This is the kind of tool that should be baked into the kernel. It's never there when you need it, and when you do need it, it is probably already a full disk and you maybe can't just download it.
I've been using Sequoia View regularly since the early 2000s, and it's held up amazingly well considering how much bigger hard drives have gotten in the past 25 years.
This looks fantastic, reminds me a lot of SpaceSniffer. The focus view or allowing for navigation through chunks is a nice essential inclusion. One desire might be quick actions.
Doing size of squares based on the # of packages a dependency installation causes: Helps I guess users hellbent on having their install minimal figure out what they can afford to remove for as few packages on their system as reasonably possible.
Thanks! I'll need to check out SpaceSniffer next time I'm on Windows.
Can you provide some examples of "quick actions"?
Currently, the visualization is purely based on file sizes in the directory structure. Package management adds some complications beyond the fact that there are at least a dozen popular managers in the wild. For one, package dependencies form a directed graph rather than a hierarchical tree, so credit assignment is vague. Two packages can depend on the same two dependencies. Do we give full credit to both, one or assign partial credit? Would we weight partial credit evenly or by dependent size or some external factor/
I had been exploring using an embedded database as an index, but for my current use case, waiting just under a minute to rescan my /nix/store on a weak mini-pc is acceptable.
Also looking to add inotify integration, which would require an index to accurately update the visualization.
Can you provide some examples of "quick actions"?
Currently, the visualization is purely based on file sizes in the directory structure. Package management adds some complications beyond the fact that there are at least a dozen popular managers in the wild. For one, package dependencies form a directed graph rather than a hierarchical tree, so credit assignment is vague. Two packages can depend on the same two dependencies. Do we give full credit to both, one or assign partial credit? Would we weight partial credit evenly or by dependent size or some external factor/
What I really also want is a way to do an offline index that this reads ... I ended up using duc. Maybe I will fork and add it!
thanks for sharing!
I had been exploring using an embedded database as an index, but for my current use case, waiting just under a minute to rescan my /nix/store on a weak mini-pc is acceptable.
Also looking to add inotify integration, which would require an index to accurately update the visualization.
If possible, being able to “brew install” on a Mac would be killer