Talk:Beagle (software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Q Does anybody know what happened to beagle? Is this still active somewhere? I can't seem to find any news and the project page is not working any more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika76 (talkcontribs) 06:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Should this article advertise something as intrusive and unsafe as Google Desktop for Windows? Why not just say "Beagle is a desktop search tool"? That's clear enough.

good point, especially as win XP has a search engine, and vista one that may be better. Whereas Google desktop is more than that, and is notable in being banned from a lot of companies. Beagle does not share that honor. SteveLoughran 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no criticism of beagle in this article. Is it really that flawless? It would be very unusual software if this was the case. SteveLoughran 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't need to have "criticism". They just need to be neutral. — Omegatron 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Beagle++ in the news[edit]

Digg has a post, currently on its front page, featuring Beagle++ and claiming that Beagle++ has semantic search capabilities. I was going to write a Wikipedia article about it, but there doesn't seem to be enough Wikipedia coverage of Beagle to put Beagle++ into perspective. // Internet Esquire 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== Lack of clarity

Q does the article convey information to readers?

If so which readers with what background knowledge? it is challenging to write text such that it is intelligible to the lay person yet not lie to those who know more. Normally as someone who knows more I skim the bit thats there for mugs and recognise the crumbs of truth I was meant to see. Unfortuantely this one sentence while correctly conveying 'super-quickness' to the lay person screams twaddle to me. "Beagle instantly indexes documents on Linux systems equipped with inotify." Sorry thats a sales pitch talk, nothing is 'instant'. When I poked further for the purpose of writing this comment I found the truth it is trying to say. If it had said... "Beagle instantly(preemptively) indexes documents on Linux systems equipped with inotify." If preemptive had been anywhere in the area I'd have guessed by combining that with the text inotify, that the meaning of the word instant was meant to imply sub second as opposed to minutes. Which is merely effectively instant from a user experiential view point. Even "Beagle (experientially)instantly indexes documents on Linux systems equipped with inotify." tones down the claim enough for to realise it is real not hype. "Beagle instantly push indexes documents on Linux systems equipped with inotify." yes I probably just made up the term push indexing but it gives a better clue to the informed.

This sentence is unintelligible to the informed unless they follow the inotify link and find out that inotify is preemptive/push notification mechanism for file system changes.

yeah whatever. As is usual in wikipedia and the world I expect as its your paddock your back yard and you don't take criticism well. Woof to you too. Sorry for the cynicism Im gettin old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beagle (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)