LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-15-2013, 11:06 PM   #46
Kallaste
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2011
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 359

Rep: Reputation: 85

@suicidaleggroll: Why yes, I do think so personally. Puffery puffery puffery! Blasted puffery. Can't stand the stuff.

(Sorry, haven't slept in a while . . .)

Last edited by Kallaste; 08-15-2013 at 11:08 PM.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 12:00 AM   #47
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,647
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
Wouldn't the easiest solution be to just organize the filesystem better, rather than not organizing it at all and then relying on (as it was referred to earlier) an extra layer of puffery in the file manager to "fix it" for you?

I have millions of files that add up to over 3TB on my home system, and have absolutely zero need for a feature like this...because it's organized.
+1
I was tempted to mention this in an earlier post, but decided not to, in case the OP interpreted it as an insult, but I agree. I think it makes infinitely more sense to organise one's files in a coherent manner, than to have an extra feature that searches for similar files scattered around the file system. Which brings us back to Linux users having a different mind set than Windows and Apple users. Most Linux users prefer organising things the way we like them, while Windows and Apple users like the computer to do thinking for them. Whether photographs, music, movies, whatever, I make a directory for each category and divide each category into sub-directories. I would never have some photos in Photographs, some in Downloads and some in Desktop, which eliminates the usefulness of an umbrella directory search feature.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-16-2013, 12:06 AM   #48
Firerat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Debian Jessie / sid
Posts: 1,471

Rep: Reputation: 444Reputation: 444Reputation: 444Reputation: 444Reputation: 444
@Randicus Draco Albus

To be fair, Recusant did mention a network

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recusant View Post
When you're in a network, it's very useful being able to find 'videos' in 5 different paths with one click listing all of them.
but I would look at NAS for that
 
Old 08-16-2013, 01:07 AM   #49
Recusant
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Distribution: Neon (atm)
Posts: 44

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by haertig View Post
I think it just hit me ... what these "Windows 7 style libraries" might be. Are they like iTunes? Where you can have music files spread all over creation, and iTunes searches them out, stores location information in its database, and presents them to you via a GUI organized by something other that path-to-the-file? Organized by genre, organized by artist, organized by date added, etc.?

If this is indeed what you are looking for, sure, that would actually be a trivial application to write. If it hasn't been written yet, that's probably because the typical Linux user has no need/desire for that type of thing for generic file handling. Few people stick files into random directories with hopes of easily finding them later.
It's not really like that. It doesn't use any file metadata to filter results other than the path. You include or exclude paths as desired. Also, the GUI presents the location as the actual path. If i click into a folder that is in this library, my 'url bar' (whatever it is called) has the path the file is located.

At this point, thanks again to those who have provided some suggestions even if they're not the same, including a reminder to review my path structures.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-16-2013, 01:15 AM   #50
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,647
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firerat View Post
@Randicus Draco Albus

To be fair, Recusant did mention a network
but I would look at NAS for that
Good point. A cenralised listing of locations scattered across a network might be useful. Although, perhaps I am not astute enough, I cannot image storing files in such a manner.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 01:25 AM   #51
Captain Pinkeye
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Location: The Czech Republic
Posts: 280

Rep: Reputation: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
Wouldn't the easiest solution be to just organize the filesystem better, rather than not organizing it at all and then relying on (as it was referred to earlier) an extra layer of puffery in the file manager to "fix it" for you?

I have millions of files that add up to over 3TB on my home system, and have absolutely zero need for a feature like this...because it's organized.
"Suppose, you have three hard drives - sized 80, 40 and 60 GB. And 150 GB of music files, which you need to store on these drives. How would you do it?" In some cases, the library IS "organizing better", IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloomingNutria View Post
I and others have already explained why the majority of Linux users do not want this feature, although no one but you has couched it in such terms as "bad" and "wrong." It is a matter of mentality, expectations, and computer habits. If you do not understand what has been said, go back and read the thread again.
LOL what majority, you and three other guys? Some other users obviously want this feature, so they coded it and shared it - THAT is the core of Linux mentality, i hope.

This is so sad place sometimes, it's called LinuxQuestions, people are supposed to have questions and to ask them here so someone more experienced with Linux will answer them, but they will get rejected instead. And then the guys spend rest of the thread congratulating themselves how they were right and the question was stupid.

So what was the question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recusant View Post
The crux of the question is: I believe there is nothing like it in Linux - is there anything on the horizon in LinuxLand?
Yes, there is. If it works as you want, please mark the thread as solved.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 01:54 AM   #52
Recusant
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Distribution: Neon (atm)
Posts: 44

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus View Post
+1
I was tempted to mention this in an earlier post, but decided not to, in case the OP interpreted it as an insult, but I agree. I think it makes infinitely more sense to organise one's files in a coherent manner, than to have an extra feature that searches for similar files scattered around the file system. Which brings us back to Linux users having a different mind set than Windows and Apple users. Most Linux users prefer organising things the way we like them, while Windows and Apple users like the computer to do thinking for them. Whether photographs, music, movies, whatever, I make a directory for each category and divide each category into sub-directories. I would never have some photos in Photographs, some in Downloads and some in Desktop, which eliminates the usefulness of an umbrella directory search feature.
No, it's the intentionally trolling remarks about "Windows users..." that are insulting (by the way, i'm a computer user, not a Windows user, or i wouldn't be here tolerating comments like this:
Most Linux users prefer organising things the way we like them while Windows and Apple users like the computer to do thinking for them. whilst arguing that Libraries are silly because they help people (whether you personally like to or not) 'organise things the way they like them', whilst Linux users are stuck with or prefer to use the only practical option they have (that's an almost equally trolling retort). It's just a silly thing to say. You should just stop it.

Your description of an "umbrella directory search feature" misunderstands or poorly describes how Libraries in Win7 works.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 02:02 AM   #53
Kallaste
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2011
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 359

Rep: Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firerat View Post
@Randicus Draco Albus

To be fair, Recusant did mention a network



but I would look at NAS for that
Yes, that would be a logical plan. There are also union file systems like unionfs and aufs. Not sure they could be distributed over a network (maybe glusterfs, though, possibly?), but there might be something there. Even if it would be a bit like putting out a candle with a fire hose.

Not my choice and arguably not a good choice, but a choice.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 02:06 AM   #54
Recusant
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Distribution: Neon (atm)
Posts: 44

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Pinkeye View Post
So what was the question?

Yes, there is. If it works as you want, please mark the thread as solved.
I certainly have some pointers of where to look and what alternatives, similar and not are available for me to experiment with.

I think you're right, i'll mark it as solved at least until i've had a chance to investigate the various suggestions - including reorganising my files. If necessary i'll open a new thread, not mention Windows and just ask about some random feature as if i've never seen it before.

Thing is, you get used to doing things a certain way, and for the same reasons i didn't like or see a use for Libraries initially, i would like to continue to use them now.

They helped me solve an issue where i would have files in different places for a reason, eg:
D:\Videos [local editing, compressing, temp storage from PVR etc]
Laptop:\Videos [similar to above, usually a different user]
NAS\Videos [dlna share, for streaming]
NAS\Archive [where all the archived, read only (to most users) content is stored, including \Videos]
Smut\Videos [a secret direct link to smut deep inside the anus of my network where i would otherwise have to click several deep, with Libraries i don't and save my fingers for other duties.]

:P
 
Old 08-16-2013, 09:41 AM   #55
haertig
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Slackware, SysrescueCD, Raspbian
Posts: 2,165

Rep: Reputation: 334Reputation: 334Reputation: 334Reputation: 334
I wonder if some third party, like Google, has something useable for you? This sounds like the type of stuff that Google likes to do with browser add-ons, etc. Isn't their Picasso app something like this (albeit for photographs only I think)?
 
Old 08-16-2013, 10:36 AM   #56
TroN-0074
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: Michigan USA
Distribution: OpenSUSE 13.2 64bit-Gnome on ASUS U52F
Posts: 1,444

Rep: Reputation: 340Reputation: 340Reputation: 340Reputation: 340
Your best bet will be to explore different types of graphical interface (GUI). See what you are looking for is not a limitation of Linux per se; it is more of a desktop environment issue and each desktop deal with this kind of stuff differently.

As I had already mentioned start with KDE, and try other, you know like: Gnome, LXDE, Xfce. Enlightenment, mate, cinnamon, OpenBox, etc, etc. Each one of these have different file browsers and they handle that situation in multiple ways.

You can also read about file browsers and find out about virtual directories

Check out this threat from another forum http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/mis...rectories.html

Good luck to you

Last edited by TroN-0074; 08-16-2013 at 10:37 AM.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:03 AM   #57
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Walsall, England
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 1,915
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recusant View Post
You should just stop it.
Which is precisely what you should be doing...

I'm growing increasingly bored of users like you turning up on forums like this one and demanding a certain kind of answer from only certain users and accepting only those answers which meet with your preconceived ideas about GNU/Linux and computing in general - while whining about not having time to learn due to having a "real life", etc. If you don't have the time to learn because your time is so valuable, then GNU/Linux is not for you - use the OS which already has this great must have feature and stop wasting everyone's time...

I'm amazed you got as many useful responses as you did - considering your arrogant, demanding attitude and general aura of self importance and entitlement.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-16-2013, 11:38 AM   #58
suicidaleggroll
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 5,454

Rep: Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Pinkeye View Post
"Suppose, you have three hard drives - sized 80, 40 and 60 GB. And 150 GB of music files, which you need to store on these drives. How would you do it?" In some cases, the library IS "organizing better", IMHO.
Several options...

1) Combine the drives together using RAID or LVM so they act as one large drive. If you're going to be keeping the same kinds of files distributed across multiple drives, this is what should be done from the beginning.

2) Create one master music directory wherever you want it, and then symlink or bind mount the individual music directories from each drive into the master
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:40 AM   #59
suicidaleggroll
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 5,454

Rep: Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recusant View Post
I certainly have some pointers of where to look and what alternatives, similar and not are available for me to experiment with.

I think you're right, i'll mark it as solved at least until i've had a chance to investigate the various suggestions - including reorganising my files. If necessary i'll open a new thread, not mention Windows and just ask about some random feature as if i've never seen it before.

Thing is, you get used to doing things a certain way, and for the same reasons i didn't like or see a use for Libraries initially, i would like to continue to use them now.

They helped me solve an issue where i would have files in different places for a reason, eg:
D:\Videos [local editing, compressing, temp storage from PVR etc]
Laptop:\Videos [similar to above, usually a different user]
NAS\Videos [dlna share, for streaming]
NAS\Archive [where all the archived, read only (to most users) content is stored, including \Videos]
Smut\Videos [a secret direct link to smut deep inside the anus of my network where i would otherwise have to click several deep, with Libraries i don't and save my fingers for other duties.]

:P
Symbolic links would EASILY handle all of this for you, and from what I understand it would function exactly like your current setup does. You said in your OP that symlinks don't do what you need, but what you described here is exactly what they do. Maybe you just don't understand what symlinks are or how they work? Or maybe you could describe better what this Library setup does that symlinks can't, since you specifically said in your OP that they "simply don't cut it".

Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 08-16-2013 at 11:43 AM.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 12:11 PM   #60
haertig
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Slackware, SysrescueCD, Raspbian
Posts: 2,165

Rep: Reputation: 334Reputation: 334Reputation: 334Reputation: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll View Post
Or maybe you could describe better what this Library setup does that symlinks can't, since you specifically said in your OP that they "simply don't cut it".
I'm guessing that symlinks require command line to set up, you can't just go to a file browser GUI and click your want into symlink nirvana (at least I don't know anyway to do that - but admittedly, I seldom use a file browser and prefer command line).

After the symlinks are set up, it sounds like the result, when accessed through a GUI file browser, would be just what the OP wants. But it's the non-point-n-click setup that might be the problem for the OP.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Qt "cannot call constructor for""a function-style cast remove the redundant ::QBrush" Peterius Linux - Software 4 11-24-2010 04:57 PM
LXer: "A few more" versions of Linux Kernel 2.6.20 planned LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-15-2007 09:11 AM
LXer: Open Source, the only weapon against "planned obsolescence" LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-28-2007 09:16 PM
how do i get to a "Windows style" desktop screen in SuSE 9.1 xxvm1 Linux - Newbie 18 07-23-2004 11:17 PM
"Fast User Switching" (XP Style) in Linux... cedillo Linux - Newbie 3 12-18-2002 12:42 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration