Windows Longhorn and the concept of "sets"
What do you all think of the organizational structure that microsoft is implementing into Windows Longhorn discussed in this article.
They call them "sets", and I'm sure the concept isn't anything new. It seems to me like an elegant way to store and retrieve data, but obviously, I havn't had the chance to work with something like it, so I don't know how natural it would be to use.
Do you see this as something that may be implemented into any Linux distros in some form or another? Do you prefer the file organizational structure seen in every Linux distro today? Why?
I believe this touches on another issue that has been discussed on here as well, which is the awkwardness, at least to new users of Linux, of the default layout of the folders. The folders and filenames aren't exactly self-descriptive.
Making Linux appealing to home users seems to be a big drive in the Linux community nowadays, and I was just wondering how Longhorn affects your perspective on this.
They call them "sets", and I'm sure the concept isn't anything new. It seems to me like an elegant way to store and retrieve data, but obviously, I havn't had the chance to work with something like it, so I don't know how natural it would be to use.
Do you see this as something that may be implemented into any Linux distros in some form or another? Do you prefer the file organizational structure seen in every Linux distro today? Why?
I believe this touches on another issue that has been discussed on here as well, which is the awkwardness, at least to new users of Linux, of the default layout of the folders. The folders and filenames aren't exactly self-descriptive.
Making Linux appealing to home users seems to be a big drive in the Linux community nowadays, and I was just wondering how Longhorn affects your perspective on this.
