Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Apr 2007 10:23 UTC, submitted by FreeRhino
"Desktop search engines are all the rage these days. While Beagle may be the most popular desktop search engine for Linux, there are alternatives. If you are looking for a lightweight and easy-to-use yet powerful desktop search engine, you might want to try Recoll. Unlike Beagle, Recoll doesn't require Mono, it's fast, and it's highly configurable. Recoll is based on Xapian, a mature open source search engine library that supports advanced features such as phrase and proximity search, relevance feedback, document categorization, boolean queries, and wildcard search."
Thread beginning with comment 233934
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-10-08
In general I agree to your statement. Please let me add a few comments:
"With a single store for all this information, developers are saved all the hassle of having to implement search, tagging and metadata retrieval themselves. And the user gets a smaller, lighter, more responsive suite of apps. No more importing files or renaming/linking for consistency."
This is a nice utopy, but I think it is an utopy in fact. Applications tend to get bigger, heavier, so it's the opposite of what you're talking about. Furthermore, applications would need to be conform to the indexing system's requirements. But I hope this will change in the future.
It's still important to have completely working applications without desktop search. For those who don't want / don't need it.
This indexing systems can also be used to organize projects consisting of files of completely different formats which share a certain relation.
"Your music player automatically becomes aware of any music present, as well as being able to filter based on size, artist, album, genre, etc. For free."
This would imply that the needed informations are available. But what if you have MP3 files named 2977723123123.mp3 with no ID tag present?
"So, for those that say "slocate works for me!", try to think about whether slocate (or anything other than a dedicated app) would ever be useful or efficient for, say, searching through 15,000 photos for that picture of you and your wife fishing in Argentina. All the naming conventions and careful nesting in the world is no match for a shutter-happy spouse and 15,000 files named DSCXXXX."
Correct. :-) Sadly, even if a photo is called 2007_03_21_argentinia_my_wife_and_me_003.jpg, but has a completely different content (let's say, a picture of my boss in Germany), the indexing tool would not print the correct results because it cannot interpret the content. It relies on information about the content which need to be correct. But if they are not... you surely know what I want to say. Imagine what fun it must be to check picture, document or media file contents manually.
BTW, you can use "strings" to extract creation date from some image files...