| 1 |
chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> On Thursday 11 February 2010 13:50:54 Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:31:26AM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote |
| 11 |
>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>>> On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Roy Wright wrote: |
| 14 |
>>>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>>>>> IMO, mandatory semantic-desktop is a very good reason to find another |
| 16 |
>>>>>>> desktop manager (even after being my primary desktop for 7 years). |
| 17 |
>>>>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>>> yeah good luck with that. Because gnome is moving in that direction |
| 19 |
>>>>>> too. |
| 20 |
>>>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>>> There are other desktops besides GNOME and KDE. Actually I prefer |
| 23 |
>>>>> the |
| 24 |
>>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>>> ICEWM window manager. I was running a 1999 Dell 450mhz PIII with 128 |
| 26 |
>>>>> megs of *SYSTEM* ram until the summer of 2007. Let's just say that |
| 27 |
>>>>> GNOME and KDE were out of the question for me. On my current desktop, |
| 28 |
>>>>> ICEWM flies. But I also have a netbook, and again GNOME and KDE are |
| 29 |
>>>>> not usable. |
| 30 |
>>>>> |
| 31 |
>>>>> |
| 32 |
>>>>>> Seriously guys, you start sounding like luddites. Is new, must be bad. |
| 33 |
>>>>>> |
| 34 |
>>>>>> |
| 35 |
>>>>> Correction, is fat, bloated, and slow, must be bad. I wonder if |
| 36 |
>>>>> |
| 37 |
>>>>> Microsoft's anti-linux strategy is to have its agents infiltrate the |
| 38 |
>>>>> linux developer community, and turn linux into bloatware. |
| 39 |
>>>>> |
| 40 |
>>>> You have been corrected on this point so many times I now think you are |
| 41 |
>>>> just a stupid ass. |
| 42 |
>>>> |
| 43 |
>>>> It is not slow. |
| 44 |
>>>> |
| 45 |
>>>> You are the only one saying that. People who do use Nepomuk say that it |
| 46 |
>>>> is not slow and does not hog resources (initial scan excepted). |
| 47 |
>>>> |
| 48 |
>>> you can even tell nepomuk how much memory it is allowed to use ... |
| 49 |
>>> |
| 50 |
>> Can you nice the thing too? That would work. I set emerge to 5 and I |
| 51 |
>> can't even tell that emerge is running most of the time. There may be |
| 52 |
>> times when I can but it is rare. |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
>> I just don't get this thing that indexing is a resource hog. I notice |
| 55 |
>> updatedb running at night. I have 329Gbs of "data" and updatedb only |
| 56 |
>> takes a few minutes. How is that a resource "hog"? My machine is not |
| 57 |
>> as old as some but it is slow going by the new machines that are out |
| 58 |
>> now. It's a AMD 2500+ with 2Gbs of ram. I have had Linux on machines |
| 59 |
>> as slow as 133MHz but never felt the need to disable indexing. |
| 60 |
>> |
| 61 |
>> |
| 62 |
> when updatedb runs your cache is shot afterwards. That is a known problems. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> Nepomuk is only noticable once: the first indexing run. After that it creates |
| 65 |
> zero load. |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
So cache is bad? Heck, my cache is almost always full anyway. Nothing |
| 70 |
new there. If it is not updatedb then it will be something else. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Thing is, I can't tell any difference in my cache before, during or |
| 73 |
after. I do have 2Gbs of ram here so maybe I just can't see the |
| 74 |
difference. I guess I could always wait until 3:10AM and test this |
| 75 |
theory tho. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
Dale |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
:-) :-) |
Archives