• kleeon [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 minute ago

    idk why a trillion dollar company can’t write a program that simply shows you a list of files. Their new notepad is also shockingly slow and I just can’t imagine how

  • Abracadaniel [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I enabled onedrive on my work PCs so I can keep my documents synced and that was a big mistake because the integration into file explorer is slowwww, and windows 11 made it even slower!

    • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I feel like it’s just a neglected feature these days because more software is moving to the model of in-app storage like you see on mobile devices.

      Also file systems are just over-complicated in the first place. There are so many edge cases with directory and file permissions, different types of files, file sizes, file locking, change notifications, remote file systems, file extended metadata, file system indexing, thumbnails, file encryption, etc. They’re a bad abstraction for anything that isn’t just storing some documents. And you mess up file handling and people lose really important stuff.

      With Windows though, I think it’s just 'cause they don’t want to touch a bunch of legacy C++ code that no one understands. And having to reimplement a thousand little features that have been added to File Explorer over the last couple decades.

      • insurgentrat [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        12 hours ago

        They’re a bad abstraction for anything that isn’t just storing some documents.

        Idk about that, they’re really convenient for representing state in a way that can be universally manipulated without running expensive software like a database. A DB makes more sense when performance in critical, but increases the complexity of interacting with configuration, snapshotting state, or inputting data/extracting data.

        They’re also intuitive, since a filesystem is basically just a filling cabinet. It makes it easy to teach and learn through play.

        • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The last thing a file system based database needs is file permissions and all the other weird stuff that goes on in a file system. They’re really complicated for the functionality they support. But a file system is always available to software so it seems intuitive and simple. I just wish computers didn’t rely on them so much.

          • insurgentrat [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I’m not sure what you’re proposing, the unix philosophy is really valuable for like enabling all modern computing (even as it’s less followed we only got this far because of it) and if we stop storing data as strings in file systems basically all interoperability fails as APIs are too bespoke.

            You can’t or shouldn’t keep a lot of data in memory, serialised data stored in DBs is super hard to handle and often less performant with transcoding for manipulation. What do you propose instead? Models like what android apps use still used file systems and are basically the worst of both worlds, being horribly anti user.

            File systems are mad intuitive, look at a book shelf, you’re 90% there. What else do you propose?

            • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              A lot of storage these days is in object storage like S3. There’s no partial writes, file permissions, extended metadata (it might have this actually), or directories. It just does what you want most things to do: stores a bit of data that can be retrieved later using some key. You could imagine storing a shared library or or executable just about anything in that or a similar fashion. In fact, I’m using Fedora Silverblue, which is a Linux distro that stores most of its root filesystem in a git-like content-addressable ostree repository (potentially even stored in object storage on the remote update servers). The filesystem is just a formality because that’s what software is currently written to understand.

              And even document storage is stored this way in cloud services. Google Docs and Office 365 are presumably just storing their documents as a group of objects. A Word document is a zip file containing XML files and other assets. In a cloud environment, that can be exploded into separate objects for faster updating.

              Filesystems don’t even support atomic transactions other than file renames. Windows NTFS used to have this but it was buggy and now basically unsupported. The performance characteristics of filesystems are also really unpredictable (when is your flash storage going to do a garbage collection?) and they don’t have a whole lot of features for doing performance-sensitive things outside of escaping the filesystem altogether. Relational databases just preallocate larger files and then use filesystem-specific operations to avoid a bunch of churn in the write-ahead logs and such. Since they have their own durability mechanisms.

              I think a virtual-memory like addressing system could also work for persistent storage. You basically keep all the bookkeeping stuff that filesystems do to keep track of free space, but without the variable-size files with extents and permissions and all those shenanigans.

              • insurgentrat [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I would not really hold up s3 style object storage as particularly useable. Discoverability is arse, name collisions are easy, listing contents is extremely inefficient, updating access control is a fucking nightmare.

                I don’t think the demands of distributed computing should necessarily inform design decisions for single user or mainframe computing, I agree that performance is unpredictable but that’s why you don’t rely on hammering the disk for performance. The underlying hardware is always going to be a bit unpredictable anyway, if you want stuff like always having atomic transactions you are going to be doing a lot of copying, that wears out hardware and is just unnecessary for a lot of applications.

                I’m not saying they’re always good, just that saying they’re (always) a bad abstraction is wrong.

  • hello_hello [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Preloading a program to deal with performance regressions is a feat only Windows can achieve. kiryu-pain

    Imagine if KDE or GNOME had to come out and say, yeah our file manager has to start before you even enter the desktop. doggirl-lol.

    Meanwhile Apple’s file manager is borderline unusable and has been since it was introduced as “Finder” with a creepy face.

    • trompete [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I mean back in the day when Gnome had desktop icons, Nautilus did draw those. So the file manager was, in fact, started before you could see your desktop. Windows did the same thing I’m pretty sure, I’m kind of surprised that the article seems to imply it doesn’t anymore. Maybe it’s now just sort of a component dll, and the fully featured file explorer loads a bunch more crap.

      KDE, XFCE etc. would also need to do one of those things.

      • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Windows did the same thing I’m pretty sure

        With Windows, Microsoft was facing an antitrust suit (back when those happened) for leveraging their monopoly position in the PC operating system market to force Internet Explorer upon everybody, so what they did is merge the file browser (including the Desktop) and Internet Explorer into a single thing so they could claim it is actually an essential component of the operating system. Whatever Nautilus was doing 20 years ago, it wasn’t that stupid.

        • trompete [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Having the desktop icons and the file manager view run the same code makes perfect sense. You would want both of those things to look and behave the same.

          Putting a web browser into your file manager, on the other hand, is totally unnecessary. Those are completely different things.

          Gnome never did integrate a web browser into Nautilus. KDE did though, not sure if that’s still there. It was some modular thingy of course, so there’s still some separation there. I’m assuming Microsoft also did it kinda like that, they just pretended it’s totally integral in their legal defense. KDE did just because Windows did it, of course.

    • Chronographs@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      What’s wrong with finder? Also the icon is a kind of double image of the face and a person looking at a screen

    • Carl [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I’ve never had a problem with Dolphin. It’s got tabs, right click menus… pretty much everything you expect.