Spotlight Improvements In Leopard 356
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is set to feature several new enhancements to Spotlight, Apple's desktop search, and ComputerWorld outlines them. The improvements include searching across multiple networked Macs, parental search snooping, server Spotlight indexing, boolean search, better application launching (sorely needed), and quick-look previews.
Beagle allready does this! (Score:4, Interesting)
Beagle [beagle-project.org] has done this for a while.
Also from tfa As powerful as Spotlight is, it actually offers a somewhat limited set of search options. (then detailing the new, 1996 search engine style AND/OR/NOT operators).
Beagle's also ahead [beagle-project.org] here: I guess sometime's Spotlight's ahead on features & at other times Beagle's ahead.
Spotlight, Windows Search, here's an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
The number of times I have to swap out CDs trying to find an image file or an old piece of code - it drives me nuts! Now with DVD it gets worse, HD-DVD, Blu-ray - forget it, that's a needle in a haystack. How difficult could it be to have the drive index offline media too - a bit like some tape library software or the like? Maybe it could index when you burn? The last time I saw something like this was when I got a Zip drive back in 1997 and some nifty free software came with it. Now, it seems that you can only search your local drive - a bad idea when removable media is the norm.
So, at the risk of sounding like a total banana; why doesn't anyone do this, or am I missing some glaringly obvious checkbox somewhere in OS X/XP/Fedora/Vista?
Re:Beagle allready does this! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because Beagle uses the Lucene search engine. Speaking as someone who uses Lucene every day, has written numerous analysers, query parsers and filters, it doesn't come close to Spotlight's engine. Examples? Queries can't start with a wild card, queries cannot comprise of a NOT clause by itself, results are stored in an immutable data structure that does not support merging, queries containing wild cards and ranges of values get translated into an enormous query with an OR clause for *every term in the index*. Thats fucking disgraceful. Lucene is also *much* slower then Spotlight, and contains numerous memory leaks relating to index readers and writers.
Lucene is exceptionally easy to use and develop for, and Beagle ain't half bad, but Spotlight is superior in every way (except being closed source, yawn).
Re:Beagle allready does this! (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, if you are in a 4Gb/s network or in some kind of Ultra320 SCSI setup, you might not experience any difference in performance. However, if you are on a *normal* computer that has 7200RPM drives, spotlight is much faster than traditional search. Remember- it's the indexing that makes it fast. Windows does not do this.
Re:No Mention of Vista? (Score:4, Interesting)
Aliases are a lot better than a symlink (Score:5, Interesting)
prompt% ln -s
prompt% mv
The symlink is now screwed. An alias set up to point at
Simon.
Re:The need for speed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Beagle allready does this! (Score:3, Interesting)
(Note: this is an actual question; I haven't played with Synaptic outside of installing things in repositories.)
Re:Beagle allready does this! (Score:3, Interesting)
No, thank Christ. Round our office, first thing we do with new Linux boxen is uninstall Beagle, 'cause if you don't the goddamn program will easily spend the first day or two of the box's life eating half of your CPU indexing where your 82 brazillion files are, even when a user has a priority process running. The *last* thing I wanna do is have to renice a bunch of processes because some idiotic GUI finder program wants to index files.
Beagle sucks. So does Spotlight, but at least Spotlight doesn't suck in a resource-wasting way.