Re: KDE is now broken (Fwd: Heads-up: KDE4 hitting testing tonight (UTC) )
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 04:19:07PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <[🔎] 20090527205036.GN5158@cat.rubenette.is-a-geek.com>, lee wrote:
> >On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:01:08PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >> So, yes, you did say that. You just didn't use those words, which is
> >> why they weren't a quote. (Notice the lack of quotation marks.) Anyone
> >> reading this message can follow the exact reasoning I used to get to
> >> that conclusion, based on the facts in this message--the quoted text.
> >> Please let me know what, if any, problems exist in my reasoning.
> >
> >I'm not interested in how you're turning and twisting the words ---
>
> Yes you are; my grasp of the English language is that only thing that allows
> you and I to communicate (for now). Assuming you want to communicate with
> me, you are interested on how your words acquire meaning in my mind.
That still doesn't mean that I'd be interested in how you are turning
and twisting words.
Anyway, how do words acquire meaning in your mind? How words/language
acquire(s) meaning is an interesting topic.
> >maybe it helps if you keep in mind that using language is different
> >from using mathematics or a programming language.
>
> Not entirely. There's a bit more fuzz on it since words and higher-level
> language constructs do not map directly to meanings or, in the logic/math
> parlance, propositions. However, failing to apply logical techniques to
> language analysis is leaving a very useful tool (maybe even your most useful
> tool) behind.
Then you might agree that applying logic to language can be an
inappropriate usage of a concept that can be sometimes useful. Using
it can easily lead to misunderstanding.
> I believe the transformations I applied to your words preserve their
> meaning. Can you show where exactly I failed to preserve your meaning?
I guess you failed to preserve the meaning by applying
transformations and losing the meaning somewhere along the way:
>>> >> >> Oh, then you don't want to run those parts of KDE; They require a
>>> >> >> connection to an Akonadi server. They've been scheduled to since
>>> >> >> before KDE 4.0 was available.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Maybe not. I'd be fine without them, if it would work without ---
>>> >> > but it doesn't.
>>> >> > [...]
>
>> Your exact statement: "I'd be fine without them, if it would work
>> without --- but it doesn't."
>> [...]
You seem to have made a leap here by connecting two things and/or
drawing a conclusion. What I was saying is that I would be fine
without the parts of KDE that require a connection to an akonadi
server if KDE would work without. I was also saying that it doesn't
work (which is a matter of fact).
I haven't said anywhere that KDE doesn't work without an akonadi
server. That seems to be a leap/conclusion you seem to have made. ---
Maybe I should have been more unambiguous.
Let me add that I don't know why it doesn't work. I have tried to
describe what I did and stated that KDE doesn't work anymore and
mentioned the error message that is being displayed when KDE (or kdm,
if that is an important difference) tries to start. I'm still thinking
that it would work if I had let aptitude install all the packages it
wanted to install --- but even if would work with all the packages
installed, that still wouldn't mean that it doesn't work now because I
didn't let it install the mysql server package.
However, it is a very common mistake to think that when something
isn't one thing, that this automatically means it is another. That
would be like saying "Because this isn't a table, it must be a
chair". Unfortunately, people make this mistake all the time. This
mistake leads to the sort of assumptions as you have made.
> >The fact remains
> >that I don't have the mysql server installed and that kde isn't
> >working anymore after the update.
>
> I don't doubt that. However, I know that KDE 4.2 *can* work without Akonadi
> and MySQL, because I have it *working*.
I don't doubt that, either.
> Your statements do not allow for the possibility that your issues
> could be local.
That's your assumption/conclusion. It's not what my statements do.
Reply to: