Re: [OT] KMail - forwarding issues
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:14:12 +0100, Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 31. 10. 2010 12:02:39 je Camaleón napisal(a):
>> >> I don't see how a "lack" (meaning, "inability of choice") can be a
>> >> good feature ;-(
>
> I don't think you can directly equate "choice" to "feature" just like
> that. Not letting kids wield guns, or prostitute themselves, or work in
> sweatshops, are "features" although actually limiting their "ability of
> choice". Not allowing people to drive cars before taking a driver's
> license, although limiting people's "choice", is likewise arguably a
> "feature".
I don't know how can you equate all that stuff with having html e-mail
unsless you also avoid using Internet (websites use html and not plain
text and we are all happy with that).
Come on, we cannot be so hypocrite. In no way html is a bad thing "per
se", it is an standard, it has it uses and people need that feature. 2400
people need that feature. You can start ignoring people wishes but then
you can forget that people fill bugs for another things, they'll just
search another alternatives to kmail or even KDE.
> Now, something like HTML mail is either a feature or it is not. Steering
> issues about "features" into issues of "liberty to choose" is, in my
> view, counterproductive. If we begin talking about the "liberty to
> choose", we'll soon have to install bumps in our roads because of
> reckless people who "choose" to drive like lethal bullets, or will have
> to endure excruciating check-ups at airports because of people who
> "choose" to use airplanes for something else than simply getting from
> one place to another, or will have to endure hefty, painfully slow
> flash-infested mail... Oh, we already do all that? I rest my case.
I think you are missing the point completely.
>> I wouldn't call it "choice" when you are forced to drop an e-mail
>> client
>> you like just because it lack one feature that it should be there (it's
>> a
>> GUI e-mail client, it allows creating html e-mails, so... why not
>> having
>> a full featured html editor that allows forwarding/replying while
>> keeping
>> the original format?).
>
> That's precisely the problem. Approaching something on a why-not basis
> instead of on a what-the-heck-for basis. Hey, why not make YAMC (yet
> another mail client), basically re-inventing the wheel, instead of
> joining the developers of a pre-existing mail client, and helping it
> become 10x as fast, 100x as lightweight and 1000x as robust as all other
> mail clients taken together? Hey, why not drop a stable, popular and
> beloved DE such as KDE3 and, just for the heck of it, start a hazy,
> bug-ridden, pre-production experiment called KDE4? Hey, why not have a
> welcome page on our web site made of a *huge* java, or flash
> application, stuffed full with blinking eye-sores and background music
> and all imaginable bandwidth hogs, just to basically say "Welcome to our
> site"? Hey, why encode e-mails as TEXT? It's so damn last-year, let's
> encode it as MPEG-1 instead, or RealMedia -- or, hey -- as uncompressed
> video! Yep, why not? Man, we could make the "Subject:" field alone take
> up 125 MB if we just try hard enough!
There is no need to reinvent nothing. Kmail has support for html e-mail
formatting, it just lacks some features to properly handle that format. A
bug or a feature... I do not care. I don't think Mutt needs to be able to
handle hmtl e-mails because is not a MUA designed for that purpose. But
Kmail _is_ and has a very poor support for html. To be fair, if Kmail DDs
do not want html, it would be better to dropt it at all.
>> Besides, there are "thounsand" users wanting such feature.
>
> Sad, isn't it?
Very sad. That behaviour could mean:
1/ Kmail DDs are not able to add that feature because they just do not
know how to make it possible.
2/ Kmail DDs are completely ignoring their users which does not sound
good, either.
>> I fail to see a direct relation between this example and Kmail html
>> issue, because you cannot go and turn off the light (you are not
>> allowed
>> to do it so, but police) but you can still have plain text e-mail
>> forwarding _or_ html e-mail forwarding: here the choice is fully yours.
>
> Sounds great. Except, the choice is fully yours.
Of course... so that I dropped KDE. Do you think that is the right way
for open source projects? Coomunication should flow from both extremes,
users <-> devels.
> Which, given that,
> generally, 90% of the people will choose Windows over GNU/Linux, Word
> .doc format over open document standards, royalty-ridden multimedia
> formats over open ones, vendor lock-in over open hardware/drivers, or
> even super-sized hamburgers over healthy foods, can be a problem in
> itself.
People is free to choose whatever they want because they have the
capability to do it so, that's the beatiful of freedom.
But if you are encouraging users to drop Kmail just because of that,
well, that is your POV. I prefer to help to correct those things that I
think are wrong.
>> Having the option of using html e-mails does not mean you are forced to
>> go that path, it is up to you when using plain text e-mail or html.
>> Now,
>> Kmail users do not have that choice.
>
> Unfortunately, many of us have that path quite simply *thrust upon us*.
> I wouldn't call that a choice by any stretch of the imagination. Ever
> tried updating your mail over a tethered UMTS phone because your DSL
> line just died or you're in the wild somewhere, with only your laptop
> and your GSM phone? It's an enlightening experience, at a flaky 2-3 kps.
> Particularly when you realize that the bulk of that 45-minutes download
> that has drained both your battery and your pre-paid GSM account, has
> been taken by a couple of unsolicited multimedia-infested HTML mails ...
Your are messing up things. Nobody is telling that you have to use html e-
mails, I am telling that having such option will not prevent users for
still using text e-mails.
In fact, you will still receive html spam and viruses regardless the MUA
you use and regardless its capabilities, so your argument is bit of no-
sense.
> Give a man the Garden of Eden, and you may be pretty sure he'll
> eventually make a Middle-East Hell out of it. Oh, he did? I rest my
> case.
>
> I apologize if anybody's feelings have been hurt by this mail. It was
> never my intention. I particularyl apologize to Camaleon, whom I value
> as one of the best contributors to this list, in fact as one of the
> list's pillars. My argument is not with you, Camaleon, it's with certain
> modes of thinking that seem to be quite endemic and which I profoundly
> disagree with.
No offense taken. I think good debates are always needed, mostly in the
FLOSS camp :-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: