Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 07:54 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:02 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
>>> <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My reading was that he worried about *non-KDE* apps doing similar
things
>>>>>> without any interaction with Akonadi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there are now two independant databases, one in KDE and one in
Gnome.
>>>>>> Those of us who use a mixture of apps are running both of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it matters, akonadi was designed to be DE-independent, with no
kde
>>>>> dependencies (other than qt).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is this because it uses qt to talk to the other KDE apps? Just curious.
>>>>
>>>> More to the point, my comment isn't about the relative merits of the
>>>> various technologies. It's more in the sense that choice can carry
costs
>>>> which we may not always be aware of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What cost are you considering there? The extra secondary storage bits
>>> used by an additional database? I do not believe that simply having a
>>> multiple databases increases MySQLs load.
>>>
>>>
>> That's not what I meant. There is a complexity cost in having N
>> subsystems, each of which implements 90% of the funcionality of the
>> other N-1, but a different 90%. That complexity cost can translate to a
>> stability cost and a security cost. There's also a cost in the effort
>> required to create and maintain these systems, not to mention keeping
>> them up to date on every host that uses them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You lost me with this phrase....
>
> "each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1,
> but a different 90%"
>
> "each of which implements 90% of the functionality of the other N-1"
> parses in my mind as each one does pretty much the same as all the
> others. But they you say "but a different 90%" and that causes my mind
> to enter an infinite loop.
>
I plead guilty to imprecision in the interests of rhetoric. However I'm
sure you can imagine N different sets which largely but not completely
overlap with each other. That's all I'm trying to say here.
OK... That is what I thought you meant.... But I wanted to make sure
of that. Can never be too sure...
--
Economists can certainly disappoint you. One said that the economy would
turn up by the last quarter. Well, I'm down to mine and it hasn't. --
Robert Orben Mei-Mei.Greshko(a)greshko.com
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg