FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article >,
says...
>
> 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.

The ITU definition is IT specific and came about in the late '80s. The
"directory" as an organizational unit in a file system came about in
1969 at the latest, with the release of UNIX, but earlier systems of
which I am unaware may have had such a structure.

Also note that in Windows a "library" is different from a folder, in
that it's not part of the structure of the file system.