Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 07:54 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > >> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan >>>> <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar things >>>>>>> without any interaction with Akonadi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in Gnome. >>>>>>> Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no kde >>>>>> dependencies (other than qt). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious. >>>>> >>>>> More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the >>>>> various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry costs >>>>> which we may not always be aware of. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits >>>> used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a >>>> multiple databases increases MySQLs load. >>>> >>>> >>> That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N >>> subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the >>> other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a >>> stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort >>> required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping >>> them up to date on every host that uses them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> You lost me with this phrase.... >> >> "each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1, >> but a different 90%" >> >> "each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1" >> parses in my mind as each one does pretty much the same as all the >> others. But they you say "but a different 90%" and that causes my mind >> to enter an infinite loop. >> > > I plead guilty to imprecision in the interests of rhetoric. However I'm > sure you can imagine N different sets which largely but not completely > overlap with each other. That's all I'm trying to say here. > > OK... That is what I thought you meant.... But I wanted to make sure of that. Can never be too sure... -- Economists can certainly disappoint you. One said that the economy would turn up by the last quarter. Well, I'm down to mine and it hasn't. -- Robert Orben Mei-Mei.Greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
