O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

no user would say "these albums sure is a good file system".

I hope not, but there are grammatically-challenged people who would.
You seem to be one of them.

Ad hominems, the true mark of a troll who lost the argument and can't
argue the facts.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:23:34 +0200, Sandman wrote:


The might say "these albums sure _are_ a good filing system", but then
again they may not.

Exactly my point.

Whoosh!

Users does not know what a file system is.

This is painful to read. This, from a person who claims other people
are not proficient in English.

Tony fails to see the use of "filing" in place of "file". Tony thinks he
can score some easy Ad hominem points. Tony thought wrong. Tony failed.
Tony made a fool out of himself yet again.

Tony also made a claim that he failed to substantiated. Tony fails
again. Double fail.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

How do you organise things without using the file system?

Database.

You use "database" as if it is something discrete and different from
"files".

Correct.

A database is simply the files which can be manipulated by a
program in order to retrieve information in a particular way.

Incorrect. A database is not "simply the files". Maybe you meant to
write something that can be parsed into something meaningful but forgot
some words?

A database can store data in either a block level device or as a FS or
as a file in an FS.

Something must be entered in a database for the program to find it.

Why are you stating these obvious things? Data needs to be entered in
order to be retrieved... What is this - computing for beginners?

That "something" is contained in a file, or files, that can be
accessed.

Incorrect.

Without the file(s) that contain the entered data, there is
no database.

Incorrect. The most common way for a DB engine today is to store their
databases in a file in the file system, but it's far from a requirement
and stating it like it's a rule is incorrect.

One definition of "database" is "a structured set of data held in a
computer". Data has to reside somewhere in the computer to be
located, and it is held in files.

It can be. it also can be "held" in other ways.

The program may organize the data in the database in different arrays,
but it depends on the files that contain the data.

No it doesn't. How the program organizes the data in the database has
nothing to do with the files that contain that data. This is 100%
incorrect.




--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

And as you have belatedly agreed the app won't work without the
underlying file system. You have to have a file system.

The word "petard" comes to mind.

Incorrectly so. As usual.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 8/7/2013 6:11 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

i don't assume anything. however, making things easier is something all
users want. except maybe you.

Do you know his needs? You can't suggest how to make things easier,
unless you understand the user's needs. One size does not fit all.

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.

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.

Yup. But, my point is that one cannot design a useful database, without
understanding the user's needs.

No one designs a database for one users needs. It is designed for the
general need of the generic customer. You know, like the file system was
designed. Like *everything* sold to more than one person is designed.


Proprietary databases are designed on a regular basis. I know people who
make a very good living designing them.
I agree that generic databases can work reasonably well. the vast
majority cannot afford a proprietary database.

And one CAN design a database that is useful to everyone without knowing
everyone's needs, that's the beauty of databases, they're very flexible
by nature.


Yes there are general use databases, some of which are quite good. But,
ther can be significant variations in the reporting interface. Without
understanding my business you cannot design an interface that is exactly
what I need. Yes a generic one may work for many people.

Now, the UI can put limitations on that flexibility, but the user gets
to choose what UI suits them best (Aperture, Lightroom, iPhoto,
whatever).



True, I can select the interface that I am most comfortable working
with. But, without understanding my specific preferences, nobody can
dictate a workflow.
My point was that

--
PeterN

On 8/7/2013 6:14 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Even so, it is not any kind of generic or common scenario. To be a
generic scenario, it has to be relating to a whole group or class.
That's what "generic" is. You think there's some whole group or class
out there that creates three files as described above?

actually it is an extremely common scenario. just about everyone
listens to music at some point or another. many people listen to music
daily.

The "generic" use was about creating three image files, not about
music. Read what he wrote: "It's a generic scenario that is meant to
illustrate a common need for people that have a desire to organize
their photos. Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife
by name or the last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied
to your horrendous workflow above."

The generic scenario can use a music library as an example just as
easily. Anyone fluent in English would easily comprehend and apply the
scenario to their scope of interest.

In fact, the scenario should be as generic as possible and perhaps
mention an application that handles bread recipes, and then the reader
(one that is fluent in English) would read the example and substitute
"bread recipe" with whatever he or she is currently discussing.



All true, but irrelevant to the point that not everybody likes the same
type of bread.

--
PeterN

On 2013-08-08 07:36:45 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/7/2013 5:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip


All my wine comes with screw tops.



Then try the kind that comes in plastic jugs. You can take just a
little at a time without worrying about oxidation, and is quite
drinkable.

There are always box wines to consider.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/7/2013 6:15 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/7/2013 4:28 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Sandman
wrote:

It's a generic scenario that is meant to illustrate a common need for
people that have a desire to organize their photos.
Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife by name or the
last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied to your
horrendous workflow above.

But is isn't my scenario.

I just said that, Sherlock. Read the words above.

Why bring it up to convince me of something?

I find it hard to believe anyone would set out to convince you of
anything. The discussion isn't about you though, it's about file system
versus database.

yep, but since he doesn't understand it and likes to argue, he turns it
into how *he* works and how everyone needs to work *his* way.


Just the opposite. tony Cooper says how he works. You say how "most
people' work, without any documentation, or room for variables.

I assume you didn't see the amazingly craptacular workflow Tony is
employing and thus can't begin to understand just how out of whack he is
from the "most people" realm. It was hilarious and disturbing to see the
hoops he would jump through that normal people just don't have to think
about at all.



For him it's a hobby. A few years ago I decided to make a chess table. I
cut each square by hand, and fit them together. The fact that most
people would not even attempt the project, and if they did, use a
different technique then my kludge, has nothing to do with the fact that
my method satisfied my objective.

--
PeterN

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

i'm going by what you said, so for me to be lying, you must have been
lying.

You said "your way would be to..." when describing how to identify a
photo by three different aspects of the photo. You made up the three
folders thing as part of your ridiculous example thinking that this is
the only way to accomplish this.

By using "your way" as you outlined he

Tony Cooper


"I put the same image in several folders by using "Copy to:"

Where you clearly said that for a photo to appear in more than one
place, you copy the file on the hard drive. This is hilariously stupid
on its own, and nospam made an example where this workflow's worst side
is exposed - i.e. when you use it to organize your photos based on
criteria in the photographs.

You then answered that you don't use the file system to organize your
photos that way - you use a database (ironically), but the example was
very good at outlining how poor the file systen mis to organize photos.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

No one designs a database for one users needs. It is designed for the
general need of the generic customer. You know, like the file system was
designed. Like *everything* sold to more than one person is designed.

Proprietary databases are designed on a regular basis. I know people who
make a very good living designing them.

You do realize that that isn't in conflict with anything I wrote above,
right?

And one CAN design a database that is useful to everyone without knowing
everyone's needs, that's the beauty of databases, they're very flexible
by nature.

Yes there are general use databases, some of which are quite good.

~s/some/most/;

But, ther can be significant variations in the reporting interface.
Without understanding my business you cannot design an interface that
is exactly what I need.

Your "business" is irrelevant to the topic of the usefulness of a
database for organizing media.

Now, the UI can put limitations on that flexibility, but the user gets
to choose what UI suits them best (Aperture, Lightroom, iPhoto,
whatever).

True, I can select the interface that I am most comfortable working
with. But, without understanding my specific preferences, nobody can
dictate a workflow.

Wtf? Who said that someone can, would or want to "dictate" your workflow?




--
Sandman[.net]