replying on phone. blame faulty text completion/correction for any rudeness! On Feb 29, 2016 5:40 PM, "Alexander Neundorf" <neund...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 28, 2016 23:59:12 Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > On Saturday 27 February 2016 21:29:10 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > ... > > > The user still depends on the company to continue the product, to not > > > change the terms and conditions, etc. > > > The user still is forced to use a device where the software runs, and > > > has lost if the app is e.g. not ported to the new mobile OS of the > > > day, to some new processor, etc. > > > To me, this is not satisfying. > > > > > > Or, IOW, the technology should be available similar to how pen and > > > paper are available today - very cheap, not dependent on a single > > > company, notes written today will be still readable in 100 years, the > > > knowledge how to create them is no secret, etc. > > > > > > Does that make clearer what I mean. > > > > IMO, WhatsApp cannot give its users control over their digital life > > precisely for the reasons you write above. The user is a WhatsApp's > > mercy. This is the exact opposite of user control. The user's digital > > life is under the control of WhatsApp. They can delete the user's > > digital life whenever they want to. > > yes, that's the problem I see. > I just think that this is not very clearly expressed by "have control", it > needs some interpretation and may be considered a bit far fetched by some. > Devils advovate: _in the moment_ a user is using the app, and the provider > doesn't change its conditions, the user can indeed be in full control. > I guess many proprietary software vendors will argue this way. I might even do > so for the stuff I do at work: we try to make our users as much in control of > their data in our application as possible, and the users even have the chance > to influence the future development of our application. But still they depend > on us that we continue to do what we do. > > Can we express the "not be at the mercy of some company" clearer than "have > full control" ?
But then you have to spell it all out - it isn't just about companies but governments, heck even individuals or charities... Full control is more and can even be redefined. I think the flexibility of being a bit vague means we all can give meaning to it, make it shared but also our own. That is the power of a vision, the part that makes it unite - encompassing bit personal. Of you spell out each part, what 'everyone' means, what 'full' means, 'digital', 'life'... We have a book, not a sentence. If YOU get what it means and can explain it to somebody; and it feels like it means what you want KDE to be; then it is good. Stop thinking about corner cases, it is neither law nor code :-) Honestly I think we can keep discussing it to the end of the world but it won't get much better: we are a diverse community, but giving people control over their digital lives, with all the different things it means for different people - it is what binds us and makes for a great vision. Just think about neon - make a list of 5 reasons why it shouldn't be a KDE project, easy. But then look at the vision: does it help people (a certain group, in this case, Ubuntu users) achieve and more control over their privacy, their desktop etc? It does, so, while we can and should have more criteria than 'just' a vision, it IS something which binds us. > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > kde-community mailing list > kde-community@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
_______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
