Apparently, though unproven, at 17:06 on Wednesday 11 May 2011, Indi did opine thusly:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > It uses hardly any cpu at all, regardless of what the naysayers say. > > Well, add me to the "naysayers" list then, because my experience directly > contradicts that statement. Much happier with fluxbox, completely finished > fooling with the kde. semantic desktop equates to nepomuk If you do something really thick with the backend (virtuoso currently) it will go beserk. Full strigi indexing will keep your disk busy all day - what else could it do if you want a full text indexed search of 300GB of file in ~ like many users have these days? > I still don't understand why the kde folks went from something that > worked extremely well to their current state. Baffling. KDE3 and KDE4 are not the same thing. KDE4 is not the next version of KDE3. You must consider KDE4 to be a completely new product, unrelated to KDE3 in any meaningful way except that many KDE4 devs used to work on a different project called KDE3. Like all software, KDE4 is not for everyone - like you for example. But there's nothing stopping you from maintaining KDE3 yourself. Why did the devs switch? Market pressures really. If you don't spot emerging trends and follow them early, you run the risk of becoming redundant very quickly. Ask Microsoft, they know all about this. They went from the undisputed behemoth market leader to staring the very real threat of total obsolescence in three very short years. KDE devs decided to take the risk and make the jump ahead of the curve. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
