On Thursday 06 May 2010 15:12:31 Mike Bird wrote: > On Thu May 6 2010 12:02:05 Dotan Cohen wrote: > > Do you customarily read the complete email headers of those whom > > with which you correspond? > > Email headers are not relevant to most discussions, therefore no. > > My point is that many KDE developers and packagers do not use KDE > like real-world users, and therefore do not appreciate the concerns > of real-world KDE users. > > The whole semantic desktop idea is a bad joke in the real MULTI-USER > world. The semantic desktop is not here. But, what is present in KDE SC 4 (and other environments) is the first meaningful, user-visible step. > If semantics are to have any value they must evolve on the > server from all the members of the workgroup, not an isolated user. Ontologies and mappings from your personal ontology to a workgroup ontology or a "global" ontology are possible, and the frameworks for doing so are being developed. However, the current version will enable users to start building their own ontologies and get accustom to working in a semantic desktop, which should actually be easier than as "classic" program-oriented or document-oriented desktop. > We've had more than two years of being told "KDE SC 4 is good enough". > > It is not. It is good enough for me. But, I can see how the lack of items like Quanta, Amarok, and K3B (to name a few) cause issues for a great many users. I also understand (deeply) the concept shear that occurs when moving from the rote familiarity of KDE 3.4/5 to KDE SC 4.x. Coupling these things together can make many users feel that KDE SC 4.x is a step sideways and backwards rather than a move forward, even when moving to something like KDE SC 4.4. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. firstname.lastname@example.org ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.