faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Ideas and Clarifications
by not me on Sunday 06/May/2001, @19:58
|
"You don't seem to be understanding where I'm arguing from"
You're right. I don't understand how you can argue that KDE should provide packages that aren't as good simply because they state they want to make an easy-to-use desktop. My argument is that if good distro packages are in fact out there then KDE's obligation to make the installation easy (an obligation that comes from their stated goals) is *already fulfilled*. It doesn't matter that KDE itself hasn't actually made the installation easy, KDE didn't state in their goals that they had to do everything themselves. If there weren't distro packages out there, or if KDE could do better than distro packages, then of course it would be a whole different story.
"[this article] was pretty much a _direct statement_ to the tune of "we are not responsible for facilitating the process of attaining and installing KDE, so _stop asking_"!!!"
KDE doesn't do much to help users with specific distro packages, that is true. However, that doens't mean that they have done nothing to help users obtain and install KDE! They work with distro packagers and help them. And, as long as _support_ for distro packages exists, then KDE has no obligation to support distro packages. It's the same argument as my other one. This article was about misdirected complaints: People are complaining to KDE about packages that were made by distros. They can and should contact their distros instead.
>"Simply because one guy got fed up with all the newbies asking him to help them with packages that he didn't make and posted this article to the dot doesn't mean that the entire KDE project doesn't care about its users."
"That statement would be true if he weren't speaking on behalf of the entire KDE project… problem is, he happened to be speaking on behalf of the entire KDE project!"
The statement is still true. I would argue that this article doesn't even mean that the author doesn't care about KDE's users. He simply wants them to direct complaints to the correct place. Just because that place is not technically part of KDE (though the packagers are closely related) doesn't mean that he doesn't care.
"This statement is a variation of the "understand/agree" logical fallacy. Just because I find your comments to be purely speculatory doesn't mean I haven't read them… it only means that I've read them and found them to be purely speculatory."
You can't call my arguments speculatory because I have provided reasons. You can call them wrong (and you have), but that's different.
"But "preference" is not spelled s-u-p-e-r-i-o-r."
Huh? If you have a preference for something, don't you think its better? I prefer Windows over Linux because I think its better. I prefer distro packages over proposed KDE binary packages because I think they are better.
"This is a slippery-slope fallacy"
It is not an out-of-line slippery-slope fallacy. I was merely giving examples of the fact that niceties make programs easier to use and easier-to-use programs are better. You were arguing that since you thought distro integration was a nicety, it wasn't required. I was arguing that "niceties" such as integration make KDE easier to use and therefore make distro packages better, which supported my point.
"your "standard user" doesn't really use the updater tools/control center because it was set up FOR them in most cases."
They may not use it on a regular basis, but there _will_ come a time when they wish to use it for _something_. What if they buy a new printer or something and want to set it up? I agree that a "standard user" wouldn't use the control panel on a regular basis, but there would definitely be a few times when they would want it to be there.
"The bottom line of my statement is that KDE is, by their OWN rules, responsible for providing SOMETHING other then source code and that's it"
No, KDE is responsible for *seeing that* something other than source code is provided. They *do* see that something other than source code is provided, therefore their responsibility in this case is fulfulled. It does not matter that the distro packagers aren't technically part of the KDE project. Their product is easy-to-use KDE binary packages for everyone.
Now, if KDE could do *better* than disto packages, then it *would* be their responsibility to do so. As you point out, the KDE installer project is a good way to improve on distro packages. |
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
