On Thursday 29 March 2007 12:58:29 pm Joe Shaw wrote: > Hey Patrick, > > On 3/29/07, Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is incorrect. There exists three goups. > > > > > (a) People who have no need or desire for Beagle. > > > > [...] > > > > > (b) People who experience performance problems when running Beagle. > > > > [...] > > > > (c) Those who use Beagle and like it and experienct no noticeable > > system degradation. > > Indeed. Thanks for that. :) > > > The only problem I see with Beagle is the amount of disk space > > required for the indexes. 1.7G on my box, but I have a lot of disk > > space and the cost is nothing like what my first 32MB hard drive was. > > (I have two 8GB camera chips that combined cost less....) > > Yeah, I can't believe I ever had a machine with just a 20 meg hard > drive myself. Of course, I couldn't do a whole lot with it either. :) >
Hey - 20 MB is "all you'll ever need" for a mere $2,000! I was just thinking of this - wouldn't the meta-information be better suited to being put on the filesystem? I remember back to the OS/2 days and HPFS. That filesystem - IIRC - had meta information for each file. I don't remember if it was indexed, but I thought that Windows and other filesystems were going to emulate this eventually. -- k -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
