Report suggests many Gen Z students do not know how to use a basic file directory

[Spindel]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

What CLI were you using, dr dos, MS dos and GNU linux all have tree commands to view entire dir structure.

Sorry I don't know what you are talking about this "dir" thing, I only know "ls" or "lst"...  

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's literally boxes within a box thing. How detached are you from reality if you can't grasp that and apply it to a virtual thing?

 

@LAwLz

commandline display of folders was dumb when I was using DOS and it's dumb today when using CLI in Windows or Linux. Typing "dir" million times to display folder structure after entering each folder to get a more visual representation was nothing uncommon. But that's just because CLI only shows you one line at a time.

"Wow these people who don't know this thing I know sure are dumb. obviously they should know that thing.".

"Oh wait, it was actually about something I don't know either? Then it's perfectly understandable that they don't know that. That thing is dumb and we don't need to know that".

 

Also, you do know that you can run commands recursively, right? You don't actually have to type "dir" in every folder. You can do it once and get the full tree structure. There is even a command called "tree" for it.

Maybe it's not the computer that is "dumb" but rather you not being familiar with the tools?

 

Also, not even MS-DOS only displayed one line at a time. You're misremembering things. I can prove it to you if you want by installing MS-DOS in a VM and run the dir command. It will display more than one line.

[Spindel]

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's literally boxes within a box thing. How detached are you from reality if you can't grasp that and apply it to a virtual thing?

No it actually is just a bunch of files randomly spread out over in example a HDD with a TOC with a strict hierarchy. 

 

As I stated in an earlier post to reach a file currently you might have to type:

Quote

/Users/spindelwhichisnotmyrealusernameonthiscomputer/importantworkstuff/projects/customers/shopify/sales 2020.csv

 

While a metadata based non fixed hierarchy the same command might be:

Quote

"shopify" "sales" "2020" "csv" 

How is it so hard to grasp that there might be a way to reach the data you want without having to write a long ass fixed hierarchy command instead of just typing what you are after. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Spindel said:

How is it so hard to grasp that there might be a way to reach the data you want without having to write a long ass fixed hierarchy command instead of just typing what you are after. 

It'd be hard as believing you had to type out the URL entirely (even using the www prefix) and not a shortcut or autofill for every website you visit.

[emzyk1990]

ahhhhh....sighes....ahhhhh, this is concerning...

[Dracarris]

On 9/23/2021 at 9:18 AM, Spindel said:

iTunes/Music was/is built on the principle that you do not need to arrange your music collection into a folder structure (as I described in my previous post). You just dump ALL of your music files into one place. In iTunes/music you set metadata to each song like genre/artist/writer/album/year/producer etc. Depending on what metadata you've given you can easily sort out what you want to either import to your iPod or just listen for the day. 

Well except that the actual media could still stored in a classical folder structure and the database was simply built on top on that with a pointer to the file location that you could even modify from within iTunes. Having a meta data based library does not exclude the other. It worked fine on PC/Mac so there is not really an excuse for it to not work on mobile devices. The corresponding app could just have a button to rescan the media folder and update its database.

[Akolyte]

Perfect example of you don't use it, you lose it.  Or in this case, if you never need to do it, you never learn.

 

As we've made technology easier and more automated, which is a good thing - the consequence is people new to technology don't need to learn these concepts.

 

Will that go for everyone?  No.   I'm sure there will be Gen Z's who are passionate about computers and technology, but I would be surprised if their interest wasn't at a higher level. 

 

If you start in IT today, you will probably learn about deploying distributed applications to the cloud, whereas all of that underlying knowledge of computers that we had to learn before that just won't be needed - installing, racking, networking, configuring a hypervisor, deploying virtual machines, designing networks and platforms, and finally installing a platform like Kubernetes and deploying to that.

 

Even then, people who started earlier than me would know even deeper technologies.

 

This post has scared me into not going the easy route again...

[Spindel]

37 minutes ago, Akolyte said:

Will that go for everyone?  No.   I'm sure there will be Gen Z's who are passionate about computers and technology, but I would be surprised if their interest wasn't at a higher level. 

 

If you start in IT today, you will probably learn about deploying distributed applications to the cloud, whereas all of that underlying knowledge of computers that we had to learn before that just won't be needed - installing, racking, networking, configuring a hypervisor, deploying virtual machines, designing networks and platforms, and finally installing a platform like Kubernetes and deploying to that.

 

I like to cook, but do I really need to know how my induction stove works other than that turning the knobs heats up my pans (as long it's the right type of pan)?

 

Your example is a bit toward that kind of reasoning. 

[StDragon]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

commandline display of folders was dumb when I was using DOS and it's dumb today when using CLI in Windows or Linux. Typing "dir" million times to display folder structure after entering each folder to get a more visual representation was nothing uncommon. But that's just because CLI only shows you one line at a time.

Directory navigation in DOS became so annoying that XTree Gold became the only viable method worth using.

[glowinthedark]

I, for one, think this is good. As my skills become more in demand I can charge more for the same service. If someone wants to hire an expert for assistance because they refuse to learn how to use a device, that's their own problem. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Akolyte said:

Perfect example of you don't use it, you lose it.  Or in this case, if you never need to do it, you never learn.

 

 

You can also add that if you don't keep up with it,  it changes so much you are practically learning from the start again.

 

I studied EE in the early 90's, I specialized in audio electronics. Back then we did everything on paper with calculators.  After a 20 year break I have gone back into the design side and, stump me, is the learning curve worse now than before.  Before you had to understand how circuits worked and how to allow for tolerances, noise, leakage etc.  Nowadays you you don't, instead you learn how to program spice software and that does all the simulation for you.    I swear it was easier for me to learn how well components worked than it is to learn one for these newer spice programs.

 

 

Same with audio,  the number of self professing audio aficionados that don't understand speaker impedance let alone how sound works is mind blowing.  It looks like a lot of them have learnt using all these new calculator apps you can find online and so just made up a reason for the answer.  

 

If the younger generations haven't seen or been shown how file systems work at any level, then it is of little surprise this is happening.

 

 

[aom]

13 hours ago, StDragon said:

You don't understand because you're probably not American, or have been in America that long.

Here, let me tell you the cold hard factual reality of it - The problem isn't the curriculum. The problem is cultural; it's the lack of parental oversite of their own children. You know, being involved with the progress of their education (subject matter, teachers, grades, etc). Also being involved in what their children do online and the type of friends they associate with (smoke dope, drink, or maybe they volunteer with the local community??).

When parents act like children themselves, what the hell do you think the outcome of their children is going to be like?

While I'm giving you a rather extreme example that borderlines on hyperbole, I'm also not too far of the mark either. I'm an American, trust me, I know.

 

#feeling savage

Was the first part really necessary? Im born and raised in America thank you very much. 

 

And my comment was specifically on failure of the school system itself. I agree with your point completely, but I just want to make the distinction between the education system and parenting.

 

A school will never be able to instill the value of education into students by itself nor enforce it like a parent can. That's a inherent limitation not a failure. Not being active in your child's education is a failure of the parent.

[JZStudios]

On 9/22/2021 at 11:15 PM, aramini said:

I do not like this trend. Doing any major file manipulation on smartphone/tablet is a PITA. Big tech waters things down because older generation (older computer un-savvy boomers) struggled with basic computer concepts. But it's so watered down now, I've worked with people with 4yr IT degrees who don't seem to have a clue about anything regarding how the computer works (in terms of the hardware and software concepts) beyond...oh click here, click there, this goes in that slot, etc. It's a shame.

I tried moving some photos I scanned from my PC to my brothers iPad and it was the most infuriating experience I've had in a long time. Why the actual fuck does the iPad not just have a file browser? It only has this weird garbage make believe system. Trying to get my photos to be recognized by the damn iPad in the photos app so I can edit them was a lesson in futility. Why couldn't I just direct the damn app to the photos? Why aren't they automatically scanned in? How does anyone find that user friendly?

 

How do these kids have a laptop without knowing what files are?

On 9/23/2021 at 3:57 AM, Spindel said:

A really interesting example. As I said in my initial post in theory meta data is more convenient than strict folder structure. 

 

The following that I will write is not to argue that you are wrong, take it more as an discussion. 

 

In your example above is the saving process that much different than when saving into a classical folder structure?

What I'm getting at is that in a folder structure you need to decide where the file needs to be (that contains some information about the file like if it comes from i e Shopify) and you need to decide what the file should be called in example what time period your file covers and to some extent what file type it is (if you are in windows, Linux and MacOS don't seem to give a fuck if you remove the file extension).

 

In the folderless file system the file just get dumped in the HDD with a unique but nondescriptive, in the dumping process you give metadata attributes basically the same data that you gave your file in the previous example but instead of a folder structure and file name the metadata will say stuff like this is from "shopify", "sales" and "time period xx-xx" etc. Basically the same data about the file as you build up with a folder/file name system.

 

The difference comes when you want to retrieve/browse the files. In a folder system you have the structure and it's rigid and there is no problems to go fetch the sales for period xx-xx from shopify. But hey I want to compare these sales data for the same period for WooCommerce, well go backward in the catalogue structure and then dive in to the next catalogue tree and dig up corresponding file. 

In the folder less metadata based system you just sort your files on metadata containing shopify, woocommerece, sales and period xx-xx and you get it all filtered. 

 

And for example command line giving some metadata to what you are looking for instead of path I see more upsides instead of memorizing long search paths. Of course this assume that the system you are building is built around this meta data approach (with proper indexing in example)

 

Below is just an stupid example of what you need to type to reach a file in command line (which in your case might be needed to be added to your argument). 

 While with a metadata system it might look more something like this (and order will not be important all arguments just have to be satisfied):

 

2 problems, iTunes is garbage, and you can assign metadata to files making both your cases moot. You can also just do a directory search and have the computer find the file for you, especially if you only have one drive.

The iTunes system is designed to be less friendly for actual directory browsing because Apple wants you to fuck off. There's no difference in computational speed for having a cleaner typical music directory while also being more beneficial to us humans browsing through it. Apple did that entirely as a proprietary system to lock people into it and "prevent piracy." There's no end user benefit for that. Meanwhile over in logical land, my 500gb of music is neatly arranged in a legible way for literally anybody to browse through on the drive, and Musicbee uses tags embedded in the files to do everything you mentioned while skipping all the bullshit. I can even plug my android into it and drag n drop/sync my music with my phone.

 

Your theoretical system also relies entirely on metadata, which is an awful way to go. It forces everyone to manually set up metadata that's descriptive enough to find it amongst everything else rather than just giving it a simple file name and doing "receipts/July2020/shopify.csv" If you don't set that metadata it's just lost in the mass sea of crap.

[Spindel]

5 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

 

 

Your theoretical system also relies entirely on metadata, which is an awful way to go. It forces everyone to manually set up metadata that's descriptive enough to find it amongst everything else rather than just giving it a simple file name and doing "receipts/July2020/shopify.csv" If you don't set that metadata it's just lost in the mass sea of crap.

There is no difference to assigning folder names and file names since they in the end actually are just metadata but in a fixed hierarchy. 
 

Using non descriptive names on folders and files just ends in stuff being equally lost in a file cabinet of crap. 

People arguing against this idea in here seem to miss the point. 

 

A folderless system contains exactly the same meta data (+ more) as an folder system. The difference is you are not limited by a fixed hierarchy. 

Think of it more like any data base in use today than a series of cardboard boxes. 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

Well, i can think of a little solution.

Parents, your children should start using computers before they start using phones.

[JZStudios]

23 hours ago, Spindel said:

A folderless system contains exactly the same meta data (+ more) as an folder system. The difference is you are not limited by a fixed hierarchy. 

Think of it more like any data base in use today than a series of cardboard boxes. 

No, it doesn't. Again, let's look at it like individual songs in an album. In your suggestion, I would need to individually go through each song up front and assign the track title, number, album, album artist, and year before I could reasonably find it in your system. Ignoring auto-tagging of course. Without doing all of that up front for each individual track, there's no way for your system to reasonably find the file. I literally just went through this, iTunes fucked up my music and duplicated a bunch of stuff and had other stuff not named. I had to sort through 1.5tb of music and clean it up to 500gb with correct folder structure, names, duplicates removed, metadata, etc.

 

In the traditional system, it makes zero difference for the computer and is far easier for human interface. You make folders, name it once, then can put in 1000 files into that folder without having to tag each file with the "folder" name.

 

To continue the example, in the standard hierarchal structure, this is what a Black Keys album would look like:

Music > The Black Keys > Attack and Release (2008) > 1. All you ever wanted (through to) 11. Things aint like they used to be

I would only have to "tag" The Black Keys once for every album, and album name/year only once per album. The only thing I would have to do, without repeating anything, is the individual file names.

In your system I would have to individually go through every single file and name it/fill in metadata like this:

music.theblackkeys.attackandrelease.2008.1.allyoueverwanted.mp3

music.theblackkeys.attackandrelease.2008.11.thingsaintliketheyusedtobe.mp3

 

How is that possibly easier? And again, the files themselves can still have that metadata, just like your system, so there's literally no way it could have more than a folder system. Windows literally has your metadata system built into windows explorer. Not to mention the search function will search through known file types for your search terms. There's legitimately zero logical reason to use your system and the only reason iTunes did it is to lock people into their ecosystem and store.

 

23 hours ago, Spindel said:

Using non descriptive names on folders and files just ends in stuff being equally lost in a file cabinet of crap. 

Well no shit. But who would make a file and just name it ahjfsjho[aghapr and leave that somewhere on their system?

[StDragon]

9 hours ago, Sir Humphrey Appleby said:

Well, i can think of a little solution.

Parents, your children should start using computers before they start using phones.

In school, they now start off with tablets (Android based).

[The Torrent]

Is this really true? It doesn’t sound true. I’d expect the opposite?

[aramini]

On 9/23/2021 at 10:49 PM, LAwLz said:

Called it. The thread devolved into "wow, I can't believe someone else doesn't know this thing I know. They are so dumb". 

 

I wonder how many of you people are Windows kiddies that doesn't know much about computers in general. Doesn't know programming, doesn't know how a scheduler works, doesn't know how a processor works (and no "it calculates stuff and MHz measures how fast" is not knowing how it works) doesn't know even basic *nix commands. 

 

Hell, most of you probably don't even know how routing and switching works. You post on this forum yet you don't understand how your computer sends information over the internet? Cringe!

 

 

Do you know programming, so that you know how your computers work?

Do you know routing and switching, so you know how your routers and switches work?

Do you know how compressors work, so you know how your fridge works?

Do you know about the chemical concepts happening when cooking and eating food? How yeast works, how the maillard reaction happens, how the body converts the things we eat into the things we need to survive?

Do you know cars work? I don't mean "they burn fuel to move forward" but the intricate details about things such as how power steering functions (not just "it makes it easier to turn the wheel" but how it achieves that effect)?

 

 

The fact of the matter is that most things we come into contact are very complicated. You really do need to be very well researched into even tiny things to understand how they work. A lot of people don't realize how complicated even things that seem trivial actually are.

 

I really like the analogy that knowledge is like a balloon. The more air you put into the balloon, the more you inflate it, the more "unknown knowledge" (air outside the balloon) you come into contact with. Basically, the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know everything.

 

The people who think they know everything are those that have very little air in their balloons to begin with. There is a phenomenon about this called the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Nobody can know everything, it's impossible in these days of the information age.

 

I do think, however, that there is a huge difference between knowing the basic principles and concepts of how things work versus knowing every fine detail of how everything works.

 

Cars for example are becoming more and more complex and harder for the consumer to work on without specialized tools and equipment. Especially EVs. But even if you don't work on your own cars, what's wrong with at least knowing how the systems work and how they relate to each other on a basic  level. At least for the sake of not getting ripped off at the shop, should you ever have to bring it in for service.

 

I think the same goes for a refrigerator, your home HVAC system, general plumbing, electrical, and even the Internet and your PC/MAC/smartphone. It's not impossible to know the basic idea of how these things work. All it takes is a little interest, and an Internet connection. I'm not suggesting one could know everything, there's just too much to know. But I think those who at least have a basic understanding of the concepts (not saying do everything yourself or attempt to build all your own stuff D.I.Y. style) will be better off when they need to fix something or have something repaired. At least then one can ask better questions, make better decisions about how to proceed and have a better idea if the repair person/company they hire seems to know what they are doing/talking about or if they are just trying to lighten your bank account.

 

File systems, the drive, folder/directory, file hierarchy has been around a long time. It is one of the most basic concepts. You'd think, or at least hope that one would have a basic understanding of this by the time they got to CS 101 or whatever. Even smartphones have a file system with a directory structure, just download a file manager for android for example. You won't be able to do much on an unrooted phone due to lack of permissions, but you could at least browse the directory structure.

 

I don't think that these gen z, millenials, whatever are stupid, perhaps they just lack interest in how the system works and never thought of digging into in deeper on their own.

 

The Kruger-Dunning has more to do with cognitive bias and how the less competent tend to overestimate their own abilities, where as the more competent tend to underestimate their own abilities.

 

The more one knows, the more they know they don't know. This however doesn't mean that they can't then use that as a basis to learn more, if they are hungry for knowledge. Again, recognizing that no one can know it all. But this is what the KD effect is trying to say, that people of less competency think they know everything there is to know about a subject even though they have a very cursory understanding, and therefore tend to not dig deeper and learn more...what else is there to learn if you already think you know it all.

 

This is not so much a gen z problem as it is a human problem. It just so happens that gen z is at that age where they don't have as much life experience and might think they know everything (which is pretty typical of anyone in their 20's... it was true of my generation (x) and older generations (boomers), etc).

 

I've also noticed that this seems to be true in CS/IT in general. A lot of techies tend to think that because they are good at manipulating code or high tech stuff, they are smarter when it comes to everything, like politics, other fields, etc. Which is not necessarily the case. Somethings do not necessarily translate well to other fields/domains of information& knowledge.

 

But to get to a certain level and not know a very basic concept is knda baffling to me.

 

I'm less interested in calling them dumb and more interested in finding out why this is the case. Did the system fail them? Are they not curios enough about how a system works to explore on their own? Did their parents not take enough interest in their education at a young age?

 

The file system hierarchy is the more trivial part, it could be a sign of some bigger societal problem. I think this is more the concern of the professors as well. The article being more of a thermometer or gauge than a hammer to bludgeon gen z over the head with.

[DrMacintosh]

File directories are not that intuitive tbh. I only learned how to navigate by spending time with Finder and File Explorer. If the scope of my experience with tech was just my phone...yeah I would not know how to navigate a file structure. It's literally the, "What's a computer" effect. Outside of a downloads and desktop folder, the average user simply has no need to know how to use the file path bar. 

[Zodiark1593]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

File directories are not that intuitive tbh. I only learned how to navigate by spending time with Finder and File Explorer. If the scope of my experience with tech was just my phone...yeah I would not know how to navigate a file structure. It's literally the, "What's a computer" effect. 

Interestingly, i’d say the Terminal is an excellent tool in Mac OS to work on the under-the-hood stuff.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

Interestingly, i’d say the Terminal is an excellent tool in Mac OS to work on the under-the-hood stuff.

Terminal is fantastic. But to add on to my last comment, the vast majority of people never have the need to fire up a command line. 

[sub68]

When I took computer graphics we had to use network drives and everyone understood were to put the stuff so...

[aramini]

10 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Terminal is fantastic. But to add on to my last comment, the vast majority of people never have the need to fire up a command line. 

True, but for people in the industry or planning to enter the industry, which, if I understand correctly is what the article is about, it is concerning.

 

Sure if you are a front-end web dev, you may never need to do that. If you work in a data center, networking, enterprise storage, etc, I can't fathom never having the need to do that. Especially if you have some legacy systems that run headless.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, aramini said:

True, but for people in the industry or planning to enter the industry, which, if I understand correctly is what the article is about, it is concerning.

 

Sure if you are a front-end web dev, you may never need to do that. If you work in a data center, networking, enterprise storage, etc, I can't fathom never having the need to do that. Especially if you have some legacy systems.

Yeah, for sure. But everyone has to start somewhere.