If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , Ron C
writes: [] How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes. Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging. But that encourages the thought that each level is _different_ to the one above. Which I fear a lot of newbies think anyway. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/5/2018 5:22 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ron C writes: [] How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes. Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging. But that encourages the thought that each level is _different_ to the one above. Which I fear a lot of newbies think anyway. Label your rooms properly/logically and what goes in that room should follow. You don't put your car in the bathroom .. etc. Then too, my "logical" hierarchy may seem totally illogical to you. [YMMV] -- == Later... Ron C == |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
J. P.
My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*. Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other folders). *binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which equate to sectors. Regards, Rudy Wieser "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message ... In message , Ken Springer writes: Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've been down for like 3 days. Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL I would too (-: On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: [] Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_. Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and would like to do one for Linux someday. You can see the charts he https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0 For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any. Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level, which you say is what you were trying to convey. My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , R.Wieser
writes: J. P. My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*. Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other folders). *binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which equate to sectors. [] Not a bad analogy. I might use it. Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away from the idea of size altogether - but there's nothing in the real world that does. Mandelbrot graphics, perhaps, but they're not a common concept either. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I am entitled to my own opinion." "Yes, but it's your constant assumption that everyone else is also that's so annoying." - Vila & Avon |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
J. P. ,
Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away from the idea of size altogether - but there's nothing in the real world that does. Yes, that was something going thru my mind too. Thats why I suggested cardboard boxes, as they are quite common, already come in all kinds of sizes, and are regarded as "just boxes" (read: fully interchangable, even size wise). Also, the "plain" was intentional (even if you're not using physical boxes): when you cannot distinguish the "parent" box from the current one or from a "child" box (other than by size perhaps) than they tend to blend together in a persons mind as a single thing, just present multiple times. But if you want to circumvent the size problem altogether*, why not leave the real world and enter a magical one ? One where a "bottomless" pouch exists in which you can put gems (the files) and other pouches (the folders) - which themselves are ofcourse bottomles too. Will probably go down well with *at least* the harry potter crowd. :-) (might kick some (deeply) religious ones against the shins though, so be carefull where you use it). Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , R.Wieser
writes: J. P. , Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away from the idea of size altogether - but there's nothing in the real world that does. Yes, that was something going thru my mind too. Thats why I suggested cardboard boxes, as they are quite common, already come in all kinds of sizes, and are regarded as "just boxes" (read: fully interchangable, even size wise). Also, the "plain" was intentional (even if you're not using physical boxes): when you cannot distinguish the "parent" box from the current one or from a "child" box (other than by size perhaps) than they tend to blend together in a persons mind as a single thing, just present multiple times. But if you want to circumvent the size problem altogether*, why not leave the real world and enter a magical one ? One where a "bottomless" pouch exists in which you can put gems (the files) and other pouches (the folders) - which themselves are ofcourse bottomles too. Will probably go down well with *at least* the harry potter crowd. :-) (might kick some (deeply) religious ones against the shins though, so be carefull where you use it). More good thoughts! And pouches within pouches is just as graspable. Regards, Rudy Wieser Did the * after "altogether" link to something you forgot to add (-:? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
J.P. ,
Did the * after "altogether" link to something you forgot to add (-:? More likely it got removed when I rewrote that sentence ... but forgot to also remove the marker. :-( Ah, now I remember. It was about needing to be carefull about your "no size constraints" request, as most of the this-world storage media are in fact really quite limited. :-p The cardboard boxes and a transport truck analogy popped into my mind. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/6/18 1:54 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
J. P. My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*. Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other folders). *binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which equate to sectors. GMTA!!! I do a little tutoring on learning the basics of the computer, and am putting together a "visual aid" for just this. But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal with the bulk of binders. Regards, Rudy Wieser "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message ... In message , Ken Springer writes: Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've been down for like 3 days. Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL I would too (-: On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: [] Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_. Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and would like to do one for Linux someday. You can see the charts he https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0 For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any. Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level, which you say is what you were trying to convey. My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
Ken,
GMTA!!! I do a little tutoring on learning the basics of the computer, and am putting together a "visual aid" for just this. Pretty much the same here, though directed at kids wanting to write programs. I've never actually made something like that to actually *look* at though, mostly trying to get them to visualize it was enough. But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal with the bulk of binders. I myself like the concept of binders: You identify the containing papers by the name on the front of the binder, and (normally) can replace that name without messing with the contents. It also allows you to easily replace a sheet anywhere you like. The binder itself also represents the sector linkage list as present in the FAT. When you lose it the sheets are still there, but will be hard to find back and handle. .... than again, I tended to explain the whole drive format structure. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" "I'm aging like fine wine: I'm getting fruitier and more complex" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
Rudy,
On 3/8/18 12:52 AM, R.Wieser wrote: ... than again, I tended to explain the whole drive format structure.:-) Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or even more in depth? -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
Ken,
Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or even more in depth? Well, I've got little to go on to be certain about that. All you (seem to) have said about it is "But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal with the bulk of binders." ... But there certainly is a possibility. At some point I often explained the functioning of the BR, partitions and the MBR too (mostly as a result of the advice to keep the OS and the users own data on seperate "drives"). Sometimes the act of data recovery (undeleting files) also came in to take a bow, and with it how you can have all the data/sectors, but due to the loss of the "binders" cannot access it in any meaningfull way anymore (quick format). Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
Wolf,
Nice analogy. Mind if I steal it? :-) .... Damn! I know I forgot something: To copyright it so noone can use it in my lifetime +70 years (IIRC). But go ahead ofcourse. Thank you for mentioning you find it good enough to use. Always nice to hear. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/8/18 3:42 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
Ken, Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or even more in depth? Well, I've got little to go on to be certain about that. All you (seem to) have said about it is "But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal with the bulk of binders." ... A cardboard box, trimmed in height to let the file folders stick out the top. 3 file folders standing in the box, A, B, and C. Inside folder A, more folders, say A1, A2, and A3. In folder A1 is A1a, A1b, A1c. Inside folder A will be some paper stapled together to represent a single file/document, but it is not inside folder A1. Or, 3 or 4 bunches of paper, each representing a file/document. And so on. Does that make more sense? But there certainly is a possibility. At some point I often explained the functioning of the BR, partitions and the MBR too (mostly as a result of the advice to keep the OS and the users own data on seperate "drives"). Sometimes the act of data recovery (undeleting files) also came in to take a bow, and with it how you can have all the data/sectors, but due to the loss of the "binders" cannot access it in any meaningfull way anymore (quick format). Binders=boot record??? When I read binders, my mind with straight to 3 ring binders. That was making no sense. LOL That's a bit more detailed than I usually go, unless it seems the individual will easily grasp it at that point. But I also recommend the user have their data on different partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route. But with 1TB drives, and laptops usually only having 1 drive bay, another drive is usually not a viable solution for laptop owners. They don't want to drag that crap around! LOL Ken Blake and I disagree on the idea of partitioning of the same drive, but you can only work with what you have and what the owner is willing to do. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
Ken,
A cardboard box, trimmed [snip] We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport vehicle). Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-) Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that. Does that make more sense? Yes, it does. I hope your story includes storage shelves though (but as representation for what ?), as I would not want to see those stacked. :-) (have seen them stacked in real life, and you don't want to need to search in there. :-\ ) Binders=boot record??? In my explanation ? Nope, not really. The boot record is followed by a File Allocation Table (FAT for short), which is used to indicate which sectors (sheets) belong to which binder (file) (and ofcourse which sectors are still free, but thats thats not part of our visualisation). While in the computer the name of a file is present in the folder structure, it only contains an index to the first-used sector (or cluster actually) of a file. With it you need to look into the FAT to find the next one. (My apologies this already known to you). When I read binders, my mind with straight to 3 ring binders. Yes, that where *exactly* the ones that I ment (well, I always imagine the 18-ring ones, as those kept my papers whole, even when I mistreated them :-) ) But I also recommend the user have their data on different partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route. Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it would be silly to use two of them. Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical drives would be (for a single-OS configuration). Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , R.Wieser
writes: Ken, A cardboard box, trimmed [snip] We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport vehicle). Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-) Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that. You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to do. [] But I also recommend the user have their data on different partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route. Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it would be silly to use two of them. I think this is for a whole different level of user to the ones we're discussing above as far as understanding the basic file/older concepts is concerned, but I will still always keep OS-and-software on a different partition (or drive) to my data, but nowadays not mostly for size reasons, but instead because I don't want anything which scrambles the OS partition to (have _too_ much chance to) scramble the data one. (There is still _some_ size aspect, in that I _image_ my OS-and-software partition [and any hidden ones], so I can restore them in the event of disaster [disc failure, ransomware, or some "update" or similar rendering the system unbootable], but just _sync_ my data partition - and keeping them separate makes the imaging process faster, so I'm more likely to do it more often.) Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical drives would be (for a single-OS configuration). See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar. In the event of anything other than ransomware (such as disc death), restoring the OS alone from image will restore access to the data without having to restore _that_. Regards, Rudy Wieser John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We shall never - never! - allow foreigners to run our economy. They might cure it. (George Mikes, "How to be Decadent" [1977].) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|