Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions

Posted Jun 2, 2009 20:07 UTC (Tue) by ncm (guest, #165)
In reply to: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions by jamesh
Parent article: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions

Upstream, in this case, is fully aware of users' desires. Likewise, the Debian packagers. They have both elected to ignore them. It's not clear whether the packagers are choosing to honor upstream's nutty opinion, or have evolved their own nutty opinion to match, and it doesn't matter much.

Hence, I don't see what you're disagreeing with. We seem to agree that it's a bug, and it's clear that upstream has refused to fix it. What's anomalous here is that the packagers have also refused to fix it, under what might or might not be the same process (which I refuse to call reasoning) used by upstream.

Ultimately this only matters if the infection spreads.

Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions

Posted Jun 3, 2009 15:12 UTC (Wed) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (5 responses)

What users' desires? You seem to be rabidly opposed to having this option exist and automatically assuming that every rational human being should see it as an affront to God and man, when I don't think that's the case *at all*.

I use Okular all the time and I've yet to come across a PDF with this option set, but I'd find it quite interesting I think.

Certainly I can't imagine a corporation ever wanting to change the default because with the default as it is, the blame is squarely on the user, who can't claim that they weren't notified. In that case it seems like this safer default is the most sane choice.

Or are you simply trolling? All of your posts in this thread have sounded like the ravings of a madman so it's hard to tell.

FAIL

Posted Jun 3, 2009 18:36 UTC (Wed) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (4 responses)

Let the record show that nye was the first participant in this discussion to rely on ad hominem remarks.

FAIL.

FAIL

Posted Jun 3, 2009 22:20 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

I didn't think it was necessarily ad hominem. I mean, the amount of time
and energy you've spent doing stuff with C++ would have driven any man
mad.

But now you've implied that in fact you are not mad, and we must take you
at your word ;)

(FWIW I agree with you, less vehemently: attempting to copy from a
copy-prohibited document should warn about the prohibition *and let you
turn it off*, for good or for that one document. The current situation
isn't good enough. Prior art: browser cookie management options.)

not FAIL

Posted Jun 4, 2009 0:30 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link]

I agree that your proposed approach would completely resolve the problem with Okular itself. (I can even agree vehemently, if you like, but I'm not accustomed to vehemence.) It would not solve the problem that Debian has, as official maintainers, individuals who have expressed and demonstrated fundamental hostility to the ideals and goals of the project.

FAIL

Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:26 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link]

"(FWIW I agree with you, less vehemently: attempting to copy from a
copy-prohibited document should warn about the prohibition *and let you
turn it off*, for good or for that one document. The current situation
isn't good enough. Prior art: browser cookie management options.)"

Yes, that would be a very sensible approach.
If the developers implement that, this article would have proven to be very useful ;-)

FAIL

Posted Jun 4, 2009 10:30 UTC (Thu) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link]

And after I spent all that time coming up with a politely factual remark, rather than making the original emotional response I felt like.

Tch.