Adding a note to a File Name?

[John]

On 2013-08-20 11:14 AM, John wrote:
[...]

But I'd like to know if my interpretations of "Library" are anywhere
near correct. As an indexing system*ONLY* they looked cool, but as a
file handling system they are messy and irrelevant.

Both an indexing and a file-handling system.

When you delete a folder within a library, the original folder is not
touched. When you delete an item within a folder within a library, that
item is deleted from its original location. AFAIK, That includes subfolders.

Fun, ain't it?

In a word: no.
It's the worst possible set of inconsistent behaviours. Well, maybe
not the worst *possible* but it's pretty nuts.
No, definitely *not* the worst possible. I just thought of several
ways this system could be "improved" to cause complete chaos. I am
sure you guys could think of a few more.

I am right, they are messy and irrelevant. There are *loads* of file
handling programs that act as "Explorer" add-ons or replacements that
are much better, and far more consistent than Microsoft's Libraries.
Luckily, even in W8, "Library" use is optional. I opt not to.
J.

Have a good one.

Thanks, you too. [I did have a good one on Monday, I got a tax
refund of several hundred whatzits. That's after getting paid
"Performance Related Pay" for a job I'd quit a year ago and more the
week before. I'm on a roll.] [I wonder if it's worth buying a lottery
ticket or if "runs" of good things three items long are a myth?]
J.

 

[Steve Hayes]

We have a national day?

July Fourth?

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, John.

I've always assumed the strange US order derives from when the month was
written out: August 17, 2013 isn't immediately obvious as illogical as
when it is given in figures. (Though oddly their national day is usually
spoken in a different order!)

We Americans speak of "The Fourth of July" just about as often as we call it
"July Fourth". ;^}

Which order do you regard as "different"?

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3508.0205) in Win8 Pro


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message

In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch

For Mick, yes, I was thinking more narrowly than I should have been. I
was ignoring the year and just thinking about month/day vs day/month in
the vernacular usage, e.g. 8/16/13 in the US and 16/08/13 in many other
places.

Not using two-digit years is is a first step. Then using ascending (EU
style, dd-mm-yyy) or descending (ISO, yyyy-mm-dd,, which has the
advantage it can continue into hh:mm:ss).

I've always assumed the strange US order derives from when the month was
written out: August 17, 2013 isn't immediately obvious as illogical as
when it is given in figures. (Though oddly their national day is usually
spoken in a different order!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"God give me work \ Till my life shall end \ And life \ Till my work is
done."
-
gravestone of Winifred Holtby, Yorkshire novelist

 

[Steve Hayes]

So, a "library" is just an index card with the names, dates, places
and descriptions of the files, like a paper index card in a paper
based Library?

Not quite.

Because if you delete the entry on the index card, the book won't disappear
from the shelf, whereas in Windows libraries, if you delete the index entry,
the file itself disappears. But if you try to copy the index entry, it won't
copy the file.

So libraries make files easier to find if you want to open them, but harder to
find if you want to back them up.

 

[John]

I think what you're missing is that managing the contents of Libraries via
Windows Explorer is no more dangerous than managing the contents of any
other folder. By that I mean that managing the contents of your Libraries
can be extremely dangerous, but managing the contents of a non-Library is
exactly as dangerous. Yet, we don't hear the same warnings. Weird.

Sorry if I sounded stern and unforgiving but I was only asking.

I honestly don't know why a relatively small number of people are so vocal
(and so stubborn) about their misconceptions. I would have thought that
enough time has elapsed for even the most stubborn to overcome their
misconceptions 100 times over by now. It's really not that hard.

I'm not one of those to whom you refer, surely? I admit to stubborn,
I can out-stubborn cats when I'm of a mind to but I only asked once
and only then because the posting seemed to contradict itself.
*I* don't care either way. Truly. I'm happy with my Windows Explorer
replacement and I've never seen a need for Libraries.
I know other people do. [See below].

For this example, the tables may have turned. I tried Irfanview for a few
months earlier this year and totally hated it. It didn't do what I wanted,
nor did it work as I wanted it to work. The difference is that I didn't warn
people to stay away from it.

Oh. You're the first person I've heard complain about IrfanView that
strenuously.
I just compared the version I'm using to the website. I have V 4.35,
the latest is V 4.36 so mine is relatively recent. It works fine on my
Win7, x64 box. There are things it doesn't do but if I need any of
those tools I can open up other image manipulators. For much of what I
do, IView suffices.
But if *any* program is poorly written or unusable perhaps we
*should* be warning people away from it. Not stridently like JW's
going door-to-door to spread the news but if someone asks for advice
on which programs are good.

IMHO, no, but my opinion surely won't sway you.

Why not? You obviously [see below] use Libraries more than I do, what
makes you think I'd ignore your experience, skills and knowledge? I
don't ignore anyone else's.
Your opinion on mayonnaise I'll dismiss as "personal taste, ignore"
but your skills with Microsoft softwares I can *learn* from.
Indeed, I rely on the kindness of people like your good self to help
when I get into sheep dit.

I use several Libraries dozens of times a day. I find them to be very
convenient and they work for me in a completely predictable way.

Cool. Thank you.

YMMV

Oh, I dunno about that. I won't *use* them because I've yet to find
any use for them but that doesn't mean I'm biased against them. I have
a very nice hammer I haven't used for years, no need to, but I don't
hate it, rail against it or consider it useless. I just have no need
for it at this moment.
The wife used the hammer more than I ever did. She put up calendars.
I saw little need for them, either, though the pictures were often
pretty.
Sorry if I pushed buttons by coming off as a technology-strangling
caveman, I'm really not.
J.

 

[John]

Not quite.

Because if you delete the entry on the index card, the book won't disappear
from the shelf, whereas in Windows libraries, if you delete the index entry,
the file itself disappears. But if you try to copy the index entry, it won't
copy the file.

That's how I thought it worked. The description immediately above
mine seems to contradict that, so I asked.
That delete-works-copy-doesn't is the kind of inconsistency I don't
like. If it's a filesystem manipulation tool, an Explorer extension,
it should do what Explorer does, all the time. If it's an "index card"
type of thing it should never do *anything* to the file.
Being halfway between the two is strange and messy and more dangerous
than Explorer itself.
It's more dangerous because when you are new to Libraries you may
expect one behaviour because that's all you've seen that far and it
may do strange, unexpected things. Programs should be tidier than
that.
Besides, it offends my sense of neatness.

So libraries make files easier to find if you want to open them, but harder to
find if you want to back them up.

Yes, I thought that, too, was so.
Only having played with them a little a while back and having seen
nothing there that Explorer and Explorer replacements can't do I gave
up on Library files. Maybe, had I persevered I would have grown to
love them. Chances are I'll never know.
Microsoft are bound to replace them with something even better [for
some values of "better"] in Windows-09.
J.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Yes, I thought that, too, was so.
Only having played with them a little a while back and having seen
nothing there that Explorer and Explorer replacements can't do I gave
up on Library files. Maybe, had I persevered I would have grown to
love them. Chances are I'll never know.

My take on it is that Libraries are for people who don't keep files
properly organised in folders, or if they do, can't remember where they
put them.

After a cursory glance I decided that libraries weren't for me. But I
think Microsoft was wrong to make libraries look like ordinary folders,
when they don't behave like ordinary folders.

 

[Wolf K]

On 2013-08-20 11:06 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
[...]

I say again, have you ever used Windows Explorer to view a Library folder? I
don't mean just reading and re-reading the Help file, but actually taking a
few seconds to experiment. It shouldn't take longer than that to figure out
the whole concept.

You state that Libraries are no more dangerous than using Explorer.
Exactly, and that's one reason I won't use them.

In any case, from by poking around inside libraries, and your report,
it's quite clear that Libraries are no real improvement over what I do:
Create folder trees ("filing system" if you can remember real file
cabinets with real folders and real paper files. ;-) When I first saw
Libraries, I'd already set up the folder trees on my (external) data
drives. Why would I duplicate them within a Library?

Then I saw a complaint, that a file deleted from a folder inside a
Library disappeared from its original location. IIRC, the poster had
decided to tweak the contents of the folder, and was deleting the ones
he didn't want _in the Library_. NB emphasis! He didn't want to get rid
of the file, he just didn't want it in the Library.

So I decided to investigate further. Things looked promising. It says
quite clearly that if put/create a folder in a Library, and then delete
it, the original folder is not deleted. Cool, I can see real
possibilities: All I have to do is drag stuff into the folder, add and
subtract items to suit my project as it develops, and never risk
deleting any of my precious data. But then I read that any item within
that folder will be deleted from its original location if deleted from
the Library. Good grief!

So I thought to myself, "This could be a really cool tool, but it's
been so badly designed that I'm going to stay away from it."

Libraries should be nothing but pointers. That would make them extremely
useful. I mean, wow! You could organise and reorganise the same data in
multiple ways for many different purposes without worrying that you were
losing the original files. I repeat: without worrying about the original
files. I'd happily use Libraries if they worked that way. But they
don't. Damn shame.

So, no Libraries for me. I'll continue with a data and a working
partition, and never, ever work on original files, only on copies.

Have a good one.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I clipped all the content, since I wasn't sure where to put this.

I'm one of the people that Char might think of as too dumb to adapt to
the inconsistencies of libraries, which might be a way of saying that I
agree with you that libraries as implemented in Windows 7 are dangerous.

Char and I never agreed, and I have largely stayed out of many later
threads on the issue, but let me say explicitly that I agree with you,
John.

I have not disabled libraries, since doing so seems to break a few
things in file open and save dialogs, but *I don't use them*.

I will now be quiet on the subject for a few more months

 

[Char Jackson]

I clipped all the content, since I wasn't sure where to put this.

I'm one of the people that Char might think of as too dumb to adapt to
the inconsistencies of libraries, which might be a way of saying that I
agree with you that libraries as implemented in Windows 7 are dangerous.

<snip>

Fairness point: I said too stubborn, not too dumb.

I guess everyone brings with them through their life certain notions about
how things should work. For me, Libraries are completely predictable and
quite useful, not dangerous in the least. Like I said in another post, I use
several Libraries dozens of times every day simply because for me doing so
is easier than not doing so. Libraries have made my computing life easier.

Besides the "it's dangerous!" mini-crowd, there's an even smaller secondary
mini-crowd that tries to make the point that Libraries are for people who
lack organizational skills. They, too, seem to have no idea what they're
talking about. Libraries make it easier to *access* files. They have no
effect on organizing or not.

Anyway, thanks for chiming in. I always enjoy your perspective on things.
(That sounds sarcastic, but it's not.)

 

[Char Jackson]

On 2013-08-20 11:06 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
[...]

I say again, have you ever used Windows Explorer to view a Library folder? I
don't mean just reading and re-reading the Help file, but actually taking a
few seconds to experiment. It shouldn't take longer than that to figure out
the whole concept.

You state that Libraries are no more dangerous than using Explorer.
Exactly, and that's one reason I won't use them.

Have you given up on all forms of file management, then? I suppose you must
have, since they are all inherently dangerous, to use your term.

In any case, from by poking around inside libraries, and your report,
it's quite clear that Libraries are no real improvement over what I do:
Create folder trees ("filing system" if you can remember real file
cabinets with real folders and real paper files. ;-) When I first saw
Libraries, I'd already set up the folder trees on my (external) data
drives. Why would I duplicate them within a Library?

I have never objected to the fact that you or anyone else chooses not to use
this feature. Use it or not, it's completely up to you. There are plenty of
features I don't use, as well. What I've always objected to is the fear
mongering, the FUD, that you and a few others continually spread. There's
simply no reason for it.

Then I saw a complaint, that a file deleted from a folder inside a
Library disappeared from its original location.
DUH!

Libraries should be nothing but pointers. That would make them extremely
useful.

I already find them to be useful. With the way that I use them, they would
become much less useful if they worked the way you want them to work.

So, no Libraries for me. I'll continue with a data and a working
partition, and never, ever work on original files, only on copies.

If you're truly working only on copies, never on originals, then your work
flow and my work flow have little in common.

 

[Char Jackson]

July Fourth?

Thanks. I think someone else offered the same guess. We call it Independence
Day, or July 4th, or the 4th of July, as examples, but I've never heard it
called national day.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

<snip>

Fairness point: I said too stubborn, not too dumb.

That's true, and I knew that. However, I wasn't quoting you, I was
ascribing a possible attitude to you - which is *really* unfair

I said above "Char might think of as too dumb". It would have been
fairer and clearer if I had italicized "/might/".

Since I avoid Libraries out of concern for their behavior, not out of
stubbornness, it is possibly more accurate to guess that you might think
of me as one of the dummies (and I'm not sure how to create a smiley big
enough for the preceding - and note that I'm amused, not sarcastic).

Anyway, thanks for chiming in. I always enjoy your perspective on things.
(That sounds sarcastic, but it's not.)

Thanks. It's good to know we can disagree peaceably...

I read and usually enjoy your posts, but I don't answer them all.
Sometimes I have little new to contribute, and with items like
libraries, there's no point in bugging you with stuff you've already
heard too often...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Libraries should be nothing but pointers. That would make them extremely
useful. I mean, wow! You could organise and reorganise the same data in
multiple ways for many different purposes without worrying that you were
losing the original files. I repeat: without worrying about the original
files. I'd happily use Libraries if they worked that way. But they
don't. Damn shame.

Sone software, such as camera manufacturers' software as provided with
their cameras, behaves like the above. I use those libraries to some
extent, but I avoid the Windows implementation because it's easy to make
a mistake by thinking it's a Library

I had some other experiences where files that were deleted were not the
files I though I had selected, but later I began to believe that it was
actually Windows Explorer, inside or outside of libraries, that did
that. For some odd reason, that got me started on hating libraries, but
when I came to realize it wasn't libraries that did that, I still didn't
switch over to the dark side.

 

[Steve Hayes]

Thanks. I think someone else offered the same guess. We call it Independence
Day, or July 4th, or the 4th of July, as examples, but I've never heard it
called national day.

Such days are called different things in different countries, but are
generally days on which people celebrate the founding of their country. In
South Africa we have Freedom Day on 27 April, which was the date of our first
democratic elections. Some countries are so old that no one can remember when
they were founded, though England has St George's Day and Ireland has St
Patrick's Day and Wales as St David's Day.

So the term "national day" covers them all, whether they celebrate
independence, freedom, or a favourite saint, though St George wasn't English
(he was Palestinian), and St Patrick wasn't Irish (he was British), but I
think St David was Welsh.

 

[Ken Springer]

On 8/20/13 8:45 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

Hi, Char,

I think what you're missing is that managing the contents of Libraries via
Windows Explorer is no more dangerous than managing the contents of any
other folder. By that I mean that managing the contents of your Libraries
can be extremely dangerous, but managing the contents of a non-Library is
exactly as dangerous. Yet, we don't hear the same warnings. Weird.

On the whole, I agree with you. But I think MS made things difficult
when they made Libraries folders work differently in a Library window
than other folders do when their respective folder windows are open.
People expect that the items that are displayed in a folder window to be
in that location, Location A, not some other location, Location B. But
with Libraries, Location A, they aren't. So, when you delete an item in
a Library, Location A, the actual file is in Location B and is deleted
from Location B. That doesn't happen any where else AFAIK.

I just read the Library help files on my new Win 7 machine, found them
poorly written, IMO.

I honestly don't know why a relatively small number of people are so vocal
(and so stubborn) about their misconceptions. I would have thought that
enough time has elapsed for even the most stubborn to overcome their
misconceptions 100 times over by now. It's really not that hard.

I think you, I, and other computer users here expect more from the
average computer user in their desire to know more about how computers
work, and we are constantly disappointed in this regard.

<snip>

When I first saw the word Libraries in Win 7, I expected them to more
closely emulate how a real library functions, after a brief reading of
the description of a library. And, they don't. :-(

But I found a workaround to make Libraries function the way I wish they
would have, out of the box. I think I posted how I did this some time
back. And after figuring this out, I came to the conclusion that
Libraries are really nothing new in function. I can create the same
basic idea of a library all the way back to Windows for Workgroups. But
you do have a few more ways to view a folder's contents than you had
back then.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Steve Hayes]

On 8/20/13 8:45 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

Hi, Char,


On the whole, I agree with you. But I think MS made things difficult
when they made Libraries folders work differently in a Library window
than other folders do when their respective folder windows are open.
People expect that the items that are displayed in a folder window to be
in that location, Location A, not some other location, Location B. But
with Libraries, Location A, they aren't. So, when you delete an item in
a Library, Location A, the actual file is in Location B and is deleted
from Location B. That doesn't happen any where else AFAIK.

Perhaps when they introduced "folders" people took them as just another name
for "directories", but the definition of a folder is an object that contains
other object, and it is not necessarily a directory. Some folders are
directories, and behave like directories, but others are not.

 

[Wolf K]

Perhaps when [MS] introduced "folders" people took them as just another name
for "directories", but the definition of a folder is an object that contains
other object, and it is not necessarily a directory. Some folders are
directories, and behave like directories, but others are not.

I don' think that's a clear explanation. AIUI, an Object is a
programming element that accepts some input(s) and provides some
output(s). From the user's POV, a well tested Object is a chunk of code
that functions like a black box. I can see programming a directory as an
Object, but I don't know whether that's how folders are actually
implemented in Explorer.

In any case, how Explorer implements folders is irrelevant, since
functionally, folders in Explorer are directories: they are lists of
files, including files which are themselves lists of files, aka
subdirectories or sub-folders. And so on, nesting as many levels as you
like to some limit built into the OS.

The fact that "folder" is used for other kinds of objects is IMO A Very
Bad Idea, and not only MS is guilty of this, viz. the "folders" in
Thunderbird. Only if the folder has subfolders is it an actual folder
(directory). The lowest level in any TB folder tree is a dual file, one
containing the messages, and the other an index to those messages.

I suspect that "folder" was originally used because a) it's shorter and
easier to say than "directory"; and b) it reminded the users of file
folders, the actual physical objects they were used to. The metaphor
worked, IOW. But since then, things have gotten messy. Bah!

Have good one,

 

[Ken Springer]

Perhaps when they introduced "folders" people took them as just another name
for "directories", but the definition of a folder is an object that contains
other object, and it is not necessarily a directory. Some folders are
directories, and behave like directories, but others are not.

Other than the library folders, which other folders are equivalent to
directories? Restrict the use of the word folder to the OS only, not
as Thunderbird uses them, or similar, as noted in another message in
this thread.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Ken Springer]

Sorry, the OP in this thread made no mention of Libraries at all. You may be
thinking of another thread.


I disagree. A very small number of people, (the same people over and over),
have expressed this misconception.


Translation: You were acknowledging that you share that misconception and to
date have been unable to overcome it. Am I right?


Likewise, I stand by my opinion of your warning. I think it's ridiculous.


I have been using Libraries successfully for a very long time now. What
would you like to know?


Your explanation/description of Libraries demonstrates some serious
misconceptions. No wonder you're having problems.


Have you ever used Windows Explorer on a non-Library folder? Were you
equally confused? While I'm at it, have you ever used Windows Explorer on a
Library folder? It should have taken less than a minute to figure out how
they work.


I say again, have you ever used Windows Explorer to view a Library folder? I
don't mean just reading and re-reading the Help file, but actually taking a
few seconds to experiment. It shouldn't take longer than that to figure out
the whole concept.

I've read and reread this post more times than I have fingers and toes,
and I'm totally befuddled and confused as to how you view Libraries and
what they actually contain. LOL

Would you mind describing what you think the contents of a Library
folder are? Actual folders/files? Copies of folders/files? Shortcuts
to files/folders? Something else?

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04