1 |
On Friday 29 May 2015 16:54:33 Mick wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 29 May 2015 16:28:57 Alan Grimes wrote: |
3 |
> > What in god's name is that stupid database for anyway? Does it perform |
4 |
> > any useful function? Is there any tool that gives the user any |
5 |
> > measurable benefit that even justifies one one hundredth of the CPU and |
6 |
> > disk bandwidth consumed by this missfeature? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I think you're preaching to the converted here. |
9 |
|
10 |
He is, no doubt about it. |
11 |
|
12 |
> I don't think you'll find many advocates in this M/L who support the KDE4 |
13 |
> desktop design decision as a sound architectural choice for your average |
14 |
> Linux user. |
15 |
|
16 |
He was talking about tying the e-mail client to a database, not about the KDE4 |
17 |
desktop, and I've protested at the same thing more than once, sometimes in |
18 |
vigorous terms. Made no difference of course, but then I'm just an insufficiently |
19 |
humble user. |
20 |
|
21 |
> I think they were trying to market a desktop for the enterprise and were |
22 |
> following Gnome's approach of semantic content searches. |
23 |
|
24 |
It seems to me that, KMail being such a capable e-mail client, there ought to |
25 |
be more than one way of installing it. One of those would be as you say: the |
26 |
way it's going, aimed at corporations with PIM functions and sharing of all |
27 |
manner of things among colleagues. At the other end of the spectrum would be |
28 |
what I think all of us on this list would prefer (those who like KDE, that |
29 |
is), namely a textual manipulator of simple e-mail files. |
30 |
|
31 |
The choice could be exercised using something like our USE flags, or it could |
32 |
have dual implementations derived more-or-less automatically from a common |
33 |
code base. |
34 |
|
35 |
(In the mid-80s I was working in a project to replace the grid-control |
36 |
computer system in England and Wales. The spec had come from our hardware |
37 |
people (yes, I know) and required us to develop code that would run equally |
38 |
well on Ferranti and GEC machines. The Ferranti scheduling and context- |
39 |
switching methods heavily favoured small numbers of large processes, whereas |
40 |
the GEC imposed a hardware limit of 8K bytes on any running process. We were |
41 |
well on the way to making it work, too. What I suggest for KMail pales into |
42 |
insignificance compared with that mess. It's just a Simple Matter Of |
43 |
Programming, isn't it?) |
44 |
|
45 |
> Other than the odd bug here and there I was perfectly happy with KDE3 and |
46 |
> Kmail1 (still using with kde-base/kdepim-meta-4.4.11.1-r1). |
47 |
|
48 |
I wonder if there's a way to go back to KMail-1 and import all my e-mails from |
49 |
KMail-2 archive files into it. Would you like to help me, Mick, with ebuilds |
50 |
etc? |
51 |
|
52 |
-- |
53 |
Rgds |
54 |
Peter |