Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux