Re: [OT] KMail - forwarding issues
Dne, 31. 10. 2010 14:51:00 je Camaleón napisal(a):
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:14:12 +0100, Klistvud wrote:
>
> 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).
I was not equating anything with anything, I was just trying to make a
distinction about features not always being choices and vice versa; and
about features not always making us better off.
Come on, we cannot be so hypocrite.
We could at least try ... ;)
I think you are missing the point completely.
Now you're beginning to sound exactly as my wife ... ;)
People is free to choose whatever they want because they have the
capability to do it so, that's the beatiful of freedom.
With freedom should come responsibility. However, that doesn't seem to
be the case. If I take a look around me -- of course, it may just be me
-- I see that, more often than not, people make choices for the worse.
Problem is, those poor choices of the so-called "majority" have
repercussions on all of us. In the end, I'm forced to endure HTML mail,
although I may despise it. I'm forced to endure flash although I may
despise it. If I want to be able to play music on a mobile phone or a
portable player, I'm forced to either use the patent-encumbered mp3
format or nothing -- open formats are not supported, or only
exceptionally. If I want to watch family photos on my home DVD
recorder, they have to be in the royalty-encumbered jpg format --
again, open formats are rarely supported. Gosh, even for just *taking*
a family photo I'll have a hard time finding a camera that doesn't use
patent-encumbered formats! If I want to buy a laptop that is at least
half-compatible with a Free OS, I must go to great lengths to check in
advance that all components will work at all, because the wise majority
is quite content with it working in Windows and couldn't care less.
And it's not just a matter of abstract principles, sometimes it
interferes with my life quite directly. For example, if I want to
exchange document files with my clients in order to make my living --
they require I use the proprietary Word .doc format. They've obviously
never even heard of .odt and the like. All these, and many other,
choices are being thrust upon me on a daily basis by the "savvy
majority", and they are all poor choices in my view.
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.
I don't encourage users to do anything. I am just expounding the 2¢
worth of my POV.
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.
True, but if you think about what made HTML spam and viruses possible
in the first place, you'll come to the conclusion that it was the
introduction of HTML mail. It was the bane of the "feature-driven
design". It was the "hey, why-not" attitude. Many of us never wanted
it. I was on dial-up at the time and sure as hell didn't want it. I
thought that text-only mail standard was lean, bandwidth-efficient,
fast and lightweight, and something the Internet Consortium (or whoever
invented it) could really be proud of. Why ruin it?
Well, the savvy majority decided for us all. Now, we have to endure
HTML spam and viruses just like all those who made the wise decision to
introduce HTML "features" into e-mail.
Well, thanks for nothing.
P.S. Nothing of the above is aimed at Kmail specifically. Kmail is the
greatest mail client I've ever used, more complete, more intuitive, and
more stable than Balsa which I'm using now. I've only dropped it
because I switched to Gnome and don't want to burden my system with any
KDE libraries. I've used Kmail for a year or so and never even noticed
whether it had HTML support or no -- just goes to show how much I
needed it.
--
Cheerio,
Klistvud
http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to
me.
Reply to: