Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #262995 > unrolled thread

How to compare contents of two folders against third one?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  How to compare contents of two folders against third one? "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2023-11-01 16:10 +0100
    Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-01 16:10 +0100
      Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2023-11-02 07:50 +0100
        Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? "Russell L. Harris" <russell@rlharris.org> - 2023-11-02 09:00 +0100
    Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-01 19:00 +0100
      How to compare one folder to one directory (was: How to compare contents of two folders against third one?) "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2023-11-02 08:20 +0100
        Re: How to compare one folder to one directory (was: How to compare  contents of two folders against third one?) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2023-11-02 08:50 +0100
        Re: How to compare one folder to one directory (was: How to compare  contents of two folders against third one?) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-02 09:00 +0100
          Re: How to compare one folder to one directory (was: How to compare  contents of two folders against third one?) Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-11-02 09:50 +0100
            Re: How to compare one folder to one directory (was: How to compare  contents of two folders against third one?) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-02 10:00 +0100
              Re: How to compare one folder to one directory (was: How to   compare contents of two folders against third one?) yxcv@vienna.at - 2023-11-02 10:10 +0100
          Re: How to compare one folder to one directory John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-02 15:20 +0100
            Re: How to compare one folder to one directory <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-02 15:30 +0100
              Re: How to compare one folder to one directory "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2023-11-02 16:20 +0100
                Re: How to compare one folder to one directory debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2023-11-02 22:00 +0100
                  Re: How to compare one folder to one directory Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-02 22:10 +0100
                Re: How to compare one folder to one directory John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-03 03:50 +0100
                  Re: How to compare one folder to one directory Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-11-03 04:20 +0100
                    On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-03 06:40 +0100
                      Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-03 08:50 +0100
                        Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] tomas@tuxteam.de - 2023-11-03 09:00 +0100
                          Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-07 03:50 +0100
                            Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-07 06:40 +0100
                              Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2023-11-07 12:00 +0100
                        Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2023-11-03 16:10 +0100
                          Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-03 16:20 +0100
                            Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-11-03 17:30 +0100
                            Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2023-11-06 17:00 +0100
                              Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-06 17:10 +0100
                                Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2023-11-06 18:20 +0100
                          Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-11-03 16:40 +0100
                            Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to  compare...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-03 18:40 +0100
                              Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to  compare...] John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-07 03:40 +0100
                                Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to  compare...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-07 06:40 +0100
                          Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-03 18:30 +0100
                        Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2023-11-03 18:30 +0100
                          Re: On folders vs. directories and history "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2023-11-03 19:20 +0100
                    Re: How to compare one folder to one directory Mihamina RKTMB <mihamina@atscom.io> - 2023-11-03 09:10 +0100
                    Re: How to compare one folder to one directory "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2023-11-03 11:40 +0100
                      Re: How to compare one folder to one directory Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-03 11:50 +0100
                    Re: How to compare one folder to one directory John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-07 04:20 +0100
        Re: How to compare one folder to one directory "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2023-11-02 10:20 +0100
        Re: How to compare one folder to one directory (was: How to compare  contents of two folders against third one?) Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-11-03 01:40 +0100
          On weeds and bikesheds [was: How to compare one folder to one  directory] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-03 06:30 +0100
      Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2023-11-02 08:40 +0100
        Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-02 08:50 +0100
        Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-02 09:10 +0100
          Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2023-11-02 10:50 +0100
            Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-02 11:00 +0100
            Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-02 11:10 +0100
            Re: How to compare contents of two folders against third one? Michel Verdier <mv524@free.fr> - 2023-11-02 16:20 +0100
      All the unicorns are dead on Linux (was: How to compare contents of  two folders against third one?) Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-11-03 17:00 +0100
        Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux (was: How to compare contents  of two folders against third one?) tomas@tuxteam.de - 2023-11-03 18:50 +0100
        Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux (was: How to compare contents  of two folders against third one?) Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-03 19:20 +0100
        Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux (was: How to compare contents  of two folders against third one?) Paul Duncan <paul.d@soi-team.org> - 2023-11-07 12:00 +0100
          Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-07 15:30 +0100
            Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-07 15:40 +0100
              Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-07 17:00 +0100
                Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-07 17:10 +0100
                  Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-11-07 17:50 +0100
                  Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-11-07 20:00 +0100
                    Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-07 20:30 +0100
                    Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-07 20:50 +0100
                Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2023-11-07 19:00 +0100
                  Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-07 20:40 +0100
                    Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux tomas@tuxteam.de - 2023-11-07 20:50 +0100
                      Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2023-11-07 22:30 +0100
                        Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2023-11-07 22:30 +0100
                          Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-07 23:00 +0100
                          Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2023-11-07 23:50 +0100
                      Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-07 23:00 +0100
                    Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2023-11-07 20:50 +0100
                      Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2023-11-07 21:00 +0100
                        Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2023-11-07 21:40 +0100
                          Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2023-11-07 22:00 +0100
                            Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-11-07 22:10 +0100
                            Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-11-08 01:00 +0100
                            Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-11-08 13:40 +0100
                              Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-11-08 14:10 +0100
                Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-11-07 21:30 +0100
            Re: All the unicorns are dead on Linux gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2023-11-07 21:00 +0100

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#263071 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 08:46:36AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de (12023-11-03):
> > The other is related: folder has become the culture of those
> > who want to "sell you knowledge", i.e. of those whose business
> > model is based on keeping you dumb.
> 
> Ear, ear!
> 
> Also, that metaphor is easy, but it is very shaky. In the physical
> world, I have *sometimes* seen a folder inside a folder, but a folder
> inside a folder inside a folder inside a folder…

It's folders all the way down [1]!

Small anecdote: there was an old Linux distro (ISTR it was SuSE)
where something below /etc/init.d (or was it /etc/rc.d? It's a
long while ago) was a symlink to the parent directory, creating
an infinite hierarchy (or a circular reference, depending on how
you squint).

For some reason, that part of the file system was exported via
Samba.

Windows machines stumbling upon that part of the world got lost
every time and had to be rebooted...

:-)

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_turtles_all_the_way_down
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263200 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

tomas writes:
> Small anecdote: there was an old Linux distro (ISTR it was SuSE) where
> something below /etc/init.d (or was it /etc/rc.d? It's a long while
> ago) was a symlink to the parent directory, creating an infinite
> hierarchy (or a circular reference, depending on how you squint).

On System III there was no restriction on hard links: you could create
an an arbitrarily complex cyclic graph.

Fortunately, I backed up the system before experimenting with this.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263202 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 08:25:20AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > Small anecdote: there was an old Linux distro (ISTR it was SuSE) where
> > something below /etc/init.d (or was it /etc/rc.d? It's a long while
> > ago) was a symlink to the parent directory, creating an infinite
> > hierarchy (or a circular reference, depending on how you squint).
> 
> On System III there was no restriction on hard links: you could create
> an an arbitrarily complex cyclic graph.

I know, I'm that old. In antediluvian Linux you could also hard link
directories,but only root was allowed to.

Most roors were smart enough not to do that :-)

> Fortunately, I backed up the system before experimenting with this.

The best way to learn, right?

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263204 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I’m comforted by this friendly discussion about the old days versus the
modern generation  by fellow old folks of pre-PC days.

Sort of like an afternoon gathering at the Elks or the VFW.

Thank you all.

Blessings.

-Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263076 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> writes:

> tomas@tuxteam.de (12023-11-03):
>> The other is related: folder has become the culture of those
>> who want to "sell you knowledge", i.e. of those whose business
>> model is based on keeping you dumb.
>
> Ear, ear!
>
> Also, that metaphor is easy, but it is very shaky. In the physical
> world, I have *sometimes* seen a folder inside a folder, but a folder
> inside a folder inside a folder inside a folder…

If I think of the main non-digital directory I have dealt with in my
life it was a telephone directory.  That also did not contain further
directories within itself.  Surely 'directory' is also just a more or
less apt metaphor, which may indeed be better if you have a technical
background or, as Greg correctly pointed out, if you are dealing with
the Unix command line.

Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
regarding dumbing-down.  I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
actual rodent.

Cheers,

Loris

-- 
This signature is currently under constuction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263077 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

Loris Bennett (12023-11-03):
> If I think of the main non-digital directory I have dealt with in my
> life it was a telephone directory.  That also did not contain further
> directories within itself.

On the other hand, scholarly articles usually contain a bibliography
section, i.e. a directory of other scholarly articles, and these other
articles, being themselves scholarly articles, also contain a
bibliography.

>				Surely 'directory' is also just a more or
> less apt metaphor

You missed the point: directory is not a metaphor at all, it is a
precise term for what is actually being talked about.

> Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
> regarding dumbing-down.  I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
> think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
> by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
> pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
> actual rodent.

We are not saying that using the word is by itself dumbing down. But the
fact is that the people who are dumbing down are the same as people who
are using the metaphoric word instead of the precise one.

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263082 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

On 11/3/23 11:17, Nicolas George wrote:
> Loris Bennett (12023-11-03):
>> If I think of the main non-digital directory I have dealt with in my
>> life it was a telephone directory.  That also did not contain further
>> directories within itself.
> 
> On the other hand, scholarly articles usually contain a bibliography
> section, i.e. a directory of other scholarly articles, and these other
> articles, being themselves scholarly articles, also contain a
> bibliography.
> 
>> 				Surely 'directory' is also just a more or
>> less apt metaphor
> 
> You missed the point: directory is not a metaphor at all, it is a
> precise term for what is actually being talked about.
> 
>> Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
>> regarding dumbing-down.  I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
>> think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
>> by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
>> pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
>> actual rodent.
> 
> We are not saying that using the word is by itself dumbing down. But the
> fact is that the people who are dumbing down are the same as people who
> are using the metaphoric word instead of the precise one.
> 
Precisely...
Cheers, Gene Heskett.
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
  - Louis D. Brandeis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263190 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> writes:

>>				Surely 'directory' is also just a more or
>> less apt metaphor
>
> You missed the point: directory is not a metaphor at all, it is a
> precise term for what is actually being talked about.

I beg to differ.  I think you are confusing the precise definition of
something with the label used to refer to it.  When the transistor was
invented, so was a new word to describe it.  When this particular
concept of how to organise data on a computer, about which we are
talking, was invented, the existing analog term 'directory' was chosen
(and not, say, 'catalogue').  Because the term already existed, using it
to refer to something else is by definition metaphorical.

>> Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
>> regarding dumbing-down.  I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
>> think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
>> by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
>> pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
>> actual rodent.
>
> We are not saying that using the word is by itself dumbing down. But the
> fact is that the people who are dumbing down are the same as people who
> are using the metaphoric word instead of the precise one.

As I said, I think you are creating a false dichotomy between
'metaphorical' and 'precise'.  Possible antonyms would be 'literal' and
'imprecise', respectively.
 
Regarding usage, I think that the horse has bolted.  The people using
'folder' are probably in the majority now, in particular if we think of
all those who never end up on the command line.  So if someone wants to
sell me snake oil, he or she will definitely need some more dazzling
jargon than 'folder'.

-- 
This signature is currently under constuction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263192 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

Loris Bennett (12023-11-06):
> I beg to differ.  I think you are confusing the precise definition of
> something with the label used to refer to it.  When the transistor was
> invented, so was a new word to describe it.  When this particular
> concept of how to organise data on a computer, about which we are
> talking, was invented, the existing analog term 'directory' was chosen
> (and not, say, 'catalogue').  Because the term already existed, using it
> to refer to something else is by definition metaphorical.

No, that is not what “metaphorical means”. Anyway, I am not interested
in splitting hair about stylistic devices.

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263194 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

On 2023-11-06, Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> Loris Bennett (12023-11-06):
>> I beg to differ.  I think you are confusing the precise definition of
>> something with the label used to refer to it.  When the transistor was
>> invented, so was a new word to describe it.  When this particular
>> concept of how to organise data on a computer, about which we are
>> talking, was invented, the existing analog term 'directory' was chosen
>> (and not, say, 'catalogue').  Because the term already existed, using it
>> to refer to something else is by definition metaphorical.
>
> No, that is not what “metaphorical means”. Anyway, I am not interested
> in splitting hair about stylistic devices.
>

You're not interested in splitting hairs? C'est l'hôpital qui se fout de
la charité !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263078 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

> Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
> regarding dumbing-down.  I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
> think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
> by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
> pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
> actual rodent.

I guess in a sense what's going on here is that these words act as kinds
of "dog whistle".  I don't think the argument that "directory" is better
technically than "folder" is really strong, so I can totally imagine
a different version of the world's history where those two terms end up
used in exactly reversed ways where Unix (and win32) ends up using
"folder" while Windows's user-facing docs ends up calling it
"directory".

But which one you choose to use says who you're intending to talk to.

> If I think of the main non-digital directory I have dealt with in my
> life it was a telephone directory.  That also did not contain further
> directories within itself.

Regarding the technical argument.  I think the crux of the matter is
that directories do not *contain* anything, they just tell you where to
find something, which is indeed technically more correct for Unix style
filesystems since an inode can be referenced this way from several
directories at the same time.

The FAT filesystem did not enjoy this little used property, and indeed
FAT's directories arguably do "contain" files (or at least contain the
equivalent of inodes).

Not sure how useful this discussion can be for "Debian users", tho :-)


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263089 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
> > regarding dumbing-down [...]

> I guess in a sense what's going on here is that these words act as kinds
> of "dog whistle".  I don't think the argument that "directory" is better
> technically than "folder" is really strong [...]

:-)

See my other reply. My whole point is about making lives of curious
users easier by sticking to the terminology they'll find should they
dare (yes,please!) to open that door to the cellar.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263199 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

tomas writes:
> See my other reply. My whole point is about making lives of curious
> users easier by sticking to the terminology they'll find should they
> dare (yes,please!) to open that door to the cellar.

The people at Xerox PARC and SRI who came up with the desktop metaphor
in the early years weren't thinking about personal computers.  They were
working on office automation.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263203 — Re: [OFFTOPIC] On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 12:57:39PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > See my other reply. My whole point is about making lives of curious
> > users easier by sticking to the terminology they'll find should they
> > dare (yes,please!) to open that door to the cellar.
> 
> The people at Xerox PARC and SRI who came up with the desktop metaphor
> in the early years weren't thinking about personal computers.  They were
> working on office automation.

OTOH, if you read Zuboff (or even Foucault), this is a classical pattern:
you roll stuff out to some captive population first, before going into
the wild :-)

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263088 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Loris Bennett wrote:
> Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> writes:
> 
> > tomas@tuxteam.de (12023-11-03):
> >> The other is related: folder has become the culture of those
> >> who want to "sell you knowledge", i.e. of those whose business
> >> model is based on keeping you dumb.
> >
> > Ear, ear!
> >
> > Also, that metaphor is easy, but it is very shaky. In the physical
> > world, I have *sometimes* seen a folder inside a folder, but a folder
> > inside a folder inside a folder inside a folder…
> 
> If I think of the main non-digital directory I have dealt with in my
> life it was a telephone directory.  That also did not contain further
> directories within itself.  Surely 'directory' is also just a more or
> less apt metaphor, which may indeed be better if you have a technical
> background or, as Greg correctly pointed out, if you are dealing with
> the Unix command line.

The point I'm trying to make here is that "directory" is better
because it lets the users connect with the available documentation,
thus offering them an easier path towards "dealing with the Unix
command line".

Using a different terminology makes their path more difficult.

I actually don't care which metaphor is "better", but about the
users actually trying to decipher a man page or some kernel doc
or even kernel code. After all, it's EISDIR (that's the symbolic
errno you get when trying to read(2) a directory),  not EISFLDR.

I am a free software person. My "business model" is about users
getting smarter.

We have this incredible gift that you and me and any user can go
and have a look at the spot in the kernel source returning that
error. How about lowering the threshold to that pleasure by using
the right terminologyß

> Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
> regarding dumbing-down.  I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
> think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
> by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
> pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
> actual rodent.

See above. There /is/ a difference. Not in how good or bad the
metaphor is, but on the actual usage in this context.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263087 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]

On 2023-11-03, Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de (12023-11-03):
>> The other is related: folder has become the culture of those
>> who want to "sell you knowledge", i.e. of those whose business
>> model is based on keeping you dumb.
>
> Ear, ear!

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

An ear c'est une oreille.

> Also, that metaphor is easy, but it is very shaky. In the physical
> world, I have *sometimes* seen a folder inside a folder, but a folder
> inside a folder inside a folder inside a folder…

It's folders all the way down.

> Regards,
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263092 — Re: On folders vs. directories and history

Hi,

Nicolas George wrote:
> > Ear, ear!

Curt wrote:
> An ear c'est une oreille.

C'est probablement because les frenchais ne cannot pas prononcer le "H".


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263072 — Re: How to compare one folder to one directory

On 11/3/23 06:17, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:16:54PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> This was in the 1970s when the graphical UI was being invented.  The
>> idea was that the screen was to look like an actual desktop which might
>> have actual file folders on it.  Every icon was supposed to be an image
>> of a familiar office object.  In that context a directory is a phone
>> book.
> The use of "directory" in the Unix sense predates graphical UI
> development.  It's called a directory because that's how it works,
> and how it looks when you examine it at a low level.
>
> [...]
> But the real problem with calling them "folders" is that it doesn't
> match the Unix user interface.  The command to make one is mkdir(1),
> not mkfolder.  To remove one, rmdir(1).  When you use "ls -l", a
> directory is indicated by the letter "d", not "f".  When you want
> find(1) to act upon directories, you use "-type d".  The "-type f"
> option is for regular files, not folders.  In C, you change directory
> by calling chdir(2).  In a shell, it's "cd".
>
I agree that

- cd : change directory
- pwd : print working directory
- mkdir : make directory
- ...

For those reasons, I call it "directory".



-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263073 — Re: How to compare one folder to one directory

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 03.11.2023 08:17, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Calling these things "folders" discards all of this history and
> knowledge.
>
> But the real problem with calling them "folders" is that it doesn't
> match the Unix user interface.
Personally, I don't see the problem, because I was talking to people not 
Unix user interfaces.
I can agree that word "directory" is more correct scientifically and 
word "folder" sound simplified, but
so does word "hammer" sound more simple than scientifically correct 
"hand tool for nail punching".
In the end both names mean the same thing and people will always 
interpret them correctly, which is the most important part.
And if I had to talk to Unix user interface I'd speak in system calls and
expected neither "directories" nor "folders" as answers, but data 
structures and return codes instead.

How is this still going?

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263074 — Re: How to compare one folder to one directory

Alexander V. Makartsev (12023-11-03):
> Personally, I don't see the problem, because I was talking to people not
> Unix user interfaces.

You talk TO people ABOUT Unix user interface.

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web