Innovation

[Rodney]

nteresting topic... Some weeks ago, on the AROS mailing list we were disscusing Fle systems, and the idea of a Database file system came up... What do people here think of them?

From what i've heard, MS fielsystems are going to have the normal folders etc as in normal filesystem, instead directories and what files belong to them will all be software . That is, configurations  should tell where files go. Which isnt a bad idea, i guess this means all files will go into the root of the file system and file will be selected to be placed in certain categories/directories...

I dont know if i've described it right, but i was thinking this same thing can be accomplished with Assigns in AmigaOS with a lot less bloat. I like the idea of Assigns and may we should use them more?

Maybe we can enhance assigns to act like directories or make be able to embed assigns in other assigns so we can have directory paths like sys:/bla/

that is sys: would be the root and then maybe you could run an assign that would create bla and embed it within sys: like

Assign bla/ sys:

and then to access it you get sys:bla/

And then you can add things to sys:bla like

Assign somefile sys:bla/

and all files show in sys except if they've been alocated to a sub assign of sys?

anyway I guess the advantages of this is that you dont really have a file system but a heap of files on the disc and use software or icon file to show what group they belong too... or what assign they blong too... assign = group... ? do i make sense?

But i have no idea what the advantages are of this... Would it make searching for files faster since all files are actualy on the root  of the filesystem and the whole assign thing is just a front end for it? Have no idea.... noo idea...

[Wolfe]

mikeymike wrote:

The problem is, most Americans seem to love the Disney-XP-look :-(

Thats kind of a narrow minded thought.  :griping:

 I thought M$ was a world wide epidemic not just a US one.    :-?

[Matt_H]

anyway I guess the advantages of this is that you dont really have a file system but a heap of files on the disc and use software or icon file to show what group they belong too... or what assign they blong too... assign = group... ? do i make sense?

But i have no idea what the advantages are of this... Would it make searching for files faster since all files are actualy on the root of the filesystem and the whole assign thing is just a front end for it? Have no idea.... noo idea...

That sounds like it'll be one big mess after a year of use. No M$ for me, thanks. :-)

[Tomas]

I can say one thing... i downloaded the latest beta of longhorn, so far it is worse than the very first alpha version of winxp"codename windows whistler"
It is dead slow, the sidebar leaks memory like he*l and the gui itself use ALOT of ram, you will need atleast 1gigs of ram to run it "properly"

m$ acted the say way even with millenium before it was released... One positive thing though.. the included IE had popup blocker and download manager.

[Tomas]

I also see where Linux is starting to look and act more like Windows. And open office (though nice to have a choice) is just as complicated to use as is Word.

That is simply not true, it is completly the other way.. XP has stolen a few features that KDE has had for years..

[Tomas]

The GUI won't be improved it will be re-written, i.e. more eye-candy but less demanding.

I really hope you are right there.. it looked to me like it is built upon the old explorer gui

[Waccoon]

The very word "innovation" makes me sick.  Innovation is simply change, and not always improvement.

The dynamic Start Menu is certainly innovative.  However, testing proves that people hate it, because they don't like it when things move around unexpectedly.  It's annoying.  A better way of doing it is to simply highlight the programs you use often.  Hiding the ones you use infrequently is stupid.

MikeyMike:  Currently, a journalling filesystem is the holy grail of filesystem design.

Too bad software developers don't even do the next best thing:  Safe Saving.  Overwriting a file, instead of creating a new one then deleting or renaming the old one, is just such an old way of thinking.

I guess a database file system would be nice if they were implemented right.

Can you say, System Registry?  :-)

Also It seems I read somewhere that the new GUI in Longhorn was going to take advantage of the latest in Direct X. Is this a good thing?  Are they going to be able to improve redraws or refreshes using Direct X or is the average user going to have to buy new hardware to run it.

Microsoft is apparently trying to copy what's done in MacOS X.  At first, there will probably only be eye candy features like animated effects and other garbage, but snapshot icons and zooming might be implemented.  That's not a bad thing, but, as usual, it must be done properly.

Sorry, but every time I see MacOS X running on a high-end dual processor Mac, I still think it's terribly slow.  I can't say if it's an improvement or not.

What does a user really "need" from a GUI other than sparkles?

Put buttons in the right place... use decent fonts... use correct grammer... avoid modal windows...

Nothing that hasn't already been available for 10 years.

I think that all new computers users (and some old ones) should have to use a command prompt interface for a year (in the USA now) before they can graduate to a GUI.

Lord help us.  :-)

From what i've heard, MS fielsystems are going to have the normal folders etc as in normal filesystem, instead directories and what files belong to them will all be software . That is, configurations should tell where files go. Which isnt a bad idea, i guess this means all files will go into the root of the file system and file will be selected to be placed in certain categories/directories...

Microsoft's interface experts are very strange.  If this is what they are really doing, they probably read the first chapter of The Humane Interface, and didn't finish the book.  Many interface experts call this the "ideal" way of handling data, but I really don't think it works.

I think it's just a way to get people to use proprietary "organizing" software instead of letting people keep things sorted themselves.  Digital camera suites are a good example.  People used to frequently bring me their photos on a CD for printing, only to find out they were in a database or slideshow format we couldn't read.  Many of the companies writing this software encouraged people to get their photos from mail order, rather than taking your digital pictures to a local developer.  We lose business, and customers get frustrated that digital card standards are too primitive and difficult, and WE can't help them.  It's all business, as usual.

I don't work at that store, anymore, but I would like to help design software for digital photography.  Today's digital photography sucks.

One positive thing though.. the included IE had popup blocker and download manager.

Oh, that's reassuring.  The Mac version of IE 5 had a download manager that wasn't in the PC version.  I guess Microsoft finally decided to bring their PC division up to date.  :-)

That is simply not true, it is completly the other way.. XP has stolen a few features that KDE has had for years..

And EVERY Linux developer has stolen ideas that have been in Windows and MacOS for years, and AmigaOS, and the Alto...

[bloodline]

Rodney wrote:

nteresting topic... Some weeks ago, on the AROS mailing list we were disscusing Fle systems, and the idea of a Database file system came up... What do people here think of them?

From what i've heard, MS fielsystems are going to have the normal folders etc as in normal filesystem, instead directories and what files belong to them will all be software . That is, configurations  should tell where files go. Which isnt a bad idea, i guess this means all files will go into the root of the file system and file will be selected to be placed in certain categories/directories...

I dont know if i've described it right, but i was thinking this same thing can be accomplished with Assigns in AmigaOS with a lot less bloat. I like the idea of Assigns and may we should use them more?

Maybe we can enhance assigns to act like directories or make be able to embed assigns in other assigns so we can have directory paths like sys:/bla/

that is sys: would be the root and then maybe you could run an assign that would create bla and embed it within sys: like

Assign bla/ sys:

and then to access it you get sys:bla/

And then you can add things to sys:bla like

Assign somefile sys:bla/

and all files show in sys except if they've been alocated to a sub assign of sys?

anyway I guess the advantages of this is that you dont really have a file system but a heap of files on the disc and use software or icon file to show what group they belong too... or what assign they blong too... assign = group... ? do i make sense?

But i have no idea what the advantages are of this... Would it make searching for files faster since all files are actualy on the root  of the filesystem and the whole assign thing is just a front end for it? Have no idea.... noo idea...

That got me thinking...

One could have a disk with no directories on it. That is to say just the Root.

Then files are saved to the disk. So all files are on the disk, no directories.

Then one could use a modified assign command to group files under one name.

ie

1> Assign Games: lemmings.exe megalomainia.exe shadowofthebeast.exe

that would creat a logical volume called Games: which has the three games in it. But this is a virtual dir as the three games are actually on the disk (in the same place as all the other files) :-)




-Edit- Other than for academic interest I really can't see how that would be useful...

Unless maybe if one could do this:

> Assign Games: DH1:Psyegnosis/lemmings.exe DH1:Ocean/megalomainia.exe DH2:Psyegnosis/Reflections/shadowofthebeast.exe

Then the three games would be grouped in a logical volume of Games, but physically exist anywhere on the system acrosss hard drives etc... :-D

[minator]

The GUI won't be improved it will be re-written, i.e. more eye-candy but less demanding.

When has MS ever written anything less demanding?  
It's going to need DX9 hardware for goodness sake...

Besides of which IIRC it's based on XML which due to it's very nature will be highly demanding.  Try running Mozilla on an old machine, say 1 or 200MHz and you'll see what I mean, it's GUI is based on XML.

Interesting topic... Some weeks ago, on the AROS mailing list we were disscusing Fle systems, and the idea of a Database file system came up... What do people here think of them?

BeOS used to have a database files system but dumped it as it was way too slow.  They added a system called "attributes" instead which let you add abitary data to a file, the system then indexed these and you could use them as a database.  This is how emails are stored, with the various fields as attributes.

The advantage is speed, even on ####ty old machines (like my 150MHz Cyrix) it's quick, much quicker than my main PC at 800MHz.  The Cyrix will list all the html files on disk (about 1500) in 10-15 seconds.

The attributes also allow queries and "live queries" which update in real time.

For your Games: Assign you could get a similar behaviour by adding a "Games" attribute.

BFS is also Journalled and 64 bit - yet dates from 1996.

MS and Apple have still to fully catch up with it.

...You might like to download OpenBFS from www.OpenBeOS.org

[ottomobiehl]

Microsoft is apparently trying to copy what's done in MacOS X. At first, there will probably only be eye candy features like animated effects and other garbage, but snapshot icons and zooming might be implemented. That's not a bad thing, but, as usual, it must be done properly.

I have to use OS X daily and when I first saw it I thought, "how pretty."  Now it seems all of the prettyness gets in the way.  The animating effects and such are getting annoying.  I think that my new design philosophy is now "Keep it Simple."  An OS has to be more than pretty pictures.  Besides, if people want the pretty pictures then I believe the OS should allow people to skin them according to their preferences.

The dynamic Start Menu is certainly innovative. However, testing proves that people hate it, because they don't like it when things move around unexpectedly. It's annoying. A better way of doing it is to simply highlight the programs you use often. Hiding the ones you use infrequently is stupid.

Yes, plus it seems they change the way it works on every version of Windows.  A lot of there other software seems to have wandering features too.  That's why it is always a hassle to upward migrate with Microsoft products.

Microsoft's interface experts are very strange. If this is what they are really doing, they probably read the first chapter of The Humane Interface, and didn't finish the book. Many interface experts call this the "ideal" way of handling data, but I really don't think it works.

Personally I think that there interface designers come up with what they seem is a cool or unique idea then overuse it.  Kinda like new Photoshop users who discover the lens flare filter for the first time.  After awhile they get sick of it and try something new and throw off everybody who got used to using their old products :-o

That is simply not true, it is completly the other way.. XP has stolen a few features that KDE has had for years..

I am sure that it had gone both ways as far as feature stealing between Linux, M$, Apple and other OS's.  The simple matter of the fact IMHO is that KDE and Gnome are starting to look more and more like Windows with every release.  The Linux community has the rare opportunity to make something simple, useful and unique (Innovated if I may use that word again)  But they seem to jump on the Windows Look bandwagon and take an easy way out.  Again that is IMHO. :-)  It seems now that AOS 4.0 is in that unique position now.

Oh, I'm still curious as to how OS's implement file systems.  I really would like to know how this works. :-D

[JetFireDX]

The Linux community has the rare opportunity to make something simple, useful and unique

Yes, they do, but I don't find anything about the very structure of Linux to be simple. System files buried within folder after folder, cryptic filenames / commands....blah! I think the whole thing needs a fundamental reorg from the ground up so that it can be clearly and easily understood what something does. This is not to say Windows doesn't need that, but I rarely had a problem with my Amiga identifiying what a file was, what it was for, and where it was supposed to belong. Since Linux is so entrenched with the "geek" factor it has, I don't think it will ever become as simple as it needs to be for anybody to use it. My hopes is any one of the many "hobby" OSes out there be it AROS, SkyOS, OpenBeOS/Zeta, etc....to come up with a truely simple, clean, and efficient design that you can then change and muck up to your hearts desire. No OS should start that way. :-D