On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Roy Wright wrote: >> >> OK, after reading several articles from the given starting point, I now >> understand why semantic-desktop wastes so much cpu, memory, and storage >> (really, if you organize your data properly who cares about a file's >> relationship to an email?). > > because to 'organize it properly' you would need a huge directory tree plus > symlinks plus explaining notes to even simulate a small token of the stuff > 'semantic desktop' can do for you..
Haven't had a problem organizing my data in 25 years and currently run a 3 system cluster with ~8TB of data. The only "benefit" that the semantic desktop seems to deliver is to waste resources. > >> Also didn't read anything even hinting at >> security awareness of the technology which is really scary (imagine an >> attack that get's access to the RDFs, > > those RDFs are in your home directory. If someone can read your home you are > screwed anyway. > >> it'd tell the attacker exactly which >> additional files to target). > > oh yes, reading stuff about emails tells him to read more emails. That is > scary. But tagging files (say stock spreedsheets, bank records, financial bookmarks, tax records) with tags (say 'bank, money, finance') all in one place would simplify a targeted attack. > >> And since I don't use/like dolphin, I'll >> stick with my original opinion that the semantic-desktop should be totally >> disabled/uninstalled. > > and you can do that. Oh wow. That useflag only turns on soprano. Nothing > else. > Which means nothing. You are not forced to use that stuff. So just another database server wasting resources. Not too bad as long as nepomuk and strigi are disabled. Now to find the network ports soprano uses to make sure they are blocked from leaving the machine... Yes, I know, one of the really scary goals of the semantic-desktop is to share RDFs, definitely don't want that. > >> >> IMO, mandatory semantic-desktop is a very good reason to find another >> desktop manager (even after being my primary desktop for 7 years). > > yeah good luck with that. Because gnome is moving in that direction too. > > Seriously guys, you start sounding like luddites. Is new, must be bad. > This technology does not have a good track record (invasive cpu, memory, disk usage) for very dubious benefits. I have not found any cost vs. benefits vs. risks articles. Just a bunch of "we think this will be great if you just use it" type articles that can't even explain how it would be great.
