libqzeitgeist & zeitgeist

[Rex Dieter]

On 07/02/2012 11:11 AM, Fl at sh wrote:

>> Besides, I'd also prefer to have some sort of justification to spend
>> time and energy on implementing what you want.  So far, I've only seen
>> "I don't want zeitgeist".  You need to say *why*, and ideally, also back
>> that up with evidence.
> * I don't needed zeitgest recording of my activity or any statistics about it.
> Nepomuk+Zeitgeist in this sense, make a useless activity drives + cpu.
> Many of my acquaintances KDE users against using nepomuk+zeitgeist, and I guess that more users do not even think about what they have there for the processes in the system and what they do. So I think that this bunch should be used only by those who need it, and it should not be of default setting.
> Honestly this: that I do not need, should not be in my system. I've already written about modularity.
> * The information collected by the Nepomuk+Zeitgeist is potentially dangerous because it can characterize the user. That is a collection of data on the individual. In many countries, such behavior is considered as criminally. This should be a solution to every user before the installation of these services.
> * Some monitoring of personal information about an employee is allowed in special services, or after personal agreement (noted in the contract of employment) when applying for a job. Now tell me: KDE user is a member of the Secret Service, or is a member of KDE?
> * The very presence of such software could result in unauthorized collection of information about the user after a burglary system. The user must decide: to have him so soft on your system or not.

OK now we're getting somewhere.  I'd suggest you're talking to the wrong 
people then.  Talk to zeitgeist upstream, and it's bindings' authors.

(I'll do some of that work for you and talk to them, but I'll likely be 
more easily convinced about how not-bad it is)

-- rex