backup will be an entirely new file that is not and cannot ever be the same file that I want to continue working with.
Let's say there's another program that takes myfile(GUID1) as an input — maybe it's an image used as a texture on a 3D object. Program 2 knows it's supposed to grab GUID1 and apply it to some surface. But GUID1 either no longer exists or is useless garbage; I need it to use the restored copy. But the file I want it to use is a different GUID that is entirely unrelated to GUID1. How is program 2 supposed to find it if names are only for humans and irrelevant to programs?
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@dcon said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
REPEAT AFTER ME -- THE NAME IS NOT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
REPEAT AFTER ME - NO ONE SAID IT WAS
You have to have the full path for that.
Except they're saying that doesn't count. You could have 2 names the same with the full path because the IDs of the files are different.
Yes, in the Brave New Filesystem. I was talking about real world filesystems.
Real world filesystems (well, operating systems) are fundamentally broken and there's nothing we can do about it.
Yes, that's why no one uses computers.
Yes, using fundamentally broken tools is impossible.
Pretty much.
Now I'm afraid to ask what you think of PHP.
Never used it. Hopefully never will.
In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
The only laughable thing is your irrational fear of new ideas.
No one is afraid here. I already said that you guys were funny. That's not the same as scary. You could look it up.
At least not until an opportunity comes to create a brand new ecosystem that has cut all compatibility ties with everything that was before it. And when (well, if) such opportunity comes, we better be prepared with the best designs possible, because we're going to be stuck with them for another two centuries.
And then you'll make a differently "fundamentally broken" system.
That's just a wishful thinking on your part. Show that there is indeed something broken about my design, and then we'll talk.
Let people use it for a week.
So you don't actually have anything interesting to say. I'd say I'm disappointed, but actually I expected just that.
We're in the sidebar, so I'll grant you that my comments are a bit meta, having found some excellent material being presented right here.
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.No, you guys were masturbating and asking to be slapped by a pair of complicator's gloves.
You must be thinking of different topic. Don't know which one, but definitely not this.
Definitely this one. But I'll excuse you for not being familiar with the concept of mental masturbation.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
The only laughable thing is your irrational fear of new ideas.
No one is afraid here. I already said that you guys were funny. That's not the same as scary. You could look it up.
Being innovative is funny. K.
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.No, you guys were masturbating and asking to be slapped by a pair of complicator's gloves.
You must be thinking of different topic. Don't know which one, but definitely not this.
Definitely this one. But I'll excuse you for not being familiar with the concept of mental masturbation.
And I'd like to introduce you to the concept of reading what people have posted before commenting on it. Because clearly you didn't.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
The only laughable thing is your irrational fear of new ideas.
No one is afraid here. I already said that you guys were funny. That's not the same as scary. You could look it up.
Being innovative is funny. K.
Have you been to the Internet of Shit or the Dumb Things Being Crowdfunded threads?
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.No, you guys were masturbating and asking to be slapped by a pair of complicator's gloves.
You must be thinking of different topic. Don't know which one, but definitely not this.
Definitely this one. But I'll excuse you for not being familiar with the concept of mental masturbation.
And I'd like to introduce you to the concept of reading what people have posted before commenting on it. Because clearly you didn't.
Liar.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
The only laughable thing is your irrational fear of new ideas.
No one is afraid here. I already said that you guys were funny. That's not the same as scary. You could look it up.
Being innovative is funny. K.
Have you been to the Internet of Shit or the Dumb Things Being Crowdfunded threads?
Many times. And I've had a good laugh there. Because there was something actually wrong with those projects and I could tell you exactly what is wrong with them in one simple sentence.
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.No, you guys were masturbating and asking to be slapped by a pair of complicator's gloves.
You must be thinking of different topic. Don't know which one, but definitely not this.
Definitely this one. But I'll excuse you for not being familiar with the concept of mental masturbation.
And I'd like to introduce you to the concept of reading what people have posted before commenting on it. Because clearly you didn't.
Liar.
You've got me. I was actually hoping you'd figure out the concept of reading before commenting yourself.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
The only laughable thing is your irrational fear of new ideas.
No one is afraid here. I already said that you guys were funny. That's not the same as scary. You could look it up.
Being innovative is funny. K.
Have you been to the Internet of Shit or the Dumb Things Being Crowdfunded threads?
Many times. And I've had a good laugh there. Because there was something actually wrong with those projects and I could tell you exactly what is wrong with them in one simple sentence.
Like this?
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
I'm having a lot of fun watching people recreate what's essentially identical to a normal directory structure except with incomprehensible random sequences of characters.
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla Do you even know the normal directory structure you are comparing our ideas to? How are they similar to you?
That particular quote was when concatenating some external thing with the local thing. Which is like having a relatively flat directory. But then pretty soon someone's going to come up with reasons to separate those. Maybe system, different users, application sandboxes...whatever.
The bottom line is that all this "unique id" stuff already exists in current filesystems but it's wholly unsuited to present to users, as these GUIDs or whatever scheme you come with will be. And users will still need to have a way to refer to files and relate to files, which obviously can't be these unique IDs. You're going to end up with exactly the same problems you're trying to solve but with a more complex system.
-
@loopback0 said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
I'm having a lot of fun watching people recreate what's essentially identical to a normal directory structure except with incomprehensible random sequences of characters.
Solving a "problem" that doesn't need solving by introducing a new problem. I believe the next step is calling this a Civilised Filesystem™.
People's Democratic Republic.
-
@Gąska you forgot "badly written programs can never use hierarchical layout for files, because there is no path!"
This means the system works fine for single files, but the program has to keep its own database if ever there is a need to relate files.
I shudder to think how this will be backwards compatible with, say, source code.
-
@HardwareGeek said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@ixvedeusi said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
Starting Point:
myfile (GUID1)
Step 1: copy myfile
=> myfile (GUID1), myfile copy (GUID2)
Step 2: rename "myfile copy" to "myfile.backup"
=> myfile(GUID1), myfile.backup (GUID2)
Step 3: there is no step 3Step 3: Edit myfile(GUID1). Screw it up beyond repair.
Step 4: Recover myfile from myfile.backup.How do I do that? Now, that's a simple rename (or copy, if I still need the backup to recover from another screw-up), replacing the screwed-up file. It's exactly as if I never edited it.
For this particular use case, I've talked about a solution earlier in this topic. A dedicated backup function integrated in file manager - say, a "backup" context menu item that would copy the file to a safe location, from which you could restore the file to previous version even after deletion. From implementation point of view, it would be somewhat similar to how recycle bin works on Windows.
But in general, an option to create a file with user-selected ID (if it's free) would definitely be essential for deep shit troubleshooting. I don't think there would be much need for it, neither from applications nor from users themselves, but it should absolutely be there as a last resort.
-
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In any case, the idea that modern filesystems are fundamentally broken is laughable.
The only laughable thing is your irrational fear of new ideas.
No one is afraid here. I already said that you guys were funny. That's not the same as scary. You could look it up.
Being innovative is funny. K.
Have you been to the Internet of Shit or the Dumb Things Being Crowdfunded threads?
Many times. And I've had a good laugh there. Because there was something actually wrong with those projects and I could tell you exactly what is wrong with them in one simple sentence.
Like this?
@boomzilla said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
I'm having a lot of fun watching people recreate what's essentially identical to a normal directory structure except with incomprehensible random sequences of characters.
Like this, except I'd prefer something that's actually true.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska you forgot "badly written programs can never use hierarchical layout for files, because there is no path!"
There are no paths but there are still directories which can contain other directories. Your hierarchies will be fine.
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska you forgot "badly written programs can never use hierarchical layout for files, because there is no path!"
There could be a virtualization layer during transitional period that emulates paths for legacy programs without allowing them to do any damage.
Except such virtualization layer would have all the problems we're trying to solve, and more, and it would most definitely cause the Python 3 scenario in which no one moves to the new thing because everything only works with the old thing - except unlike with Python, there wouldn't really be any migration path, so we'd be stuck with the virtualization layer literally forever.
-
@levicki you mean completely unusable?
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
We've had such a nice, technical discussion full of insightful points and good faith arguments. But then the
modstrolls came and ruined everything.Yeah, what's the latest on the ogre project thing? It's been a while...
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska Well.. you got me there, not completely but enough that people get away from it quickly
By quickly, you mean instantly? Why make a virtualization layer at all then?
like... Windows Vista?
Vista got bad press. Windows 7 was mostly a PR trick, not a new OS.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
And I'd like to introduce you to the concept of reading what people have posted before commenting on it. Because clearly you didn't.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In short, you would backup a file by using file manager Backup option and you would restore it using Restore option. Why would you want to do that complicated dance routine with many steps when system could do it for you in two steps?
Which is why it's a commonly used feature of all filesystems since they've supported that for a while now....
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
And I'd like to introduce you to the concept of reading what people have posted before commenting on it. Because clearly you didn't.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
He'd save even more time by getting the fuck out of this topic!
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska you forgot "badly written programs can never use hierarchical layout for files, because there is no path!"
There are no paths but there are still directories which can contain other directories. Your hierarchies will be fine.
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
Vista got bad press. Windows 7 was mostly a PR trick, not a new OS.
We'll have to disagree on that one. I used both.
Me too. I've also used Vista SP1, which was itself much better than RTM.
I am not saying Windows 7 was a new OS, but it was leaps and bounds more stable and considerably faster, especially with file I/O
But it wasn't even remotely close to the revolution that Vista was. Or XP when it was released. Or even Windows 98, compared to 95.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
And I'd like to introduce you to the concept of reading what people have posted before commenting on it. Because clearly you didn't.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
He'd save even more time by getting the fuck out of this topic!
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
And I'd like to introduce you to the concept of reading what people have posted before commenting on it. Because clearly you didn't.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
He'd save even more time by getting the fuck out of this topic!
Threads are free.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In short, you would backup a file by using file manager Backup option and you would restore it using Restore option. Why would you want to do that complicated dance routine with many steps when system could do it for you in two steps?
Which is why it's a commonly used feature of all filesystems since they've supported that for a while now....
Not in the form we're talking about.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
I'm not entirely convinced either that duplicate names are a good idea.
One project I'm working on has 1665 files named
Makefile
(INB4 makefiles are not a good idea) to build 64000 source files. (And it's just one subproject of a bigger project.) How would you propose to organize this without a directory structure (or something that looks similar enough to the user that it might as well be a directory structure)?File paths would just stop being a thing. Entirely. Absolutely. Everywhere. This is not implementation detail.
But you still need a hierarchical organization for your files. The real-world organization of a lot of things is hierarchical, and the data about those things needs to be hierarchical, too. Maybe not absolutely everywhere, but in many places, but where it needs to be. It. Absolutely. Needs. To. Be.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In short, you would backup a file by using file manager Backup option and you would restore it using Restore option. Why would you want to do that complicated dance routine with many steps when system could do it for you in two steps?
Which is why it's a commonly used feature of all filesystems since they've supported that for a while now....
Not in the form we're talking about.
What form are you looking for? I'm confused now.
-
@HardwareGeek said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
in many places, but where it needs to be. It. Absolutely. Needs. To. Be.
Apparently you just shove metadata alongside the file ID. Well call it "Path" for kicks.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In short, you would backup a file by using file manager Backup option and you would restore it using Restore option. Why would you want to do that complicated dance routine with many steps when system could do it for you in two steps?
Which is why it's a commonly used feature of all filesystems since they've supported that for a while now....
Not in the form we're talking about.
What form are you looking for? I'm confused now.
Instant backup of a single file right there in the context menu, working out of the box with no setup necessary.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In short, you would backup a file by using file manager Backup option and you would restore it using Restore option. Why would you want to do that complicated dance routine with many steps when system could do it for you in two steps?
Which is why it's a commonly used feature of all filesystems since they've supported that for a while now....
Not in the form we're talking about.
What form are you looking for? I'm confused now.
Instant backup of a single file right there in the context menu, working out of the box with no setup necessary.
Just because Microsoft deemed it unnecessary to have a one-click create-shadow-copy function, doesn't mean it can't be done.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In short, you would backup a file by using file manager Backup option and you would restore it using Restore option. Why would you want to do that complicated dance routine with many steps when system could do it for you in two steps?
Which is why it's a commonly used feature of all filesystems since they've supported that for a while now....
Not in the form we're talking about.
What form are you looking for? I'm confused now.
Instant backup of a single file right there in the context menu, working out of the box with no setup necessary.
Just because Microsoft deemed it unnecessary to have a one-click create-shadow-copy function, doesn't mean it can't be done.
You have your answer why it's not being used.
-
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@HardwareGeek Go back to the start of discussion, it is all explained there. In short, you can emulate hierarchy (folder tree) by using tags as path components and storing their index.
TL;DR --
big project\awesomelib\src\makefile
would become a set of tags:1, "big project"
2, awesomelib
3, src
4, makefileThe tag index would allow you to create fake hierarchy in file manager (i.e. in the GUI) while everything is stored in linear fashion on the medium itself thus avoiding trees and recursion.
No, it really wouldn't work. You need a real hierarchy. Because recursion.
-
@levicki because recursive data structures is the only way to model recursive concepts. And in programming, there are many recursive concepts. Like modules that can have submodules, and each submodule can have its own submodules, and all the submodules have to be processed in exactly the same way as the main module. There's just no way to do that without recursion.
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
For in-partition file identifier, 128 bits really is enough for everybody.
Why just in-partition? Our build system utilizes tools installed on half a dozen network drives (some of which are symlinks to stuff on other servers).
Also, a lot of our files originate (as far as we're concerned) as tarballs from another company. Are the file IDs on our systems the same as the IDs on their systems? If not, how do the tools find the files they're supposed to process?
-
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@levicki said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
In short, you would backup a file by using file manager Backup option and you would restore it using Restore option. Why would you want to do that complicated dance routine with many steps when system could do it for you in two steps?
Which is why it's a commonly used feature of all filesystems since they've supported that for a while now....
Not in the form we're talking about.
What form are you looking for? I'm confused now.
Instant backup of a single file right there in the context menu, working out of the box with no setup necessary.
Just because Microsoft deemed it unnecessary to have a one-click create-shadow-copy function, doesn't mean it can't be done.
You have your answer why it's not being used.
Not really. Or are you insinuating that the literal only reason why we're not using this magic new filesystem is that $Deity hasn't made it yet?
-
@HardwareGeek said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
For in-partition file identifier, 128 bits really is enough for everybody.
Why just in-partition? Our build system utilizes tools installed on half a dozen network drives (some of which are symlinks to stuff on other servers).
Also, a lot of our files originate (as far as we're concerned) as tarballs from another company. Are the file IDs on our systems the same as the IDs on their systems? If not, how do the tools find the files they're supposed to process?
By Mimetype, ownership, and dates metadata of course!
-
@HardwareGeek said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
@Gąska said in So I decided to try to update part of my toolchain...:
For in-partition file identifier, 128 bits really is enough for everybody.
Why just in-partition?
Because we were talking about in-partition IDs. It's also enough for many other things, but at that point in discussion, the most important thing was that it's enough for in-partition IDs.
Our build system utilizes tools installed on half a dozen network drives (some of which are symlinks to stuff on other servers).
Putting the discussion of filesystems aside for a moment - that sounds like a giant pile of WTFs. What if some server fails? Is the entire company unable to build until replacement arrives?
Also, a lot of our files originate (as far as we're concerned) as tarballs from another company. Are the file IDs on our systems the same as the IDs on their systems? If not, how do the tools find the files they're supposed to process?
I admit that I don't have a good answer for that. In general, I haven't yet figured out how to handle files that have inherent hierarchy that has to be preserved when moving files around. It might be impossible; or it might be something simple that I just haven't figured out yet. Right now, I'm thinking whether a hybrid approach - where every OS<->App and App<->App interaction has to be done via IDs, but file hierarchies with names and paths are still available and have first-class support - would provide sufficient protection against everything that's currently wrong with relying on paths to be worth it. It's probably the way to go, but I'm not sure.