FWIW, not all file systems are trees
post
I always thought because it leads to a destination
And home is where the path starts
Or OP is right because root is at the base of the tree
well you see you build your tree home on a branch that comes off the root.
Is there a file system graph that's not a tree? Like a folder that contains a folder that contains itself?
I wonder is you could do some fun stuff with symbolic links and Russell's paradox.
Does object storage count? Those are usually identified by a single key; although I guess you could count cloud tenancy and buckets as “folders”
Wouldn’t same be the case for normal files systems? I think, technically, files on disk stored as flat structure plus tree structure which tracks physical files bytes location on the disk. Is there a file system which actually stores dirs/files data as tree? Adding something into folder would mean moving data of next folder to create “room” for new stuff
I've talked before about my old idea about a tag based file system but it is purely theoretical yet afaik. Basically it is an object database where it doesn't matter how you order the relevant tags. /a/b/file and /b/a/file are the same thing.
See the Wikipedia link in another comment about semantic filing systems seems like it is real.
Semantic file systems are very much not tree-shaped. The idea of a semantic file system is that files don't have a single parent or container, like a folder in a traditional hierarchical file system, and instead a file's location is represented by a combination of tags. As expected, you don't traverse a path to reach a file, but rather, you perform a query not unlike operators in a search engine.
all 17 comments