On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:47:22PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > I think mlocate only really makes sense on data storage servers with > huge disks, or on machines with HDDs. I therefore do not think the > overhead of building the index is warranted for most users. It might > make sense to keep mlocate in always-on tasks, like servers, but get > rid of it from desktop scenarios.
In my early days of using Linux, I used locate dozens of times a day. I might know the filename but not the pathname, or a part of a filename, etc. "locate XF86Config" was way easier than "find / -name '*XF86Config*' -print". Sure, the find command is simpler today, but it still spews loads of useless error messages unless you also add 2> /dev/null. (And maybe you care about some but not all errors. Unlikely but possible.) Now that I'm far more familiar with where files live I no longer use locate for this purpose. Now I fall firmly in the other camp, where locate is annoyingly slow and I will try my hand at writing a replacement someday: $ time locate thisdoesntexist real 1m29.294s user 1m27.649s sys 0m1.644s Anyway, I believe locate can have great value to all our users, experienced or brand new, huge systems or small systems. I'd like us to keep it in default installs. Thanks
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
