Re: KDE is now broken (Fwd: Heads-up: KDE4 hitting testing tonight (UTC) )
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <[🔎] 20090524145214.GA16426@cat.rubenette.is-a-geek.com>, lee wrote:
> >On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:15:36PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >> It's really a KDE problem, although the solution will probably cause
> >> some trouble for the Debian packaging team as well. Especially
> >> minimizing the amount of configuration required while still allowing
> >> multiple possible backends.
> >
> >That isn't really the problem.
> >I
> >don't want to run an akonadi server either, whatever that is.
>
> Oh, then you don't want to run those parts of KDE; They require a connection
> to an Akonadi server. They've been scheduled to since before KDE 4.0 was
> available.
Maybe not. I'd be fine without them, if it would work without --- but
it doesn't.
> If you don't want to run any "servers" then you don't want to run Gnome
> (ORBit = CORBA server), KDE 3 (dcopserver), Xfce (notifications go via the
> DBus server) or X11 (xorg is an X11 server).
Who says that I don't want to run any servers?
> >Why don't they save the data in human readable text files in users'
> >home directories without needing all kinds of external server
> >software?
>
> Performance, cross-referencing, and indexing.
If they have problems with that for the maybe 5 to 10 entries I might
make in a calendar within a year, then there must be something
basically wrong with that calendar. Utilizing a RDBMS like mysql for
that isn't a good solution for that problem. Do you have and use an
18wheeler to go to the store to buy your groceries for a week?
> >It's not like I had 500000 appointments or a company with
> >thousands of users for which a central database server to store
> >appointments might make sense.
>
> The applications and frameworks are designed to work for individuals with
> few appointments and also scale to the largest groupware installations.
That's nice, but it obviously doesn't scale for those individuals with
few appointments. It might work for them as well as an 18wheeler works
for buying groceries, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable or that
anyone who doesn't need it would want to use it.
Do you have all available software installed and all available servers
running, even though you don't need or want them? Probably not ...
> >Even if I had that, the installation
> >doesn't ask if I want to use a mysql server on another host.
>
> But, it will be possible to set that up in the future.
They should have something that scales well for few appointments as
well. Or it should work without these applications.
> >Besides, entrusting important information to a particular application
> >is not an option. If I had done that over the last 15 years, I'd
> >probably have lost that information several times or it would have at
> >least become inaccessable.
>
> Not if the file format was public. I can understanding not using a format
> that can't be processed without a particular piece of software, but the on-
> disk format used by MySQL is public information. You don't have to use
> MySQL to access. You can write your own software or pay someone to write
> the software for you without the blessing or control of MySQL.
Where do you find the needed information in 20 years? And what if you
want to access the stored information but you don't want to wait a
year or two before you were eventually able to figure out what format
was used to store it and to create software allowing you to retrieve
the information? It doesn't make sense to create such an inconvenience
in the first place. Sometimes it cannot be avoided or is at least hard
to avoid, but that is unfortunate and it would be better to come up
with ways that don't create the problem instead of coming up with more
and more "solutions" that do create this problem.
And BTW, it's not only wasting resources to have a mysql server
installed that you don't need and don't use, it's also about making
things more complicated and time consuming when you have a mysql
server that eventually needs to be adminstered and that you eventually
have to figure out a way to make backups for? I don't know in
particular what would use mysql, so I might suddenly find that I lost
data after reinstalling because I didn't know that I had to backup a
mysql database somewhere (and reinstall that, too). What if you use
stable and from one distribution to another, or the one after the
next, they change something about mysql and you suddenly find yourself
with the problem of having to somehow convert your data to be able to
use it with the new mysql version?
Obviously, they don't have things thought out well enough. If they
had, they wouldn't just throw in a mysql server (without notice
even!), but they would offer that as an option you could upgrade to if
you needed that, and you'd have to do that deliberately.
There seems to be too much windoze thinking entering Debian: Hide
everything from the users, take control of their computers away from
them, make things unfixable --- and the next step is to provide them
with only crappy software. I'm beginning to become more and more
unhappy with Debian. The quality has gone down quite a bit already. If
they keep going this way, we'll all be using windoze in about 10
years.
Reply to: