Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Mar 2007 17:44 UTC, submitted by suka
Permalink for comment 224785
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-21
Is it just me, or is your statement
Jamie is correct, Beagle and Tracker can not be compared, specifically because tracker can only do a tiny fraction of the work that Beagle can do.
logically inconsistent with the previous post from jamie
Tracker is a extensible metadata daemon with a high performance RDF style triple store database + a high speed indexer. Beagle in comparison is just an indexer.
What that means is you can use tracker to store tons of metadata, do desktop tagging, cross reference and cross query all your metadata and provide a next generation integrated desktop. Beagle can not do any of that as its not designed for the task
(emphasis in both quotations mine)
EDIT: it is not the GP post, it's a post from a different thread
Edited 2007-03-26 20:12