Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

PPD files

Posted Dec 14, 2005 3:14 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
In reply to: PPD files by GreyWizard
Parent article: GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition

Well, let's list out three specific quotes from you and see if we can
find the (in)consistency.

>> Why do you have so much trouble admitting that there is an important
>> difference between being unable to access a computer at all and losing
>> the benefit of advanced printer features?

You posit an important difference...

>> All I ask is that you stop pretending that support for disabled users
>> and advanced laser printing are comparable. They're not.

Then you say there is no way to compare them...

>> All I want is for you to admit that bringning the disabled into the
>> online world is more important than configuring PPD printers. Is that'
>> so hard for you?

Then you say that bringing disabled users into the 'online world' is more
important than the printer features. When did the 'online world' enter
into this debate? Why and how? The same way the morals / ethics kneejerk
to the comment that "printer drivers are equally important to
accessibility tools" did - you simply thought it would be a nice way to
argue?

You might want to take your head out of the sand and look around... many
more people care about this issue than I, and your attitude is very
obviously defective for someone that's supposed to care about things that
work well for their users. You won't convert me to GNOME, but that's OK,
because I'm just another programmer. But there are a lot of users that
haven't been converted to either KDE or GNOME, or perhaps ones looking to
switch. If you care at all about attracting these people, banishing the
capability to do anything non-default about their printer to the command
line is very much not the way to welcome them with open arms.

And that makes you a run of the mill stupid engineer, because stupid
engineers are the people that not only design for themselves (which isn't
wrong as often as it's sometimes said) but actually flat out ignore the
idea that anyone else without an engineering degree might one day want to
use the product. Good job :)

In any case, I'm going to stop responding to your nonsense... if anything
makes me feel "not very bright," it's the feeling like I've been baited
into wasting my afternoon to argue with the functional equivalent of a
coke machine.

(Log in to post comments)

PPD files

Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:08 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

You posit an important difference... Then you say there is no way to compare them... Then you say that bringing disabled users into the 'online world' is more important than the printer features.

This is nothing but word games -- that is, sophistry. In context, when I say the two things are not comparable I'm refering to the absurd comparison you made at the beginning: "99% of the current Linux desktop market probably doesn't have damn bit of need for a screen reader / magnifier / sticky keys." You are comparing a refusal to support printer PPD configuration with refusing to support accessibility features. This comparison is invalid (regardless of whether Gnome developers actually have done so as you allege and others refute) because there is a qualitative difference between the two. You could admit this rather obvious fact without otherwise modifying your militant stance against Gnome. But then you wouldn't seem like such a moron and what fun would that be?

When did the 'online world' enter into this debate?

More word games. "Online" in this context is merely a shorthand for direct access to computers and the internet. I am clearly not attempting to expand the detate to some other subject with this phrase.

The same way the morals / ethics kneejerk to the comment that "printer drivers are equally important to accessibility tools" did - you simply thought it would be a nice way to argue?

Your creative grammer makes it impossible to be sure, but I can only assume you mean by this to accuse me of introducing nastly old morals into a lofty debate about technical issues. If so you're wrong as usual. This has more to do with logic and common sense than morals or ethics. I've explained this elsewhere.

You won't convert me to GNOME,

Why do you have so much difficulty grasping that I don't care which desktop you or anyone else uses? You are so bent out of shape over the difference between Gnome and KDE that merely by pointing out a flaw in your windy and incoherent statements that is completley unrelated to which is better I have become some sort of evangelist for the enemy in your eyes. Amusing.

PPD files

Posted Dec 16, 2005 6:56 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

Back in the real world, there is no qualitative difference between the two. They're both people who can't use the system to do what they need. There's always going to be someone out there who could use the system if only you made some small change.

PPD files

Posted Dec 17, 2005 0:19 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

Do you actually want to pretend there's no qualitative difference between being unable to use a subset of the features of a subset of printers (assuming the command line is off limits) and having no way to access to email, the web, office productivity tools or any of the innumerable things a computer can offer? You seem less like a credible emissary from the "real world" than just another space cadet.

PPD files

Posted Dec 17, 2005 22:21 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

Not a subset of printers, their printer. Assuming the command line is not off limits, the blind can access email, the web, and most of the innumerable things a computer can offer without GNOME's assistence.

PPD files

Posted Dec 19, 2005 1:09 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

By that reasoning, there could be no qualitative difference between Gnome and Bash because both offer enough features for some users but lack features others require. But common sense recognizes that they are not directly comparable. That's why alternative implementations of accessibility features are irrelevant. A Gnome that didn't have such features would have to be abandoned entirely by disabled users while a Gnome without PPD configuration could be used for everything except that relatively narrow task. This difference in the quality of the user experience is the issue.