| 1 |
On Freitag 12 Februar 2010, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: |
| 3 |
> > On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: |
| 5 |
> >>> On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>> On Thursday 11 February 2010 13:50:54 Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:31:26AM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote |
| 8 |
> >>>>> |
| 9 |
> >>>>>> On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Roy Wright wrote: |
| 10 |
> >>>>>>> IMO, mandatory semantic-desktop is a very good reason to find |
| 11 |
> >>>>>>> another desktop manager (even after being my primary desktop for 7 |
| 12 |
> >>>>>>> years). |
| 13 |
> >>>>>> |
| 14 |
> >>>>>> yeah good luck with that. Because gnome is moving in that direction |
| 15 |
> >>>>>> too. |
| 16 |
> >>>>>> |
| 17 |
> >>>>> There are other desktops besides GNOME and KDE. Actually I |
| 18 |
> >>>>> prefer the |
| 19 |
> >>>>> |
| 20 |
> >>>>> ICEWM window manager. I was running a 1999 Dell 450mhz PIII with 128 |
| 21 |
> >>>>> megs of *SYSTEM* ram until the summer of 2007. Let's just say that |
| 22 |
> >>>>> GNOME and KDE were out of the question for me. On my current |
| 23 |
> >>>>> desktop, ICEWM flies. But I also have a netbook, and again GNOME |
| 24 |
> >>>>> and KDE are not usable. |
| 25 |
> >>>>> |
| 26 |
> >>>>>> Seriously guys, you start sounding like luddites. Is new, must be |
| 27 |
> >>>>>> bad. |
| 28 |
> >>>>>> |
| 29 |
> >>>>> Correction, is fat, bloated, and slow, must be bad. I wonder if |
| 30 |
> >>>>> |
| 31 |
> >>>>> Microsoft's anti-linux strategy is to have its agents infiltrate the |
| 32 |
> >>>>> linux developer community, and turn linux into bloatware. |
| 33 |
> >>>> |
| 34 |
> >>>> You have been corrected on this point so many times I now think you |
| 35 |
> >>>> are just a stupid ass. |
| 36 |
> >>>> |
| 37 |
> >>>> It is not slow. |
| 38 |
> >>>> |
| 39 |
> >>>> You are the only one saying that. People who do use Nepomuk say that |
| 40 |
> >>>> it is not slow and does not hog resources (initial scan excepted). |
| 41 |
> >>> |
| 42 |
> >>> you can even tell nepomuk how much memory it is allowed to use ... |
| 43 |
> >> |
| 44 |
> >> Can you nice the thing too? That would work. I set emerge to 5 and I |
| 45 |
> >> can't even tell that emerge is running most of the time. There may be |
| 46 |
> >> times when I can but it is rare. |
| 47 |
> >> |
| 48 |
> >> I just don't get this thing that indexing is a resource hog. I notice |
| 49 |
> >> updatedb running at night. I have 329Gbs of "data" and updatedb only |
| 50 |
> >> takes a few minutes. How is that a resource "hog"? My machine is not |
| 51 |
> >> as old as some but it is slow going by the new machines that are out |
| 52 |
> >> now. It's a AMD 2500+ with 2Gbs of ram. I have had Linux on machines |
| 53 |
> >> as slow as 133MHz but never felt the need to disable indexing. |
| 54 |
> > |
| 55 |
> > when updatedb runs your cache is shot afterwards. That is a known |
| 56 |
> > problems. |
| 57 |
> > |
| 58 |
> > Nepomuk is only noticable once: the first indexing run. After that it |
| 59 |
> > creates zero load. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> So cache is bad? Heck, my cache is almost always full anyway. Nothing |
| 62 |
> new there. If it is not updatedb then it will be something else. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
no, cahce is great. That is the problem. Updatedb replaces the cached files |
| 65 |
with stuff you probably don't care about. Which is bad. |
Archives