On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:21:20 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:19:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> > Businesses have been storing documents and the like in folders for a
>> > couple of centuries. Long before any computer
>> > owners/builders/programmers have been alive. Why change it now?
>>
>> Because they don't actually fold? Because they are hierarchical ?
>> Because 'directory' was more commonly used at first, why change it ?
>>
>> Either name doesn't make much sense. All the names I've seen in use
>> (directory, library, folder, UFD) are existing words retro-fitted to
>> describe a new concept. If any renaming was called for, using something
>> sensible like 'container' for folder and 'dataset' for file would have
>> been better.
>
> The thing is, now "directory" has another meaning, and we can't blame
> Microsoft for it, ITU came up with the standard.

ITU (like IT) added yet another meaning to an existing word (according to
M-W 'First known use of directory: 15th century' - well before 1865). And
I'm fairly sure that ITU usage pre-dates IT usage anyway.

Still, 'directory' is technically more correct (in most filesystems, the
directory only contains a pointer to where a file is stored or where to
find that information, it doesn't store the file itself). Most users don't
get that concept, nor do they need to for their daily tasks. That is why
things like 'folder' or 'library' started gaining traction.

-j