On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 18:02 +0100, Jérôme wrote: > > Recoll is a really better alternative remplacement of beagle. I don't want to start a holy war, but no it's not. It doesn't index instantly for one thing and it hammers the disk with periodic (i.e. from cron) scans of entire filesystems just in case there is a change in one or two files that need re-indexing. Beagle would have the kernel tell it when a file was modified and therefor only operated on files that were actually changed, when they were changed, providing instantaneous search match results. > You can > index only with a cron Right. This is better than beagle? > or manually (like "locate"), so you don't waste > disk i/o Or you could just do what Beagle did and get notifications of files that were changed and have the best of both worlds. > Also, Recoll index djvu documents (the best for scan archives, up to 10x > lighter than PDF scans), tracker not. How about evolution? Does it do that? I don't think it does. Seriously, from what I have read about Recoll, it doesn't even compare to Beagle. b.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part