[adrianratnapala]

It's really worth thinking about the idea of not having filenames by default. They give a good example: if you take photos you don't want to name them, instead you want automatically collected metadata (like creation time) and some UI for easily searching by that metadata.

So it's basically a correct idea, but I want to know what is needed to make it work.

I remember the Palm Pilot tried to do this by pretending not to have files, and having "databases" instead. The result was that the palm-pilot database just became an obscure, inconvenient file format.

On the other hand, modern big giant internet storage service do a pretty good job of "freeing" you from filenames, letting you get photos, docs stuff.

On the other, other, hand, there might be something about the personal aspect of perkeep that makes it more like the palm-pilot.

[niftich]

'Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies' by Nayuki [1] (HN thread [2]) is an essay about such filename-less, tagging-based systems, covering prior art, technical background, and user experience. It's a thorough look at what has already been done, what works, what's clunky, and brainstorms about where we can still go.

[1] https://www.nayuki.io/page/designing-better-file-organizatio... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16763235

[joshka]

The reason for a filename is identity. This might be automatically assigned based on metadata (e.g. creator+date+index), but it's definitely necessary.

[adrianratnapala]

Right, so to be clear by "filename" I did mean something like "filename the user actually cares about".

Almost any database (including a filesystem) has a primary key, which can be thought of as a file-name. Filesystems are unusual in that ordinary users sometimes want to explicitly deal with the records (files) and their keys (names).