On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 05:12:06PM +0200, Sven Burmeister wrote:
Am Montag, 29. August 2011, 15:55:41 schrieb Oliver Kullmann:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:24:12PM +0200, Sven Burmeister wrote:
Did you read Bob's email from yesterday in this thread before posting?
Could you please be more specific? Which e-mail (and which content in it)? And I didn't find an e-mail posted by "Bob", but perhaps I'm not familiar with what "Bob" stands for (I thought "Robert").
I wrote Bob and not Robert and there is only one Bob in this thread. His post shows yesterday 18:04:03 as timestamp here, so you might have to add/subtract some hours.
Why don't you just state what is important there for you? There are three posts by Bob Williams in this thread, and they do not speak about virtual desktops (they speak about "activities").
Again, would be great if you could be more explicit.
You claim virtual desktops are broken in KDE4 – others use them extensively with KDE4. Your statement "Virtual desktops do no longer work with KDE4;" is simply wrong – can only be wrong because it is far to general. There are bugs – most certainly there are – but your statement is just plain wrong. If you need an example - claiming that a car does not work when the radio is broken – is wrong.
You argue in a kind of autistic way, aiming at the one meaning of the words which everybody should know. This is the one thing which needed to be said here, that such mailing lists etc. are not the place to expect general statements (this is not a scientific journal). So your understanding of "wrong" etc. needs adjustment. On the other hand, "broken" is broken: if something as basic as the distribution of windows on the virtual desktops doesn't work, then it should be called broken. Again, people can drive with broken cars, and so there can not be a standard on what "broken" is. But then your statement about "car and radio" is actually rhetorical -- virtual *desktops* are at the hard of KDE, and are not just a tiny little bit in it. It would be more like, say, the gears.
Perhaps you mean the claims that for some people virtual desktops seem to work? See the bug reports in KDE under my name, many of the recent ones have to do with virtual desktops and their bugs (these I think I remember we all had (nearly) in KDE3, but they were cured). These bugs are facts. And nothing happens about them (this seems to be another fact, though a weaker one, since behind the scences things could change).
People have different priorities on how they spend their leisure time. Since it's not utterly broken, i.e. a lot of people can work with it maybe devs focus on things that are needed by more people. Who knows. The "my bugs are the most important" is a very subjective issue.
Why do you just say such empty things (they are in a sense always true) which do not add anything to the subject? Under some cover of supposedly "objective" statements, there is just the cancellation of the Other. This discussion is just a little bit of support for the ideological nature of KDE4: instead of accepting that KDE4 does not work for many people, but oneself likes it, one has to eliminate the Other, it can not be that KDE4 is not that great thing (so, I think it's quite likely that under the surface of all that, say, proclaimed proud of KDE4, there is something rather different). The position of those who suffer from KDE4 is rather different: I for example, like many other people, spend, say, perhaps 8 hours per day (7 days a week) before the computer. The pain KDE4 causes, and this for no good reasons, is real. But, so well, I don't think there is much more to be said here. Oliver -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org