|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Kofler < kevin.kofler@...> wrote:
> Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
>> I don't have it running here, nor MySQL, and I use almost all kdepim
>> apps, including kabc.
>
> If this is F9, then you're still using kdepim 3.5, so it's no wonder you
> aren't actually using Akonadi yet.
I run my system (F10) as root, and Akonadi is not starting (mySql
startup is failing). But still I am able to use kmail. So my doubt is,
do we need Akonadi at all?
-Anoop
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@...
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines>
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Anoop < anoop.chargotra@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Kofler < kevin.kofler@...> wrote:
>> Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
>>> I don't have it running here, nor MySQL, and I use almost all kdepim
>>> apps, including kabc.
>>
>> If this is F9, then you're still using kdepim 3.5, so it's no wonder you
>> aren't actually using Akonadi yet.
> I run my system (F10) as root, and Akonadi is not starting (mySql
> startup is failing). But still I am able to use kmail. So my doubt is,
> do we need Akonadi at all?
>
> -Anoop
>>
>> Kevin Kofler
I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it
such a big issue.
--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 06:12:51 Jay Mistry wrote:
> >> > Linux bloat continues unabated.
> >>
> >> ----
> >> I think...
> >>
> >> - that you would have to have kde-pim package installed to bloat here
> >>
> >> - agreed on bloat but considering that my Acer Aspire One is 10 Gb
> >> Windows installation and 5 Gb Fedora 10 and I have a lot more 'stuff'
> >> installed in Fedora.
> >
> > Agreed. My other laptop has to dual-boot with XP. However, I only
> > require it for one application. I partitioned it with 8GB for XP system
> > (no data) and to my surprise the most basic install filled it to danger
> > point. I could certainly run a modern linux distro, with more
> > applications, in the same space.
> >
> > More importantly, in linux, if you think something does install too much,
> > you do have a choice.
> >
> > Anne
>
> Looking at KDE 4.2, which seems to have sacrificed functionality for
> good looks & an enhanced (but difficult to navigate & configure
> interface), it seems a part of Linux seems to be moving the Windows
> way (re: Vista's complex operation, non-intuitive functions & the
> 'aero' interface) ... choice in Linux seems to be going the Redmond
> way (probably an overstatement, but now may be a good time for a
> check).
>
I am so sick of this stuck record. It has been refuted so many times by so
many users, it's simply not worth answering any more.
> Hope the next OO.org will not present us a telly-tubby look with a
> 'ribbon'.
>
And what has OOo got to do with KDE 4.2? Don't bother to answer.
Come back when you have a genuine question.
Anne
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 06:33:14 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
> > When I have more time I will look at it... However, I doubt that each
> > application will spawn a new instance of mysql since that would
> > certainly defeat the purpose of a centralized database. Looking at what
> > little documentation I have...I am confident that it is one instance of
> > mysql per user.
>
> It is, as long as only Akonadi does it. But I think his point was that
> there may be other services or applications starting to do the same, which
> will then use separate databases.
>
Have I misunderstood this? I was under the impression that there would be
just one database per user - or are you saying that every application will be
seen as a new user?
Anne
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:34 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 06:33:14 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ed Greshko wrote:
> > > When I have more time I will look at it... However, I doubt that each
> > > application will spawn a new instance of mysql since that would
> > > certainly defeat the purpose of a centralized database. Looking at what
> > > little documentation I have...I am confident that it is one instance of
> > > mysql per user.
> >
> > It is, as long as only Akonadi does it. But I think his point was that
> > there may be other services or applications starting to do the same, which
> > will then use separate databases.
> >
> Have I misunderstood this? I was under the impression that there would be
> just one database per user - or are you saying that every application will be
> seen as a new user?
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. We're
also running two key managers (gnome-key and kwallet) which don't appear
to talk to each other. I'm sure I could think of other examples.
Isn't this the sort of thing that Freedesktop is supposed to prevent?
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
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.
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
Patrick O'Callaghan 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.
akonadi needed a core toolkit to use, and qt happens to fit the bill nicely.
KDE apps speak akonadi'ese, not the other way around. Non-kde apps could
just as well use akonadi too, which is the whole point of the exercise of
making it DE-independent.
-- Rex
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
Em Qua 18 Fev 2009, Kevin Kofler escreveu:
> Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
> > I don't have it running here, nor MySQL, and I use almost all
> > kdepim apps, including kabc.
>
> If this is F9, then you're still using kdepim 3.5, so it's no wonder
> you aren't actually using Akonadi yet.
>
> Kevin Kofler
No, I'm running F10 with KDE 4.2. It installed MySQL, but neither it nor
Akonadi are running. But I didn't setup it this way, I just downloaded
and installed the updates.
[]'s
Marcelo
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Mauriat < mirandam@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Arthur Pemberton < pemboa@...> wrote:
>>
>> I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it
>> such a big issue.
>>
>
> Just a thought: what about issues on netbooks or flash based computers?
>
> -Mauriat
Don't use a netbook to serve a high volume website then. MySQL only
needs as much resources as is called upon of it. Using it for your
address book alone will probably make no real different to your `top`
--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
< pocallaghan@...> 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.
--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
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@...> 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.
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
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@...> 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.
--
Magic is always the best solution -- especially reliable magic.
Mei-Mei.Greshko@... http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg --
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
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@...> 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.
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
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@...> 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@...
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg --
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
|
Re: KDE 4.2 requires local MySQL Server
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aldo Foot < lunixer@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton < pemboa@...> wrote:
>> I have yet to see what is so special about MySQL that makes having it
>> such a big issue.
>
> If anything at all: default accounts must be deleted or secured with passwords.
Ok, bare with me awhile, but ... why? Or are you securing against
users who turn off their firewall?
Because with a firewall up, an attacker would need to already have
access to the machine... in which case having passwords on MySQL is
useless.
Installing mysql-server does not open your firewall.
--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@...
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-listGuidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
|
signature.asc (260 bytes) 