O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The user has to visualise the files (photographs) organised in some
fashion or another. The nuts and bolts of how it is done is
immateriel. The files are organised in a file system which the user
has to manipulate through whatever interface software has been
inflicted on them.

No, the user never ever manipulate the file system in an iPad. When you
arrange your photos in albums the photo files remain stationary in their
original folder but a database entry is created or altered to reflect
your manipulation.

I should have been more specific. I was referring to the file system
the user has in mind when organising the photographs. The iPad gives
the user the tools to organise photographs in 'Albums' without the
user having to know anything about the systems of files, pointers and
links required to make it all work. I wasn't specifically referring to
the OS file system.

that's the point though. they don't need to access the internal file
system, if there even is one.

there is one now, but there doesn't have to be one in the future.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Mine are in albums on my iPad. Is that not a file system?

no. it's a higher level concept.

it's actually a database indexed by content, not a rigid file/folder
structure. one photo can be in multiple albums, something not possible
with a file system.

You can't do any of these things without a file system.

internally there is a file system but it's not exposed to the user nor
does it need to be.

Then what does the user think the 'apps' are doing for them?

accessing content. what goes on under the hood is irrelevant.

Is not the content stored in files?

it can be. it doesn't have to be. that's also not the point.

Most users understand the concept of folders and files and will be
dimly aware that app of their choice is sorting these out for them.

only because that's how it was done in early computers and it hasn't
yet changed.

we're moving beyond that now.

Those who throughout their life have been entirely sheltered from the
idea of folder and file will understand that somewhere inside their
iPad there is an object which produces the image of their desire. They
will also understand that the iPad contains many such images and that
the iPad has some way of storing and sorting out the object(s) that
the user desires. Even these people will somewhere have in their mind
the concept of a file system.

maybe, but they don't need to know nor care what goes on inside, unless
they're a software or hardware developer.

The user has to visualise the files (photographs) organised in some
fashion or another. The nuts and bolts of how it is done is
immateriel.

exactly my point.

Are you saying you agree with me?

on some things.

users don't care how it's organized internally or if it's even on the
device itself. it could be on a server or in the cloud.

But users must know that the data is organised in some way.

sure, but the point is organizing things by using the file system is
very limited, a limitation that is going to go away.

they just want to access the photos, music or whatever else they want
to do. the computer takes care of the rest.

The files are organised in a file system which the user
has to manipulate through whatever interface software has been
inflicted on them.

that interface is at a higher level than the file system itself and can
do a whole lot more.

It's still a file system.

no, it's not. it's a database to organize content. it currently uses
files as the back end but that's merely an implementation detail and
one which can change.

these days, people have hundreds of thousands of photos, music, movies,
emails, etc. and trying to manually keep track of all of that is
insanity.

Probably insane to accumulate that much in the first place.

not really. it adds up very, very quickly, and it's only going to get
worse. people are generating a *lot* of data these days.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Image processing/editing is not a race, and there's no prize for
shaving off seconds. The objective is to get the image the way you
like it. The next objective, which is more on-topic here, is to place
the image where you can find it. That's why I paid for LR for just
the organizing/keyword features.

you're assuming everyone has the same objectives as you do.

a lot of people might prefer doing something *other* than fixing up
images and want the most efficient way, so shaving off a few seconds
does matter (it adds up).

or, they are paid to produce content and spending more time fixing
stuff means less money in their pocket and less time doing other stuff
they need to do.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Mine are in albums on my iPad. Is that not a file system?

Exactly - but nospam doesn't seem to realise that.

it's not a file system. it's a database.

The database won't work without a file system.

Actually it could, but in the case of the iPad, it doesn't.

Please explain how a data base can work without using a file system
that identifies the ultimate location of the raw data.

all it needs to do is give you the data you want.

how it's stored internally is not relevant. it could be files, or it
could be something else.

i know of several iphone apps where you can save documents, but they
aren't stored as individual files. they're put into one big blob, which
is managed by the app.

some email apps do the same thing, storing email in a giant database,
not individual files.

to the user, they don't know nor care. if they want a document or an
email, the app serves it up to them and they get their work done.

It is true
that the database itself is a file in the filesystem, but the albums you
create and the organization you do with your photos on the iPad doesn't
affect the file system in any shape or form, contrary to what Tony
incorrectly thought. It is all done in the database that is the source
of what you see on screen.

I accept that, but the data base is using the file system to extract
and display the selected images.

for now.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Please explain how in the absence of a filesystem the data base can
find and extract the data required to display the selected images.

quite easily. there are iphone apps that save documents not in files.
there are email apps on the desktop that do the same thing.

the point is that the user doesn't need to interact with the file
system anymore. there are much *better* ways to do what they want to
do.

Even in the simplest case, the user never interacts _directly_ with
the file system. They interact with keyboard, mouse and touch screen
and these through their drivers etc pass on instructions to the
operating system. It is the operating system which interacts with the
file system.

you're *really* grasping at straws now.

Even with the iPad (etc) the file system remains inside the machine
and has to be used to store and recover files. The use of the iPad's
paradigm of 'Albums' is merely another layer of abstraction between
the user and the file system.

and one which is significantly more capable.

users want to access *content*. where that content is does not matter.
it might not even be on their device.

That has got absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the machine
has a file system.

yes it does. a user wants a specific image or a song or an email or
whatever else. it could be on the device or it could be in the cloud or
somewhere else. they don't care *where* it is stored, only that they
can get what they need when they want to.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

We are in danger of getting at cross purposes. Up to this point in the
discussion I have always regarded the 'file system' as the collection
of files etc which comprise the basic firmware which keeps track of
in which sector, track, cluster, block etc on a disk (or equivalent) a
particular folder or file may be found.

This information can be extracted, collated, sorted and presented to
the user (sort on, descending-ascending etc) by software external to
the file system and this is the lowest level that most users generally
deal with.

that's the problem. it's time to move up a level or two. working at
that low of a level is not productive, except to file system engineers.

However I have not regarded this as part of the file
system. It is possible to write additional software which organises
the file system data in a different manner again, but I have not been
referring to such software as part of the file system either.

What I have been saying right from the beginning is that such
databases cannot operate without an underlying file system to keep
track of where the parts of each file or folder may be found.

of course they can. they might not do that *now*, but that doesn't mean
it's always going to be that way.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

go back and read what i wrote again. the files are only in a big heap
if she puts them in a big heap. she doesn't need file system access to
sort and organize photos.

Of course she does!

It's just that she doesn't use the file system directly: she gets at
it through external software.

nobody (other than file system engineers) get at the file system
directly.

you *must* use apps to access the files.

you don't know which block a file is on the hard drive, do you? no.

Yes.

bull**** you do.

Sorry, I misread your sentence. I do know 'what' a block is on the
hard drive.

I don't generally know (or care) which block a file is on, on the the
hard drive. I also know there is software available which will tell
me.

exactly the point. users don't care about disk blocks unless they're
writing a data recovery tool or some such utility.

That's why, right from the beginning, I've been saying the iPad has an
underlying file system and would not operate without one.

right now yes. in the future, not necessarily. your data could be in
many different forms and not necessarily on the device, and it won't
affect the user experience at all. most people won't even know.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Home Depot carries hundreds of different tools. I only buy the tools
from Home Depot that I have some known use for. If some new task
comes up where a new and different tool is required, I'll buy it.

comparing an ipad to a tool is silly. the ipad is not a product that
does one task, like a screwdriver or power drill.

Those people at Apple sure are silly. They call it a tool: "iPad
inspires creativity and hands-on learning with features you won’t find
in any other educational tool".

what's silly about that? it's also true.

it's also an ad. ads say all sorts of things.

that's nothing more than pointless apple bashing.

Where do you get the idea that a tool is capable of only one task? A
power drill, for example, can be used as a drill, a screw driver, a
paint mixer, pump, a grinder, and a polisher.

except to do those things, you have to buy *additional* stuff, much
like you would need to download apps on an ipad or laptop.

you're actually proving my point.

and a drill makes for really ****ty pliers or bandsaw. it may not be
'one' task but it's pretty limited in what it can do.

I approach the iPad the same way. nospam, and others, seem to want me
to create new tasks so I have to get new tools to use with the new
tasks in order to be progressive.

nope. it's just surprising that you buy a computer and not install any
software on it.

you installed software on your laptop and desktop, so why not the
tablet? it makes no sense.

For the same reason that the Duck has not installed all of the apps he
uses on his iPad/iPhone to his desktop.

that's because he *can't* install then on his desktop. ipad apps won't
run on a mac or windows pc.

you are demonstrating your ignorance once again.

not only won't they run on his desktop, but many of them are not even
possible even if they could run. the hardware they rely on is not
there.

It suits us. Too bad it
doesn't suit you that it suits us.

it's not about what suits me or anyone else. i never said *which* apps
to get. pick whatever ones that suits your needs.

it's just bizarre that someone would buy a computer and not install any
software.

I mostly use mine at home with my home Wi-Fi network. However, there
are those hotspots if I need them, and if I am traveling I can either
buy a block of 3G/4G bandwidth for the trip, or wirelessly tether to my
iPhone to share some of that bandwidth I am paying for with my Verizon
phone data plan.

I don't understand that. If you have a desktop at home, why would you
use your iPad instead? You are using a product with a smaller screen
and keyboard instead of your desktop. What's the advantage to that?

because the user experience for many tasks is much better on an ipad.
that's why they're so popular. not all tasks, but a lot of them.

The "user experience"? What? Do you have yours embedded in a blow-up
doll?

you continually demonstrate your ignorance.

the iphone wasn't the first phone to send and receive email, nor was it
the first phone to access web pages. there were phones that played
video on a 1-2" display too before the iphone.

what the iphone did was do those things in a *much* easier and more
pleasant manner. no longer did you have to be a geek to figure out how
to send an email and then try to type it using t-9 or pressing the
number pad multiple times for each letter, all on a postage stamp sized
screen where you could see about 7 words at a time, if they weren't big
words.

it can also do many things a desktop or laptop cannot do, since it has
a gps, gyroscope, accelerometer, compass, two cameras and always-on
internet.

Hmmm. Let's see what I need of that group.

GPS on my desktop? No, I think I know where it is already.

Gyroscope on my desktop? No, I think it probably works better in a
stationary position.

Accelerometer on my desktop? No, I think I can guess at the speed at
which it moves. It's somewhere around g= 9.81 m/s2.

Compass on my desktop? No, the box sits in an East/West position and
doesn't seem to move that much.

Two cameras on my desktop? Maybe useful if I wanted to take a lot of
photographs of my ankles and the closet door, but I think I'll pass on
this.

missing the point entirely.

having those features means new and more capable software can be
written, including navigation, astronomy, augmented reality, games,
educational software and more.

for instance, there are several astronomy apps that show you the night
sky simply by holding it overhead. if you see a bright object, aim the
iphone or ipad at it and it will tell you what it is. tap it and get
more info. if you have a telescope, it can cause the scope to move so
that you can view that object. it's very empowering and fantastic for
learning too.

that's impossible to do on a desktop or even a laptop. sure, you could
add all that hardware, but since the number of people doing that can be
counted on one hand, there's not a big market for software developers
to write an app, so even if you did, you'd have no software to use.

on the other hand, since all that hardware is guaranteed to be in every
ipad, software developers have a *huge* market, and that's why there
are several such apps.

that's just one example. there are plenty of others.

Always-on-internet? It seems like my desktop already does this since
I'm on cable. But you say I can't do it?

it's not always on. if you sleep the computer, it's offline.

an ipad is always on, even when it's sleeping, and can respond to a
push notification that could be as simple as a text message or as
critical as an emergency alert and a whole lot in between. often it's
just a useful bit of information.

your desktop can't do that.

My iPad is always-on only if my desktop is always-on. Unplug that
router and the iPad goes dark.

no surprise there. if you run the battery down, it also goes dark.
you're grasping at straws.

You do like to reach, don't you?

i'm not the one who is reaching.

In article , Sandman
wrote:

you said you make multiple copies of photos. i'm going by what you said
you do.

I said I make multiple copies of *some* photos.

That constitutes you saying that you make multiple copies of photos,
even if you only do it to *some*. The scenario also only concerned
*some* photos.

yep. watch him twist and try to get out of it.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Well, using a database is most certainly a superset of using the
filesystem. Everything you do in your file system can be done with the
database approach and more. So generally speaking you most certainly
cold make the claim that a solid database application would make it
easier for everyone, even if they currently can't see any use outside of
their current system.

exactly.

if they want to be limited to what a file system can do, they can still
do that, but if they want to avail themselves of additional
functionality, which *does* make things easier, they can do that too.

You don't seem to realise that what everyone refers to as a 'file
system' is a database.

not really, but if you want to call it that, fine. it's an *extremely*
limited database.

All a 'file system' does is provide you with
pointers to a table which contains pointers to where the various
chunks of raw data actually are. You are quite right: you can provide
additional functionality by installing yet another layer of
organisation with pointers to data of the file system.

that's the whole point. file systems are limited and we're finally
moving beyond those limitations. that's a good thing.

why someone would prefer to stay with the old limitations is baffling.

Think of it as Adobe Bridge vs Adobe Lightroom. In Bridge, what you see
and handle are files in the filesystem, while in Adobe Lightroom, you
manage the database that in turn point to files kept inside the
Lightroom Catalog structure that you don't have to deal with at any
point.

yep.

But you still need the underlying file system.

no you don't.

how it works under the hood is just an implementation detail. today it
might be a traditional file system. tomorrow..who knows.