«

In article <k74bfk$cj2$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:

> It's very odd. Microsoft wants to beat Google at search;
> they renamed Find to Search so that they could sell the
> [silly] idea of universal search that can look online and
> on-disk simultaneously.

actually, they stole it from apple, who had sherlock a few years before
xp came out.

> And they created the wasteful
> indexing service to expand the capability and speed. Yet
> they somehow managed to break the whole thing altogether.
> I haven't used Windows search for years.

i don't know about xp's indexing, but spotlight indexing on os x only
happens when the system first sees a disk. the initial scan is a very
minor cpu hit and doesn't last that long. after it's done, the index is
updated on the fly, with no additional indexing or cpu hit needed.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> The folder/file system is much the same. It's up to you to title and
> set up folders that aid you in future searches.

no it isn't, because you can't have a photo in more than one folder.

> Anyone with a lick of sense understands this. The computer doesn't
> figure things out for you. It follows the instructions you provide.

anyone with a lick of sense understands that keywording is vastly more
flexible. file/folder hierarchy is very rigid, which is why apps like
lightroom are so popular.

On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:26:43 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-11-03 21:33:00 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:27:18 -0700, nospam <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <>, tony cooper
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The folder/file system is much the same. It's up to you to title and
>>>> set up folders that aid you in future searches.
>>>
>>> no it isn't, because you can't have a photo in more than one folder.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>I think the confusion and talking at cross purposes is getting way too
>heavy to fully understand what each party is talking about.

The discussion has drifted to which system is better: a folder/file
hierarchy or a keyword system. It's no longer, in this part of the
thread, about anything to do with the OS.

Obviously, the "better" system is the one the user is comfortable with
and has the available software to use. There's no argument that a
keyword system for the retrieval of an image of a particular subject
is a good way to go. However, nospam has taken the position that a
user of a folder/file hierarchy "can't" store an image in more than
one folder.

This is patently untrue. Any number of duplicates of the image can be
placed in any number of folders. For retrieval purposes, it doesn't
make a difference if an image is a duplicate.

If the image is to be edited, it's better to retrieve a single image
in the keyword system because in a folder/file hierarchy the
duplicates would not be edited. However, that wasn't brought
up...only that you "can't have a photo in more than one folder".

Really, though, it's not a common practice to go through old images
and re-editing a bunch of them.

It's just another area where nospam is so insistent that what he
favors is the only viable choice that he ignores the ability of others
to work with their own system quite successfully.

Not being a user of Apple, I can't really fully grok your following
comments, but I assume that one can set up a folder/file system on a
Mac that is identical to what would be done on a PC. You might not
want to, but you could. The fair comparison to Eric's comments is
considering that a folder/file hierarchy is used regardless of the
machine's OS.


>There is a big difference in the way iOS handles files (in this
>discussion image files) when compared to the way software running on
>OSX or a Windows variant handles them ( ...and both Lightroom and
>iPhoto have their own peculiarities.)
>
>From what I have learned of iOS is, the primary storage for image files
>is either the "Camera Roll" or that odd version of the "Camera Roll",
>the "All Imports" album. From those two primary storage locations it is
>possible to populate other albums with "Virtual" copies or "aliases" of
>the original image files. Anything done to these virtual copies
>including removal, does not effect the originals in the "Camera Roll"
>or the "All Imports" locations.
>
>When it comes to a laptop or desktop running OSX or Win(x) we can with
>two exceptions save image files, and copies of image files to any
>location we choose, and that is regardless of what software we might be
>using, those two exceptions not withstanding.
>
>The exceptions, I am only going to address Lightroom. Image files are
>imported into LR and stored within the LR hierarchy. Adjustments can be
>made non-destructively to those image files, or a "Virtual" copy can be
>created to appear stacked with the original, and non-destructive
>adjustments can be made to that.
>If the LR user chooses to make further adjustments in another editor
>such as PS, PPS, DPP, GIMP, or whatever, they can open in that editor
>external to LR. They can open a copy with LR adjustment, a copy without
>LR adjustments, or the LR original (which might or might not have been
>adjusted in LR).
>
>At the point the external editing is complete, you have more options.
>You can save the finished image file back to LR where it will be
>stacked with the original and/or any virtual copies. This can be done
>for many different versions of that original.
>Typical labeling might be DNC_1234.dng, DNC_1234.dng(copy),
>DNC_1234.tif(edit 1) and there would be the additional tags 1of3, 2of3,
>3of3, etc.
>
>Naturally the externally edited file can be saved without thought to LR
>by "saving as" to any location you choose.
>
>So to conclude, in the iPhone or iPad there is only one original photo
>file, and that is found in the "Camera Roll or the "All Imports"
>albums/folders.
>
>Regarding OSX or Win(x) you can have as many damn copies of the same
>image file in as many folders as you choose, even if you are using LR,
>except if you are using LR exclusively. Even then you can export image
>files from LR to a designated folder which is usually found outside of
>the LR file hierarchy.
>
>>>
>>>> Anyone with a lick of sense understands this. The computer doesn't
>>>> figure things out for you. It follows the instructions you provide.
>>>
>>> anyone with a lick of sense understands that keywording is vastly more
>>> flexible. file/folder hierarchy is very rigid, which is why apps like
>>> lightroom are so popular.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Friday, November 2, 2012 2:20:33 PM UTC, nospam wrote:
> In article <435f1ff2-9b53-45bf-a523->,
>
> DanP <> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Now you tell me what I did wrong.
>
> > >
>
> > > choose linux for a desktop os.
>
> >
>
> > Is better than Windows.
>
>
>
> if by better, you mean lacking significant amounts of useful and very
>
> high quality software, including photoshop and lightroom. plus there's
>
> a lot more support for third party hardware, which come with mac and
>
> windows drivers only.
>
>
>
> that's not what i'd call better.

Who told you Linux does not run Photoshop and Lightroom?
http://wiki.winehq.org/AdobePhotoshop
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/d...etty-well.html

I use Digikam and Gimp and that is enough for me, so even if Photoshop and Lightroom were not running on Linux it would not stop me using it.

All my hardware is supported by the default Ubuntu install with the exception of my wireless printer but that has a driver made by the manufacturer.

After POST it takes 15 sec to boot (SSD on SATA I).

Have you ever had any kind of experience with Linux? Or was it Google who told you that nonsense?


DanP

| > It's very odd. Microsoft wants to beat Google at search;
| > they renamed Find to Search so that they could sell the
| > [silly] idea of universal search that can look online and
| > on-disk simultaneously.
|
| actually, they stole it from apple, who had sherlock a few years before
| xp came out.
|

I should have guessed that. The search appears in
a rectangular window, so I guess it had to have been
either stolen or licensed from Lord Jobs.

In article <k75pij$pvd$>, Mayayana
<> wrote:

> | > It's very odd. Microsoft wants to beat Google at search;
> | > they renamed Find to Search so that they could sell the
> | > [silly] idea of universal search that can look online and
> | > on-disk simultaneously.
> |
> | actually, they stole it from apple, who had sherlock a few years before
> | xp came out.
> |
>
> I should have guessed that. The search appears in
> a rectangular window, so I guess it had to have been
> either stolen or licensed from Lord Jobs.

that doesn't make any sense.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> The folder/file system is much the same. It's up to you to title and
> >> set up folders that aid you in future searches.
> >
> >no it isn't, because you can't have a photo in more than one folder.
>
> What? Of course you can.

no you can't. it's *not* possible for a file to be in more than one
folder. if you think otherwise, you are more ignorant than i thought.

> I happen to use FastStone as a viewer.

so?

> I can right click, copy to:, and direct that copy to another folder.

that's a *duplicate*.

that proves you can't have a file in more than one folder!! you have to
make a *copy* !!

hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

> I'm sure there are other ways to do it.

the only other way is to make aliases of the photos and put the aliases
in other folders. that is only slightly better than duplicate files.

> It can be done in Irfanview,
> for example as a save-as. With the storage devices we now use, two
> copies of an image doesn't create a problem.

sure it does. it doubles the size if you make two copies. it triples
the size if you make three copies. etc.

> For those of us who shoot RAW and then edit in PS, we're going to use
> the save-as function for all images. We can just save-as twice
> directing the second one to a different folder.

maybe you are, but those of us who know better use a photo management
app so none of this is necessary.

> Don't give me this "can't" bullshit.

it's not bullshit. you *can't* have a photo in multiple folders, which
*you* proved above!

what you're saying is make multiple copies and manage it yourself. that
isn't the same thing, and as i said, it becomes a management nightmare
very quickly, particularly when you want to edit photos. you have to
mirror the changes to the duplicates, assuming you even remember where
they all were.

> >> Anyone with a lick of sense understands this. The computer doesn't
> >> figure things out for you. It follows the instructions you provide.
> >
> >anyone with a lick of sense understands that keywording is vastly more
> >flexible. file/folder hierarchy is very rigid, which is why apps like
> >lightroom are so popular.
>
> Yeah, LR's a good system. It still requires that you provide the
> instructions for it to follow. It doesn't magically make decisions
> for you. LR can make it easier for some people, but a folder/file
> hierarchy works just fine for others.

only with small libraries. it quickly becomes unmanageable, like what
you describe above.

> I know how you operate. You are going to say I'm twisting your words
> because I exposed your "can't" as wrong (but that's what you said) and
> then you are going to natter on those extra keystrokes or extra
> seconds...considerations that aren't a problem to most people.

you didn't expose my can't as wrong. far from it. you exposed yourself
as ignorant about computers and file systems.

you also described something totally different and far *more* work.

the computer is there to *reduce* work, not add to it.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> The folder/file system is much the same. It's up to you to title and
> >> set up folders that aid you in future searches.
> >
> >no it isn't, because you can't have a photo in more than one folder.
>
> Why not?

because file systems don't support it.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >>>> The folder/file system is much the same. It's up to you to title and
> >>>> set up folders that aid you in future searches.
> >>>
> >>> no it isn't, because you can't have a photo in more than one folder.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> >I think the confusion and talking at cross purposes is getting way too
> >heavy to fully understand what each party is talking about.
>
> The discussion has drifted to which system is better: a folder/file
> hierarchy or a keyword system. It's no longer, in this part of the
> thread, about anything to do with the OS.
>
> Obviously, the "better" system is the one the user is comfortable with
> and has the available software to use. There's no argument that a
> keyword system for the retrieval of an image of a particular subject
> is a good way to go. However, nospam has taken the position that a
> user of a folder/file hierarchy "can't" store an image in more than
> one folder.
>
> This is patently untrue.

it's *very* true and anyone claiming otherwise is ignorant of file
systems and computers.

> Any number of duplicates of the image can be
> placed in any number of folders.

duplicates *proves* my point. the mere fact you have to duplicate it
proves you can't have a photo in more than one folder.

> For retrieval purposes, it doesn't
> make a difference if an image is a duplicate.

yes it can, if they're not kept in sync.

> If the image is to be edited, it's better to retrieve a single image
> in the keyword system because in a folder/file hierarchy the
> duplicates would not be edited.

exactly.

> However, that wasn't brought
> up...only that you "can't have a photo in more than one folder".

and that's exactly true, which you have confirmed!

> Really, though, it's not a common practice to go through old images
> and re-editing a bunch of them.

wow, talk about hypocrisy. you chastised me because i said that
deleting multiple photos directly on the ipad was not a common
practice.

now you make excuses about how it's not common to go through old images
and re-edit them, so no big deal if it's a lot of work to do it. that's
hilarious.

and actually going back to old images is not as rare as you might
think, since software gets better and those older images look better,
often without doing much of anything.

> It's just another area where nospam is so insistent that what he
> favors is the only viable choice that he ignores the ability of others
> to work with their own system quite successfully.

actually it's just you being a stubborn ignorant ass, ignoring that
there are much better ways than what you've been doing. you're stuck in
your ways.

> Not being a user of Apple, I can't really fully grok your following
> comments, but I assume that one can set up a folder/file system on a
> Mac that is identical to what would be done on a PC.

displaying your ignorance even further. you don't need to set up a
file/folder system on a mac. it's already there. in fact, the hard
drive might even be the same hard drive that windows computers use.

in any event, the point is to go *beyond* files/folders, since it's
primitive.

> You might not
> want to, but you could. The fair comparison to Eric's comments is
> considering that a folder/file hierarchy is used regardless of the
> machine's OS.

internally sure, but that doesn't matter. how the computer manages
stuff internally doesn't matter to the end user. users want to get
stuff done, not micromanage things.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >Really, though, it's not a common practice to go through old images
> >and re-editing a bunch of them.
>
> I have a number of old shots which would really be great if only I
> could get them right. Periodically I go back and have yet another try
> with one editor or another. I still have a number which I have yet to
> get right.
>
> I don't think I'm alone in this.

you're not, but don't tell tony that. his mind is made up.