First, keep up the good work with Tracker - it's an exciting project!
> >>> * The scope of Tracker isn't clear. Is the point to be fast > >>> search for files, or for all the user's data? To what end has > >>> Tracker achieved its goal? > >> It should be clear - to be the best > > > > To be the best what? This is exactly my point. Is the idea to index > > everything or is the idea to index some subset? Is the idea to store > > all application data, or specific metadata? Part of the problem here I > > think is that it isn't clear to people how we use Tracker to improve our > > desktop experience. > > To be the best first class object database, indexer and search tool. To take up Joe's point, "best" is a word with no information content - every software project wants to be "the best", even "extreme crack like WinFS". Comparing the two, what parts of the mythical WinFS does tracker NOT aim to do? Feature-wise, not "remain vaporware". :-) At some point of any interesting software design, there will have to be a trade-off, such as memory for CPU for disk, or comprehensiveness for quality, or search result precision for recall, or ease of third-party plug-in development for execution efficiency, or "everything is in a fast database" for "I can fall back on grep and vimacs when I need to", or whatever else. I admire the tinymail project because it is explicitly and deliberately targeting low-memory environments. This does mean (IIUC) that it can't do Evolution-style virtual folders. Tinymail is "the best" for a particular, focused problem, and "the suck" for a different problem. This sense of specifics is what I think questions like "index everything or ... index some subset?" and "store all application data, or specific metadata?" are trying to get at. Once again, keep up the good work. Nigel. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
