this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
106 points (95.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
725 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why not just use soft links instead?
Tags allow set operations (union, intersection, etc) that are impossible with a tree based file hierarchy, even when using softlinks.
For basic usage, sure, you could make a folder for every tag you make and softlink everything into that folder to make it have said tag. But what if you now want all files tagged as "rent" but that are not tagged to your current landlord? You'd have to get the list of files in the "rent" folder and subtract form that list the list of files in the "" folder.
If you make tags have an order I'd even argue they are strictly superior to a tree hierarchy. Edit: that means that there is not a single operation you can do in a tree hierarchy that you can not do with those ordered tags.
That's true, but since we're stuck with the file/folder system for all intents and purposes, you should be able to replicate that behaviour by making those tags part of the filenames (like rent_lease_landlordX.pdf) and searching for (parts of) filenames instead. But yes, a dedicated system would of course be preferable.
Are we stuck though? IMAP supports folders, but Gmail ignores that and uses tags instead.
The filename idea is not bad, but you restrict the ability to give your files meaningful names.
Sorry, I mistakenly assumed you were talking about disk storage - sure, if you're designing your own solution, definitely use tags! Although the ones Gmail uses aren't really portable in my experience, so you're forced to use their mail client. That, however, is pretty much unavoidable if you're putting a new spin on established protocols like they're doing - maybe those changes will get picked up by other clients, maybe they won't, who knows?
No worries.
For what it's worth, I think even for disk storage tags would be better - but we don't have a filesystem that supports it yet. As you rightly pointed out, widespread support is a prerequisite to widespread adoption.