this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
1017 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59207 readers
2520 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Q. Is this really as harmful as you think?

A. Go to your parents house, your grandparents house etc and look at their Windows PC, look at the installed software in the past year, and try to use the device. Run some antivirus scans. There’s no way this implementation doesn’t end in tears — there’s a reason there’s a trillion dollar security industry, and that most problems revolve around malware and endpoints.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 102 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (29 children)

It's encrypted; the author is pointing out that it has to be decrypted to be used, and then the data can be obtained.

Security and privacy concerns aside, I saw someone commenting on the use case, asking who would ever want something like this.

One problem I hadn't appreciated for a long time was that some people apparently have real problems with dealing with the Windows UI in terms of file access. They don't know where their data is being saved. This, in my opinion, is in significant part a Microsoft UI problem induced by various virtual interfaces being slapped on top of the filesystem ("Desktop", "My Documents", application save directories, etc) to try to patch over the issue that the filesystem layout was kinda organically-designed in a kind of cryptic way back in the day.

But if you can remember a snippet of text in what you were working on, you can find that thing again even if you have no idea where you stored it. Like, it's content-keyed file access.

That's not very useful to a techie. They know how to navigate their system's filesystem, and even if they lose track of a particular thing, they know how to use the system's filesystem search tools to search for filenames or content. They can search for recently-modified files. They know how to generally get ahold of stuff.

But for the people who can't do that, reducing their interface to a single search box might make file access more approachable.

Now, let me reiterate that I think that a whole lot of this is Microsoft repeatedly patching over UI problems they created in the past rather than fixing them. And they've done this before over the decades with stuff other than document access. It's hard to navigate the filesystem to find an installed program a la the MS-DOS era, so they stick stuff in a Start Menu to make it more accessible. That gets too crowded, installers start slapping shortcuts on the desktop. That gets too crowded, installers start adding system tray icons. That gets too crowded, the Start Menu becomes searchable. Each interface just becomes progressively less-usable and the solution each time is to stick a new interface in on top of the old one, which in turn contributes to the complexity of the system as a whole.

But that doesn't mean that they aren't trying to address a real problem.

I think that they'd do better with something like having a rapidly-accessible log of recently-accessed files (like, maybe have the filesystem maintain a time-based doubly-linked list of those) and be able to rapidly search the content of documents based on mod time so that recent stuff gets hit quickly, then trying to make their existing search tools more accessible. That doesn't replicate data across the system and produce some of the problems here. It also permits for fully-searching content, rather than just the stuff that was on a screen when the Recall system grabbed a screenshot and OCRed it. Maybe they've done something like that in recent years; I'm many years out-of-date on Windows.

I'd also add that I think that personal computer systems in general would benefit from giving users better control over where their data is replicated to. It's kind of confusing...you've got swap (well, encrypted swap probably helps somewhat with this). Browser history. Any clipboard manager's retention. Credentials stores. Application-saved copies of in-progress files. Various caches. If you use some kind of cloud-based storage, you're pushing data out to other computers. Backups. Just a lot of state that can be replicated all over the place and is hard to go back and track down and remove. That's even before stuff like issues with doing secure deletion on existing filesystems (which we had a conversation about the other day, everything from log-structured filesystems to wear-leveling on SSDs inducing data replication). If you want something definitely gone, be able to manage your data's lifetime, something that I think that a lot of people -- even non-techies -- would like, you really have to have a lot of technical knowledge of the system's internals as things stand today. This Recall thing is egregious, replicates data all over, but it's far from the first feature that makes it harder for people to understand and control the lifetime of data on their computer.

I don't think that the software world has done a great job of letting people control that data lifetime. And I think that it's something that a user should reasonably be able to expect out of their computer.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (18 children)

There was an article going around a while ago that was arguing most users these days, including the youth we often stereotype as "digital natives" who "get computers", don't understand file systems. They might not even know they exist as a concept.

Which makes sense if you've only ever really used modern UIs. You don't have to know anything about files and folders. I bet a lot of people don't even know they exist in any meaningful way.

Most users are shockingly ignorant, and a lot of them are not really paying enough attention or interested enough to learn much.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I remember reading an article a few years back about physics undergraduates who didnt know how to use a computers file system. They could learn, but these are smart likely at least fairly tech inclined kids and they didnt know how to navigate folders on a computer at 18.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

When I studied Computer Engineering, I met several other students who had a lot of trouble using the Windows file system, and navigating a file system through a terminal was a Herculean task for them.

Most people growing up now, and since over a decade ago, are only tech savvy in the sense they know how to use smartphones, tablets, and social media; none of those require any understanding of file systems, and even using desktops doesn't really require it that much for most people.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m simply baffled that someone going into a computer engineering major at a university doesn’t understand a hierarchical file system as a matter of course. It’s a tree. The file system is a tree. A tree is one of the most basic computer science logical constructs. How exactly is a filesystem confusing? How is navigating directories from a terminal - any terminal, in any OS - a Herculean task?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Someone going into the subject may not have any pre-existing knowledge of the subject (like what a tree is) and may be intending to learn it from their classes. Unless we require everyone to take a class that covers it first, you can't really guarantee that people have that knowledge. While people may have known it by necessity before, computers, for better or worse, have gotten easier to use for the average person and it's no longer essential knowledge. Or they may not have even be using a traditional desktop/laptop OS that has those concepts.

As for how it's confusing, have you seen the default UI for Google Docs/Sheets/Drive or Microsoft Office recently? Google's products default to a file view listed in most recently used order with a search bar at the top, no folders. The Microsoft Office suite defaults to saving to OneDrive without any folders. If this is all people have needed to use when growing up, is it any wonder why they never learned about hierarchical folders in a filesystem?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I can use file systems on terminal with my eyes closed, as long as it's not windows because every release they change everything around. You're victimising the victims.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Eh? Nothing significant has changed about the windows file system in over a decade, at least not from a user standpoint.

Most people don’t need to muck about in ProgramData, Program Files vs Program Files (x86) is pretty minimal, though admittedly you may need to check both if you’re unsure which the app you’re using is. I suppose %appdata% has changed, and one could argue it was significant, but in all honesty the concept of local vs remote should get you where you’re going, and worst case you check both.

But the base directory structure has been pretty static for a long while now.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Makes sense, I haven't booted windows since 2013 and couldn't be happier

I still stand by my statement: windows filesystem changes too often.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)