[feldrim]

This is an old solution to a problem that does not exist. Yes, in that case the file system can be a key-value store. It would eliminate the need for a tree structure. But the tree structure has a meaning: it adds context. The directories are containers of files that adds a semantic abstraction to the files within.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110228-00/?p=11...

[wlib]

Why do we impose hierarchy so much in file systems? We already allow hard and soft links, so it’s not even a tree anyways. Why not just allow any reference types you want; no name with extensions, but a set of tags. Why not identify files the same way a graph database query identifies nodes?

[sitharus]

Because hierarchical structures and names are easy to explain to most people. macOS has supported tagging for ages, but I’ve never seen it used extensively or as a complete alternative to tree structure.

[feldrim]

So you propose a graph database for data structures, without the persistence layer provided by the file system, right?

[dahfizz]

Relative paths are extremely useful. Every user gets their own .bashrc and they don't have to fully qualify it to open the file

[gglitch]

I’m with you on the directory tree, but like the idea of files having both names and unique, autogenerated IDs.

Edit: optionally having IDs.

[feldrim]

Windows allows you to have optional IDs.