On Samstag 13 Februar 2010, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 02:37:53PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote > > > You have been corrected on this point so many times I now think you > > are just a stupid ass. > > > > It is not slow. > > > > You are the only one saying that. People who do use Nepomuk say that > > it is not slow and does not hog resources (initial scan excepted). > > a) Nepomuk is not slow and does not hog resources > b) dbus is not slow and does not hog resources > c) hal is not slow and does not hog resources > d) ....... is not slow and does not hog resources > etc, etc, etc. > > Throw in enough "little stuff" and it eventually adds up. We seem to > be talking past each other. It's like the pay-TV channel you don't want > being bundled in basic cable. They may claim that they "only cost a > dollar a month, and surely you can afford that". Throw in 100 such > channels, and your cable bill gets ridiculous, and people start > demanding a-la-carte. The same principle applies here. > > I agree with the concept that people who don't want KDE dependancies, > e.g. dbus, shouldn't use KDE apps. Therefore, I avoid amarok, kaffeine, > kplayer, etc. What got me started in this thread was the fact that what > had been a formerly-standalone media player (audacious), now pretty much > demands dbus. dbus would be "bundled in" to my "basic service", i.e. > ICEWM.
#except that dsbus is not a KDE application. Just grep to portage tree for apps that use dbus. The result might be a bit shocking. Btw, do you have a car? But certainly you drive stick. Unsyncronized. Because everything else is 'bloat'. And your tv has no way to find channels. You do it manually - with a screwdriver, I am sure.
