| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> You have been corrected on this point so many times I now think you |
| 4 |
> are just a stupid ass. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> It is not slow. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You are the only one saying that. People who do use Nepomuk say that |
| 9 |
> it is not slow and does not hog resources (initial scan excepted). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
a) Nepomuk is not slow and does not hog resources |
| 12 |
b) dbus is not slow and does not hog resources |
| 13 |
c) hal is not slow and does not hog resources |
| 14 |
d) ....... is not slow and does not hog resources |
| 15 |
etc, etc, etc. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Throw in enough "little stuff" and it eventually adds up. We seem to |
| 18 |
be talking past each other. It's like the pay-TV channel you don't want |
| 19 |
being bundled in basic cable. They may claim that they "only cost a |
| 20 |
dollar a month, and surely you can afford that". Throw in 100 such |
| 21 |
channels, and your cable bill gets ridiculous, and people start |
| 22 |
demanding a-la-carte. The same principle applies here. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I agree with the concept that people who don't want KDE dependancies, |
| 25 |
e.g. dbus, shouldn't use KDE apps. Therefore, I avoid amarok, kaffeine, |
| 26 |
kplayer, etc. What got me started in this thread was the fact that what |
| 27 |
had been a formerly-standalone media player (audacious), now pretty much |
| 28 |
demands dbus. dbus would be "bundled in" to my "basic service", i.e. |
| 29 |
ICEWM. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
Archives