1 |
On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Roy Wright wrote: |
2 |
> On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
3 |
> > On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Roy Wright wrote: |
4 |
> >> OK, after reading several articles from the given starting point, I now |
5 |
> >> understand why semantic-desktop wastes so much cpu, memory, and storage |
6 |
> >> (really, if you organize your data properly who cares about a file's |
7 |
> >> relationship to an email?). |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > because to 'organize it properly' you would need a huge directory tree |
10 |
> > plus symlinks plus explaining notes to even simulate a small token of |
11 |
> > the stuff 'semantic desktop' can do for you.. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Haven't had a problem organizing my data in 25 years and currently run a 3 |
14 |
> system cluster with ~8TB of data. The only "benefit" that the semantic |
15 |
> desktop seems to deliver is to waste resources. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> >> Also didn't read anything even hinting at |
18 |
> >> security awareness of the technology which is really scary (imagine an |
19 |
> >> attack that get's access to the RDFs, |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > those RDFs are in your home directory. If someone can read your home you |
22 |
> > are screwed anyway. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> >> it'd tell the attacker exactly which |
25 |
> >> additional files to target). |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > oh yes, reading stuff about emails tells him to read more emails. That is |
28 |
> > scary. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> But tagging files (say stock spreedsheets, bank records, financial |
31 |
> bookmarks, tax records) with tags (say 'bank, money, finance') all in one |
32 |
> place would simplify a targeted attack. |
33 |
|
34 |
and the filenames and the places where you keep them won't tell him the same? |
35 |
You just claimed you organize things just fine. When you organize things, it |
36 |
can be used against you. |
37 |
|
38 |
> |
39 |
> >> And since I don't use/like dolphin, I'll |
40 |
> >> stick with my original opinion that the semantic-desktop should be |
41 |
> >> totally disabled/uninstalled. |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > and you can do that. Oh wow. That useflag only turns on soprano. Nothing |
44 |
> > else. Which means nothing. You are not forced to use that stuff. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> So just another database server wasting resources. |
47 |
|
48 |
if it is running. You are free to not start it at all. |
49 |
|
50 |
> Not too bad as long as |
51 |
> nepomuk and strigi are disabled. Now to find the network ports soprano |
52 |
> uses to make sure they are blocked from leaving the machine... Yes, I |
53 |
> know, one of the really scary goals of the semantic-desktop is to share |
54 |
> RDFs, definitely don't want that. |
55 |
|
56 |
good thing you have to enable that explicitly... |
57 |
|
58 |
> |
59 |
> >> IMO, mandatory semantic-desktop is a very good reason to find another |
60 |
> >> desktop manager (even after being my primary desktop for 7 years). |
61 |
> > |
62 |
> > yeah good luck with that. Because gnome is moving in that direction too. |
63 |
> > |
64 |
> > Seriously guys, you start sounding like luddites. Is new, must be bad. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> This technology does not have a good track record (invasive cpu, memory, |
67 |
> disk usage) for very dubious benefits. I have not found any cost vs. |
68 |
> benefits vs. risks articles. Just a bunch of "we think this will be great |
69 |
> if you just use it" type articles that can't even explain how it would be |
70 |
> great. |
71 |
|
72 |
zero cpu, almost zero memory and mayby 0.1% harddisk. Yeah, that is scary. |