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. -- Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org>
