On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 16:33 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Always Learning wrote:
>
> > If the pictures are named sequentially, why not store then at a 100 per
> > directory structure something like this
> >
> > /pix/0/00/pix00001.jpg
> >
> > /pix/0/26/pix02614.jpg
> >
> > /pix/6/72/pix67255.jpg
>
> Go read Knuth
>
> One does not do that because then one is counting on the end
> user's data to conform to, and to continue to conform to your
> expectations [here you have added an invisible constraint of
> 'pix' as the first part of the file name which you are
> hoping remains constant -- it will not, as survey of naming
> schemes used by digital camera makers will reveal]. Your
> explicit constraint of a monotonicly increasing image number
> is also not likely to be realized in a world where people will
> erase or for other reasons not submit all of a given photo
> shoot
I did begin with 'IF' :-)
Photo-shoot or whatever, using the 'rename' command means pictures can
adopt a uniform numbering system. There is no logical or genuine
practical reason to accept a disorganised mess.
I have about 21,000+ pictures - all my own work. I can find and display
any of them within about 17 seconds (just timed myself) using basic
operating system commands. (My database application is unfinished).
--
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
