* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
@ ` Aaron Howell
[not found] ` <20030408153227.GA3492@rednote.net>
` Luke Davis
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Howell @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
actually, to set the record straight.
redHat _does_ maintain a policy of deliberate discrimination wrt their RHCE material.
I was told in no uncertain terms that there was no way i would be given an electronic copy of the RHCE training material,
and that to scan the material might be considered a breach of RedHat's copyright.
My only option was to have a sighted person read me the whole manual *ahem-bullshit-yeah-right* that thing is like 500 pages.
I asked RedHat Asia pacific what their response to being slapped with a disability discrimination claim regarding their refusal to provide material in an accessible format would be,
and was told by the trainer that it would make RedHat's being able to provide me a place on the course somewhat more difficult.
in other words, tow the line or you don't sit the course.
that's not even the half of it though,
i was told until 3 days before i was to start the course that yes, it would be ok for me to use speakup,
then RH call me to say, oh, sorry, Redhat U.S said no to that and your only option is brltty
(oh and by the way, you have to supply a compatible braille device yourself)
*because-everyone-has-6-thousand-spare-to-buy-one-of-those*.
I ended up getting them to accept me having a sighted person along to read the exam,
and to use speakup throughout the course.
To say RedHat's attitude to accessibility is piss poor in the extreme is being nice to it.
Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to try actually getting them to cooperate on something like the RHCE.
My next re-sit of the RHCE when my current one expires will be in the company of a lawyer well versed in discrimination law,
and with a little more than 3 days to work with - i intend to get access to their training material in electronic form
if I've got to take them all the way to the human rights and equal opportunity commission.
So, deliberate denial? absolutely!
Regards
Aaron
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Luke Davis writes:
> > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > > Luke Davis writes:
>
> False.
>
>
> There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
>
> There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
>
> Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> decision to deny?" Bull..
>
> Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> Hardly.
>
> Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> where this deliberate decision was reached?
>
> So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> the plural. So, what else
> > >
> > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > listed."
> > >
> > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> >
> > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Director
> Technology Research and Development
> Governmental Relations Group
> American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` Aaron Howell
@ ` Luke Davis
` Aaron Howell
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Luke Davis @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Now *that* is what you should have said the first time.
I should have said "fact".
Luke
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Luke Davis writes:
> > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > > Luke Davis writes:
>
> False.
>
>
> There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
>
> There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
>
> Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> decision to deny?" Bull..
>
> Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> Hardly.
>
> Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> where this deliberate decision was reached?
>
> So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> the plural. So, what else
> > >
> > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > listed."
> > >
> > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> >
> > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` Aaron Howell
` Luke Davis
@ ` Aaron Howell
` Janina Sajka
` Darrell Shandrow
` Chuck Hallenbeck
` Darrell Shandrow
4 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Howell @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Oh, and one more thing,
They made me sign an agreement that
"the provisions provided by Redhat were of my own chosing,
and that it was RedHat's opinion that I may be putting myself at a disadvantage by choosing to use such alternative arrangements."
That is, they gave me absolutely no choice, then made me agree that it was what I'd wanted all along.
Regards
Aaron
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Luke Davis writes:
> > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > > Luke Davis writes:
>
> False.
>
>
> There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
>
> There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
>
> Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> decision to deny?" Bull..
>
> Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> Hardly.
>
> Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> where this deliberate decision was reached?
>
> So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> the plural. So, what else
> > >
> > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > listed."
> > >
> > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> >
> > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Director
> Technology Research and Development
> Governmental Relations Group
> American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Aaron Howell
@ ` Janina Sajka
` Aaron Howell
` Darrell Shandrow
1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
This sounds silly, of course. But, I don't quite understand.
I think I understand the first part where you write,
"the provisions provided by Red Hat were of my own choosing." I would interpret this to mean something like, "you choose to take this test, so you choose what we offer
according to the terms we offer it." Circular and silly, of course.
But, about the alternative arrangements, what was the alternative? I don't quite follow this. It seems there was no alternative, just the one option which perhaps RH
was saying put you at a disadvantage. Namely, that whoever wanted this signature realized you would have a tougher time than other candidates. But, is there some
meaning I'm missing about an "alternative?"
Aaron Howell writes:
> From: Aaron Howell <aaron@kitten.net.au>
>
> Oh, and one more thing,
> They made me sign an agreement that
> "the provisions provided by Redhat were of my own chosing,
> and that it was RedHat's opinion that I may be putting myself at a disadvantage by choosing to use such alternative arrangements."
> That is, they gave me absolutely no choice, then made me agree that it was what I'd wanted all along.
> Regards
> Aaron
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > Luke Davis writes:
> > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Luke Davis writes:
> >
> > False.
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
> >
> > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
> >
> > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> > decision to deny?" Bull..
> >
> > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> > Hardly.
> >
> > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> > where this deliberate decision was reached?
> >
> > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> > the plural. So, what else
> > > >
> > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > > listed."
> > > >
> > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> > >
> > > Regarding:
> > >
> > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> > >
> > > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka, Director
> > Technology Research and Development
> > Governmental Relations Group
> > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> >
> > Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
--
Janina Sajka, Director
Technology Research and Development
Governmental Relations Group
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
@ ` Aaron Howell
` Aaron Howell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Howell @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hi there,
The situation was that the trainer who was organizing my participation had no idea of my experience with Linux
(I've been using various different flavors of it since spring 93 - thanks kerry *grin*)
and it was felt by him and RedHat in general that there was a pretty good chance I wouldn't pass the RHCE.
The form was to cover their butts so that when i failed, I couldn't turn around and say that it was because RedHat put me at a disadvantage,
Their attitude was that I shouldn't sit the RHCE until they got around to incorporating accessibility (ie speakup) into RedHat natively,
whenever that might be.
The satisfying thing was though, I not only passed, but I passed with 98% and beet both the instructors' marks.
So the tables were somewhat turned in the end.
Regards
Aaron
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:40:38AM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> This sounds silly, of course. But, I don't quite understand.
>
> I think I understand the first part where you write,
> "the provisions provided by Red Hat were of my own choosing." I would interpret this to mean something like, "you choose to take this test, so you choose what we offer
> according to the terms we offer it." Circular and silly, of course.
>
> But, about the alternative arrangements, what was the alternative? I don't quite follow this. It seems there was no alternative, just the one option which perhaps RH
> was saying put you at a disadvantage. Namely, that whoever wanted this signature realized you would have a tougher time than other candidates. But, is there some
> meaning I'm missing about an "alternative?"
>
> Aaron Howell writes:
> > From: Aaron Howell <aaron@kitten.net.au>
> >
> > Oh, and one more thing,
> > They made me sign an agreement that
> > "the provisions provided by Redhat were of my own chosing,
> > and that it was RedHat's opinion that I may be putting myself at a disadvantage by choosing to use such alternative arrangements."
> > That is, they gave me absolutely no choice, then made me agree that it was what I'd wanted all along.
> > Regards
> > Aaron
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > >
> > > False.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
> > >
> > > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> > > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> > > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> > > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> > > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
> > >
> > > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> > > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> > > decision to deny?" Bull..
> > >
> > > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> > > Hardly.
> > >
> > > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> > > where this deliberate decision was reached?
> > >
> > > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> > > the plural. So, what else
> > > > >
> > > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > > > listed."
> > > > >
> > > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding:
> > > >
> > > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> > > >
> > > > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Janina Sajka, Director
> > > Technology Research and Development
> > > Governmental Relations Group
> > > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> > >
> > > Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Director
> Technology Research and Development
> Governmental Relations Group
> American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Aaron Howell
@ ` Aaron Howell
` Adam Myrow
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Howell @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
[sorry the first attempt at this bounced].
Janina,
I'm not quite sure what your definition of deliberate discrimination is,
but when an Australian subsidiary of a U.S company gets put in the awkward position of being either in breach of .S copyright,
or in breach of Australian discrimination law, which RedHat Asia Pacific was,
then if not deliberate discrimination, then what?
Redhat U.S was made aware of this situation and their response was basically we don't care.
(they knew damn well it wasn't going to effect them, and that given the time frame, the chances that i would choose to go the legal path were fairly slim).
(They won't be so lucky next time as i know what to expect).
I'm not sure how far your ADA goes, but the DDA here effectively requires companies like Redhat to make material they provide to the public
(ie people doing their course) accessible to people with a disability.
There are precedents here in australia which would indicate that RH Asia Pacific would have come off second best in a legal battle,
and very likely at significant expense to them.
The thing was, I didn't want money from RH, I wanted an RHCE,
and circumstances lead me to take what RedHat was offering (small as that was) and run with it.
The truely sad thing was, they then wanted to do pr with me saying how wonderful RedHat was for passing the first blind person
in the Asia pacific region through the RHCE course *as-if*.
I know what I did was wrong, and I should have stood my ground,
but I also had to consider the needs of my employer as well as my own needs.
Regards
Aaron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Aaron Howell
@ ` Adam Myrow
` Aaron Howell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Adam Myrow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
I thought Speakup was deliberately included because I seem to recall that
the documentation reported where the Redhat Speakup Howto was. I deleted
my Redhat 8.1 files, but I seem to remember it having a whole
accessibility readme which discussed Speakup and Emacspeak. Oh well,
Slackware has had Speakup since 8.0, and the last two versions have had
Brltty and Emacspeak in the extra directory. For this, I am probably a
Slackware user for life, although I've played with both Debian and Redhat.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Adam Myrow
@ ` Aaron Howell
` Janina Sajka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Howell @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
To the best of my knowledge the 8.0 Readme.accessibility only covered Emacspeak,
as did the 7.x version.
its pretty easy to tell too, that its been a while since they bothered to work on that file, when you look at the versions of emacspeak and emacs mentioned,
as that they still make reference to getting ViaVoice from IBM, even though its no longer available.
If someone could prove me wrong though...
Regards
Aaron
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:52:34PM -0500, Adam Myrow wrote:
> I thought Speakup was deliberately included because I seem to recall that
> the documentation reported where the Redhat Speakup Howto was. I deleted
> my Redhat 8.1 files, but I seem to remember it having a whole
> accessibility readme which discussed Speakup and Emacspeak. Oh well,
> Slackware has had Speakup since 8.0, and the last two versions have had
> Brltty and Emacspeak in the extra directory. For this, I am probably a
> Slackware user for life, although I've played with both Debian and Redhat.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Aaron Howell
@ ` Janina Sajka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
The Accessibility README in 8.0 explicitly mentions Speakup, and the Installation HOWTO on the Speakup web site. Furthermore, it commits Red Hat Tech Support to
supporting it.
One more thing, the hooks for Speakup support are still in RH 9, even though Speakup isn't in the kernel suggesting to some of us that RH expects to put it back when
issues are resolved.
Aaron Howell writes:
> From: Aaron Howell <aaron@kitten.net.au>
>
> To the best of my knowledge the 8.0 Readme.accessibility only covered Emacspeak,
> as did the 7.x version.
> its pretty easy to tell too, that its been a while since they bothered to work on that file, when you look at the versions of emacspeak and emacs mentioned,
> as that they still make reference to getting ViaVoice from IBM, even though its no longer available.
> If someone could prove me wrong though...
> Regards
> Aaron
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:52:34PM -0500, Adam Myrow wrote:
> > I thought Speakup was deliberately included because I seem to recall that
> > the documentation reported where the Redhat Speakup Howto was. I deleted
> > my Redhat 8.1 files, but I seem to remember it having a whole
> > accessibility readme which discussed Speakup and Emacspeak. Oh well,
> > Slackware has had Speakup since 8.0, and the last two versions have had
> > Brltty and Emacspeak in the extra directory. For this, I am probably a
> > Slackware user for life, although I've played with both Debian and Redhat.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
--
Janina Sajka, Director
Technology Research and Development
Governmental Relations Group
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Aaron Howell
` Janina Sajka
@ ` Darrell Shandrow
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Darrell Shandrow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hi Aaron,
Yeah, I believe RH would do something like this. It seems to be just the
way of the land with this company. Isn't it ironic? Red Hat is a packager
and distributor of the open-source Linux platform, yet the company has
accessibility policies that are much more regressive than any of Cisco,
CompTIA, Microsoft, Novell, or Sun. Red Hat should take some lessons from
Microsoft!!! Note that all of the five other tech companies I have just
mentioned treat blind people better than does Red Hat. Does anyone care?
Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
A+, CCNA, Network+!
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Howell" <aaron@kitten.net.au>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> Oh, and one more thing,
> They made me sign an agreement that
> "the provisions provided by Redhat were of my own chosing,
> and that it was RedHat's opinion that I may be putting myself at a
disadvantage by choosing to use such alternative arrangements."
> That is, they gave me absolutely no choice, then made me agree that it was
what I'd wanted all along.
> Regards
> Aaron
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > Luke Davis writes:
> > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Luke Davis writes:
> >
> > False.
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
> >
> > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
> >
> > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> > decision to deny?" Bull..
> >
> > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> > Hardly.
> >
> > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> > where this deliberate decision was reached?
> >
> > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> > the plural. So, what else
> > > >
> > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the
facts he
> > > > listed."
> > > >
> > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just
allegations.
> > > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> > >
> > > Regarding:
> > >
> > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom
decide to
> > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> > >
> > > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka, Director
> > Technology Research and Development
> > Governmental Relations Group
> > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> >
> > Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
` Aaron Howell
@ ` Chuck Hallenbeck
` Shaun Oliver
` (2 more replies)
` Darrell Shandrow
4 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Hallenbeck @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Janina,
I must have missed something, such as a major acquisition. Was it
Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
Chuck
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Luke Davis writes:
> > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > > Luke Davis writes:
>
> False.
>
>
> There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
>
> There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
>
> Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> decision to deny?" Bull..
>
> Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> Hardly.
>
> Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> where this deliberate decision was reached?
>
> So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> the plural. So, what else
> > >
> > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > listed."
> > >
> > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> >
> > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
--
The Moon is Waxing Crescent (35% of Full)
So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Chuck Hallenbeck
@ ` Shaun Oliver
` ccrawford
` Janina Sajka
` Shaun Oliver
` Janina Sajka
2 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Shaun Oliver @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
*SNIP*
Was it Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
*SNIP*
here's my $0.2 worth on the subject.
janina, I've normally seen your side of the argument a good deal of the
time. and each time you've provided what I would consider reasonable
arguments.
not that everyone else agrees with them though, and even I don't agree
with all of them.
however, when one starts to make personal attacks on people suggesting
the possibility of their hearing voices, and how dare you pick on my
beloved red hat, and shooting off your mouth, or in this case, keyboard
calls into question your competency as an advocate for people with
visual impairments. there's no need for such attacks on this list and
yes, even I'm guilty of it from time to time. however, that doesn't
excuse your actions in previous posts to this list on this matter.
save your personal attacks for your partner in heated discussions or
arguments. let's keep it real people, we're in the business of helping.
and let's help where we can however we can whenever we can.
like kirk says, why be helpful when you are not.
thank you for listening to my rantings.
--
Shaun Oliver
"if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the computer masochists"
EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
ICQ: 76958435
YAHOO: blindman01_2000
MSN: blindman_2001@hotmail.com
AIM: captain nemo 200
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Shaun Oliver
@ ` ccrawford
` Janina Sajka
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: ccrawford @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
OK OK Everyone; I am right and the world is wrong. Smile.
Since accessibility to Redhat or any other operating system is a
legal acre of quicksand, it's probably best that we use diplomatic
levers to get them to incorporate access. This does not mean please
please please, it means we need to continue to communicate with them and
remind them of the advantages to sales within certain areas such as
federal procurements. This is especially true in an open source and
volunteer environment that has a curious mix of commercialism.
Since we want to promote accessible linux environments then we
should do that with Redhat and anyone else who will listen. Over time
we can garner more territory in the OS and once material connections are
made to the workplace we will have the kind of leverage that gets into
legal issues.
Hope this helps.
-- Charlie Crawford.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Shaun Oliver wrote:
> *SNIP*
> Was it Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
> *SNIP*
>
> here's my $0.2 worth on the subject.
> janina, I've normally seen your side of the argument a good deal of the
> time. and each time you've provided what I would consider reasonable
> arguments.
> not that everyone else agrees with them though, and even I don't agree
> with all of them.
> however, when one starts to make personal attacks on people suggesting
> the possibility of their hearing voices, and how dare you pick on my
> beloved red hat, and shooting off your mouth, or in this case, keyboard
> calls into question your competency as an advocate for people with
> visual impairments. there's no need for such attacks on this list and
> yes, even I'm guilty of it from time to time. however, that doesn't
> excuse your actions in previous posts to this list on this matter.
> save your personal attacks for your partner in heated discussions or
> arguments. let's keep it real people, we're in the business of helping.
> and let's help where we can however we can whenever we can.
> like kirk says, why be helpful when you are not.
> thank you for listening to my rantings.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Shaun Oliver
` ccrawford
@ ` Janina Sajka
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Fair enough, Shaun. Thanks.
Shaun Oliver writes:
> From: Shaun Oliver <shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au>
>
> *SNIP*
> Was it Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
> *SNIP*
>
> here's my $0.2 worth on the subject.
> janina, I've normally seen your side of the argument a good deal of the
> time. and each time you've provided what I would consider reasonable
> arguments.
> not that everyone else agrees with them though, and even I don't agree
> with all of them.
> however, when one starts to make personal attacks on people suggesting
> the possibility of their hearing voices, and how dare you pick on my
> beloved red hat, and shooting off your mouth, or in this case, keyboard
> calls into question your competency as an advocate for people with
> visual impairments. there's no need for such attacks on this list and
> yes, even I'm guilty of it from time to time. however, that doesn't
> excuse your actions in previous posts to this list on this matter.
> save your personal attacks for your partner in heated discussions or
> arguments. let's keep it real people, we're in the business of helping.
> and let's help where we can however we can whenever we can.
> like kirk says, why be helpful when you are not.
> thank you for listening to my rantings.
>
> --
> Shaun Oliver
>
> "if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the computer masochists"
>
> EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
> ICQ: 76958435
> YAHOO: blindman01_2000
> MSN: blindman_2001@hotmail.com
> AIM: captain nemo 200
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
--
Janina Sajka, Director
Technology Research and Development
Governmental Relations Group
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Chuck Hallenbeck
` Shaun Oliver
@ ` Shaun Oliver
` Janina Sajka
2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Shaun Oliver @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
as to this quote,
Was it
Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
it certainly looks like red hat aquired afb chuck.
--
Shaun Oliver
"if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the computer masochists"
EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
ICQ: 76958435
YAHOO: blindman01_2000
MSN: blindman_2001@hotmail.com
AIM: captain nemo 200
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Chuck Hallenbeck
` Shaun Oliver
` Shaun Oliver
@ ` Janina Sajka
` Steve Holmes
2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
So, Chuck, tell us how you really feel about ghettos. Do you support having a special kernel for special people, as with that product from Walnut Creek?
Chuck Hallenbeck writes:
> From: Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckh@novocon.net>
>
>
> Janina,
>
> I must have missed something, such as a major acquisition. Was it
> Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
>
> Chuck
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
>
> > Luke Davis writes:
> > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Luke Davis writes:
> >
> > False.
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
> >
> > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
> >
> > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> > decision to deny?" Bull..
> >
> > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> > Hardly.
> >
> > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> > where this deliberate decision was reached?
> >
> > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> > the plural. So, what else
> > > >
> > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > > listed."
> > > >
> > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> > >
> > > Regarding:
> > >
> > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> > >
> > > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
>
> --
> The Moon is Waxing Crescent (35% of Full)
> So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
--
Janina Sajka, Director
Technology Research and Development
Governmental Relations Group
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
@ ` Steve Holmes
` Thomas D. Ward
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Steve Holmes @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
I don't know where ghettos play into this but Slackware does have
several kernels for unique configurations. Case in point: separate
kernels for SCSI, several less common hardware configurations and yes,
speakup!. At least one can then use a main stream distro to boot
linux though he will probably eventually recompile a kernel for
specific needs anyway and speakup would certainly be included at that
time. Slackware doesn't use a "on size fits all" kernel. I don't
know if other distros do it though.
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 12:14:14PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> So, Chuck, tell us how you really feel about ghettos. Do you support having a special kernel for special people, as with that product from Walnut Creek?
>
>
> Chuck Hallenbeck writes:
> > From: Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckh@novocon.net>
> >
> >
> > Janina,
> >
> > I must have missed something, such as a major acquisition. Was it
> > Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
> >
> > Chuck
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > >
> > > False.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
> > >
> > > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> > > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> > > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> > > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> > > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
> > >
> > > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> > > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> > > decision to deny?" Bull..
> > >
> > > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> > > Hardly.
> > >
> > > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> > > where this deliberate decision was reached?
> > >
> > > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> > > the plural. So, what else
> > > > >
> > > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > > > > listed."
> > > > >
> > > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations.
> > > > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding:
> > > >
> > > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to
> > > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> > > >
> > > > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > The Moon is Waxing Crescent (35% of Full)
> > So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Director
> Technology Research and Development
> Governmental Relations Group
> American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Steve Holmes
@ ` Thomas D. Ward
` Gregory Nowak
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Thomas D. Ward @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Well, Mandrake and Red Hat use a one kernel fits all situations kernel which
is vary nice.
I think I dislike Slackware's kernel for the simple fact not enough stuff is
built in for support. Is it faster? Absolutely. Is it practical to take that
ikernel and generically stick it on any box? No.
One thing Mandrake has which blows everyone away in this one particilar
reguard is supermount support. With supermount you never have to use the
mount command to mount and unmount drives. I wish Patrick would add
something like supermount into Slack.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Holmes <steve@holmesgrown.com>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> I don't know where ghettos play into this but Slackware does have
> several kernels for unique configurations. Case in point: separate
> kernels for SCSI, several less common hardware configurations and yes,
> speakup!. At least one can then use a main stream distro to boot
> linux though he will probably eventually recompile a kernel for
> specific needs anyway and speakup would certainly be included at that
> time. Slackware doesn't use a "on size fits all" kernel. I don't
> know if other distros do it though.
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 12:14:14PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > So, Chuck, tell us how you really feel about ghettos. Do you support
having a special kernel for special people, as with that product from Walnut
Creek?
> >
> >
> > Chuck Hallenbeck writes:
> > > From: Chuck Hallenbeck <chuckh@novocon.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > Janina,
> > >
> > > I must have missed something, such as a major acquisition. Was it
> > > Redhat that acquired AFB or was it the other way around?
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > >
> > > > False.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
> > > >
> > > > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not
allowed.
> > > > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That
would
> > > > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to
equalize
> > > > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to
say
> > > > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny"
means.
> > > >
> > > > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> > > > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> > > > decision to deny?" Bull..
> > > >
> > > > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to
deny."
> > > > Hardly.
> > > >
> > > > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting
agenda
> > > > where this deliberate decision was reached?
> > > >
> > > > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as
in
> > > > the plural. So, what else
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the
facts he
> > > > > > listed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just
allegations.
> > > > > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately
deny
> > > > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom
decide to
> > > > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these
inaccessible?
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Moon is Waxing Crescent (35% of Full)
> > > So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka, Director
> > Technology Research and Development
> > Governmental Relations Group
> > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> >
> > Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> --
> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Thomas D. Ward
@ ` Gregory Nowak
` Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.) Adam Myrow
` RH9 disks on the net Thomas D. Ward
0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Nowak @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:37:51PM -0400, Thomas D. Ward wrote:
> One thing Mandrake has which blows everyone away in this one particilar
> reguard is supermount support. With supermount you never have to use the
> mount command to mount and unmount drives. I wish Patrick would add
> something like supermount into Slack.
>
Your comments on the distribution which I have been happily using for about 2 and a half years now aside,
how do you access file systems if you never use the mount command?
Greg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Gregory Nowak
@ ` Adam Myrow
` Doug Sutherland
` (2 more replies)
` RH9 disks on the net Thomas D. Ward
1 sibling, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Adam Myrow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
The idea of a utility confuses me. How does it deal with floppies? It's
possible that what is actually happening is that it is using automount
which is an optional feature of the kernel and was originally designed for
NFS. It apparently has been used with CD ROMs as well, but I've never
played with it.
That's funny that you say that the Slackware kernel doesn't have enough.
I find it too bloated still. It has support for RAID, PCMCIA, and other
things I don't use. The first thing I do when I get a fresh copy of
Slackware installed is to build a custom kernel. I like how Slackware
encourages you to do it, where Redhat has a hands-off approach of
automatically loading modules and assuming that you are leaving the kernel
alone and will never compile one yourself. If you compile the drivers for
your network card straight into the kernel in Redhat, it will get upset.
Even in Slackware, it is possible to load modules for all sorts of
drivers, and I can get a Slackware system working fine without a kernel
build. However, I noticed that after building a custom kernel, I was able
to shave several seconds off the boot time mainly by eliminating modules
for stuff I don't use. My approach is to build almost everything into the
kernel, but make modules out of things I will seldom use. For example,
since I have Roadrunner, I build my network card's drivers in, and I keep
PPP as a module in case I have to revert to dial-up. I also keep support
for the Minix filesystem and loopfs as modules since I occasionally need
loopfs and run into a Minix disk image here and there. About the only
other modules are Alsa. The result is that my kernel is under 1MB and my
system comes up pretty fast even on this ancient computer. To me, being
able to tweak things to perfection is part of the beauty of Linux. You
can't simply remove support for hardware you don't have in windows like
that. BTW, the new hotplug support didn't detect anything on my computer,
but I suspect it may do more on modern computers. It's probably a good
compromise between the sluggish Kudzu of Redhat and no attempt at all to
find hardware.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.) Adam Myrow
@ ` Doug Sutherland
` Gregory Nowak
` Alex Snow
` Thomas D. Ward
2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Doug Sutherland @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Adam wrote:
> That's funny that you say that the Slackware kernel doesn't
> have enough. I find it too bloated still. It has support
> for RAID, PCMCIA, and other things I don't use.
Yes, the bare default kernel has almost everything included!
> The first thing I do when I get a fresh copy of Slackware
> installed is to build a custom kernel.
Me too. It's good that the default includes all of that for
your first boot: it supports almost all hardware. Therefore
it should install from CD on almost anything. But I too do
a kernel compile right away after install.
Patrick uses the unmodified kernel source, ie linus' source,
the stuff from kernel.org ... and I like it that way ... so
if supermount or anything else isn't in the official source
it won't be in slackware ... is it in the official kernel?
-- Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Doug Sutherland
@ ` Gregory Nowak
` Doug Sutherland
` Lorenzo Prince
0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Nowak @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> Patrick uses the unmodified kernel source, ie linus' source,
> the stuff from kernel.org ... and I like it that way ... so
> if supermount or anything else isn't in the official source
> it won't be in slackware ... is it in the official kernel?
>
Oh, really? Then what about speakup (grin)?
Greg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Gregory Nowak
@ ` Doug Sutherland
` Lorenzo Prince
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Doug Sutherland @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Greg,
> Oh, really? Then what about speakup (grin)?
hee hee yeah well speakup is a special kernel for sure.
But one of the philosophies of slack is to use the
unmodified source. My guess is that speakup will be a
part of the standard kernel eventually.
-- Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Gregory Nowak
` Doug Sutherland
@ ` Lorenzo Prince
` Doug Sutherland
` Luke Davis
1 sibling, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Prince @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Speakup is a patch that was actually included separately. The kernel
source itself on the Slackware CD doesn't include it, however, it was
patched in to be included in the speakup.i, speakup.s, etc. precompiled
kernels. Wouldn't it be really nice, though, if Speakup could be included
as a "make config" question in the official kernel.org source? Just a
thought, if anyone who happens to have some influence on the nice folks at
kernel.org is on this list.
Lorenzo
E Pluribus Unix
Gregory Nowak staggered into view and mumbled:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> > Patrick uses the unmodified kernel source, ie linus' source,
> > the stuff from kernel.org ... and I like it that way ... so
> > if supermount or anything else isn't in the official source
> > it won't be in slackware ... is it in the official kernel?
> >
>
> Oh, really? Then what about speakup (grin)?
>
> Greg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Lorenzo Prince
@ ` Doug Sutherland
` Luke Davis
` Luke Davis
1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Doug Sutherland @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Lorenzo wrote:
> Wouldn't it be really nice, though, if Speakup could be included
> as a "make config" question in the official kernel.org source?
I just applied the speakup patches to the kernel.org source,
and it does appear in make config. It adds a new option
CONFIG_SPEAKUP. And using make menuconfig I get a new item
Console drivers -> [ ] Speakup console speech (NEW)
So I agree ... this should be in the official source.
Luke wrote:
> If that's going to happen, a "speakup=no" option is probably
> needed, to prevent its loading in a precompiled kernel.
This is the config for the kernel build ... not sure I
understand what you mean ... this tells the kernel
compile to include speakup or not ... in the kernel.
-- Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Doug Sutherland
@ ` Luke Davis
` Doug Sutherland
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Luke Davis @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
We're talking about the official distribution, not your own patched copy
of the official distribution of the kernel.
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> Lorenzo wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be really nice, though, if Speakup could be included
> > as a "make config" question in the official kernel.org source?
>
> I just applied the speakup patches to the kernel.org source,
> and it does appear in make config. It adds a new option
> CONFIG_SPEAKUP. And using make menuconfig I get a new item
>
> Console drivers -> [ ] Speakup console speech (NEW)
>
> So I agree ... this should be in the official source.
>
>
> Luke wrote:
>
> > If that's going to happen, a "speakup=no" option is probably
> > needed, to prevent its loading in a precompiled kernel.
>
> This is the config for the kernel build ... not sure I
> understand what you mean ... this tells the kernel
> compile to include speakup or not ... in the kernel.
>
> -- Doug
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Luke Davis
@ ` Doug Sutherland
` Luke Davis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Doug Sutherland @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Luke,
> We're talking about the official distribution, not your own
> patched copy of the official distribution of the kernel.
What's the difference? Presumably if speakup was added to the
official, it would do what I am looking at: it adds a new
option in console drivers for speakup, and allows you to
select synthesizers. Why should it be any different if it was
in the official source?
Are you talking about a kernel parameter to tell it to use
speakup or not? If so, I think that is a separate issue.
This is the build of the kernel.
-- Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Doug Sutherland
@ ` Luke Davis
` Doug Sutherland
` Lorenzo Prince
0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Luke Davis @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
The original discussion was Slackware's use of unmodified kernel sources
in their distribution. It then went to the issue of Speakup not being in
the regular kernel source, and thus Slackware's need to provide patched
speakup kernels, for its distribution's install kernels.
Yes, if you are compiling a new kernel, you can add anything you want.
However, if you are installing a new distribution, you get what they give
you, or you go through the hassles of obtaining specialized bootdisks.
It would simplify things greatly, if Speakup was included in the master
kernel.org source tree, as just another driver.
I said that I thought, in order for this to happen, speakup needed the
ability to start in a dormant, or unloaded state by default, and therefore
be activatable by a boot paramater of "speakup=on,speakup_synth=dectlk".
I then posited, that if such a parameter existed, it should be made
possible, during a kernel compile, to change that defaulting to off
behavior, such that a "speakup=on" would not be necessary, if the person
compiling the kernel *wanted* speakup to be on all of the time, unless
they did the converse of the above, and specified a "speakup=off" boot
parameter (such as might be necessary, if another family member was
booting the system, and didn't want speech).
Yes, this latter is a separate issue, but it entered the discussion as
explained, and is thus a part of it, so long as anyone cares to talk to me
about it.:)
Luke
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> Luke,
>
> > We're talking about the official distribution, not your own
> > patched copy of the official distribution of the kernel.
>
> What's the difference? Presumably if speakup was added to the
> official, it would do what I am looking at: it adds a new
> option in console drivers for speakup, and allows you to
> select synthesizers. Why should it be any different if it was
> in the official source?
>
> Are you talking about a kernel parameter to tell it to use
> speakup or not? If so, I think that is a separate issue.
> This is the build of the kernel.
>
> -- Doug
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Luke Davis
@ ` Doug Sutherland
` Lorenzo Prince
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Doug Sutherland @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Luke,
> I then posited, that if such a parameter existed, it should
> be made possible, during a kernel compile, to change that
> defaulting to off behavior
With the speakup patches applied, when I run make menuconfig,
I get an option to enter a text string for default synthesizer.
The default value is "none". Perhaps that would do what you
are suggesting?
What it does it give you these options:
- speakup in the kernel (yes/no)
- include which synthesizers
(you can tick off as many as you want (yes/no)
- then enter the default synth (string value)
The default synth is already "none" by default. In my case
I am changing that to usrdev, which is the software synth
mods for use with festival.
> such that a "speakup=on" would not be necessary, if the
> person compiling the kernel *wanted* speakup to be on all
> of the time, unless they did the converse of the above,
> and specified a "speakup=off" boot parameter (such as
> might be necessary, if another family member was booting
> the system, and didn't want speech).
Hmmm ... looking at slackware's speakup.i kernel config,
the default synthesizer CONFIG_SPEAKUP_DEFAULT is set to
none ...
Are you sure that it's not already set up to do what you
want? I am about to try compiling this with this value,
the default synth, set to usrdev, in the kernel config.
I think that means this is an always on speakup that
talks to the middleware that connects to festival.
If I leave it as "none" then I would need a boot time
parameter I assume, but I'm setting in now before
compiling the kernel.
What I want is lilo option for speakup or not ... but
I will have two different kernels ... maybe that's not
the ideal way ... I will experiment with this ...
-- Doug
>Yes, this latter is a separate issue, but it entered the discussion as
>explained, and is thus a part of it, so long as anyone cares to talk to me
>about it.:)
>
>Luke
>
>
>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Doug Sutherland wrote:
>
> > Luke,
> >
> > > We're talking about the official distribution, not your own
> > > patched copy of the official distribution of the kernel.
> >
> > What's the difference? Presumably if speakup was added to the
> > official, it would do what I am looking at: it adds a new
> > option in console drivers for speakup, and allows you to
> > select synthesizers. Why should it be any different if it was
> > in the official source?
> >
> > Are you talking about a kernel parameter to tell it to use
> > speakup or not? If so, I think that is a separate issue.
> > This is the build of the kernel.
> >
> > -- Doug
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Luke Davis
` Doug Sutherland
@ ` Lorenzo Prince
` Doug
1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Prince @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Well, that's basically why we use speakup_synth=none. So sighted people
don't have to use speakup. Unfortunately, however, that does absolutely
nothing for the keymap, which locks out the numeric keypad to sighted
users. The best option is to have the speakup patch in the official
source, and of course the patch includes the config options that default
to Speakup not being included in the build unless you tell it yes. Then
if there are blind people and sighted people both using the same computer,
the system would be configured with Lilo to boot with a choice of two
kernels, one with Speakup and the other without it. That is, of course,
unless a boot parameter could have the same function of turning both
Speakup and its keymap on or off.
Lorenzo
E Pluribus Unix
Luke Davis staggered into view and mumbled:
> The original discussion was Slackware's use of unmodified kernel sources
> in their distribution. It then went to the issue of Speakup not being in
> the regular kernel source, and thus Slackware's need to provide patched
> speakup kernels, for its distribution's install kernels.
> Yes, if you are compiling a new kernel, you can add anything you want.
> However, if you are installing a new distribution, you get what they give
> you, or you go through the hassles of obtaining specialized bootdisks.
> It would simplify things greatly, if Speakup was included in the master
> kernel.org source tree, as just another driver.
>
> I said that I thought, in order for this to happen, speakup needed the
> ability to start in a dormant, or unloaded state by default, and therefore
> be activatable by a boot paramater of "speakup=on,speakup_synth=dectlk".
> I then posited, that if such a parameter existed, it should be made
> possible, during a kernel compile, to change that defaulting to off
> behavior, such that a "speakup=on" would not be necessary, if the person
> compiling the kernel *wanted* speakup to be on all of the time, unless
> they did the converse of the above, and specified a "speakup=off" boot
> parameter (such as might be necessary, if another family member was
> booting the system, and didn't want speech).
>
> Yes, this latter is a separate issue, but it entered the discussion as
> explained, and is thus a part of it, so long as anyone cares to talk to me
> about it.:)
>
> Luke
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Doug Sutherland wrote:
>
> > Luke,
> >
> > > We're talking about the official distribution, not your own
> > > patched copy of the official distribution of the kernel.
> >
> > What's the difference? Presumably if speakup was added to the
> > official, it would do what I am looking at: it adds a new
> > option in console drivers for speakup, and allows you to
> > select synthesizers. Why should it be any different if it was
> > in the official source?
> >
> > Are you talking about a kernel parameter to tell it to use
> > speakup or not? If so, I think that is a separate issue.
> > This is the build of the kernel.
> >
> > -- Doug
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Lorenzo Prince
@ ` Doug
0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Doug @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Lorenzo,
I see both the default synth and the keymap stuff in
the kernel config. It appears to me that even in its
existing form, it should be possible to create two
kernels, one with default synth equals 'none' and
the speakup keymap disabled, another with the default
synth set to your favorite synth and the speakup
keymap enabled.
Then, I *think* both could be in lilo. The first
one in lilo could be the speakup enabled one, set
to automatically boot with speakup after a timeout.
Then, the second option could boot another kernel
with synth = none and normal keymap.
I will be testing this in the next few days.
The slackware precompiled kernel sets the default
synth to none, because it supports many different
synthesizers, therefore you need a parameter. But
if you build your own kernel with the speakup
patches, you can configure the kernel to use a
specific synth automatically. I assume this
means that no kernel boot parameters are needed.
-- Doug
Lorenzo wrote:
>Well, that's basically why we use speakup_synth=none. So sighted people
>don't have to use speakup. Unfortunately, however, that does absolutely
>nothing for the keymap, which locks out the numeric keypad to sighted
>users. The best option is to have the speakup patch in the official
>source, and of course the patch includes the config options that default
>to Speakup not being included in the build unless you tell it yes. Then
>if there are blind people and sighted people both using the same computer,
>the system would be configured with Lilo to boot with a choice of two
>kernels, one with Speakup and the other without it. That is, of course,
>unless a boot parameter could have the same function of turning both
>Speakup and its keymap on or off.
>
>Lorenzo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Lorenzo Prince
` Doug Sutherland
@ ` Luke Davis
` Doug
1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Luke Davis @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
If that's going to happen, a "speakup=no" option is probably needed, to
prevent its loading in a precompiled kernel. In fact, it should probably
the default, with a make config item to make "yes" the default, if that is
really intended. Then it enters standard driver land, and doesn't get in
the way.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Lorenzo Prince wrote:
> Speakup is a patch that was actually included separately. The kernel
> source itself on the Slackware CD doesn't include it, however, it was
> patched in to be included in the speakup.i, speakup.s, etc. precompiled
> kernels. Wouldn't it be really nice, though, if Speakup could be included
> as a "make config" question in the official kernel.org source? Just a
> thought, if anyone who happens to have some influence on the nice folks at
> kernel.org is on this list.
>
> Lorenzo
>
> E Pluribus Unix
>
> Gregory Nowak staggered into view and mumbled:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> > > Patrick uses the unmodified kernel source, ie linus' source,
> > > the stuff from kernel.org ... and I like it that way ... so
> > > if supermount or anything else isn't in the official source
> > > it won't be in slackware ... is it in the official kernel?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, really? Then what about speakup (grin)?
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Luke Davis
@ ` Doug
0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Doug @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Luke wrote:
> If that's going to happen, a "speakup=no" option is
> probably needed, to prevent its loading in a precompiled
> kernel.
I have mine working with no boot parameters. I also have
it booting with speakup or without speakup. The kernel
with speakup is default, and will boot automatically
after 30 seconds. If I select the second kernel on the
lilo menu, a different kernel will boot which has been
configured with default synth = none and no speakup
keymap. This way the PC can be shared with people who
don't want speakup.
If you're willing to apply the kernel patches yourself
and compile kernels, you can make a kernel that is
specifically configured for your synthesizer and the
speakup keymap. It does not need any boot parameters
to work. Mine boots automatically, and speakup uses
the usrdev (software synth). The init scripts start
festival and the middleware program. I assume this
would also work with an external synthesizer.
A second kernel can be prepared by changing these
items in the .config file:
CONFIG_SPEAKUP=n
CONFIG_SPEAKUP_DEFAULT="none"
CONFIG_SPEAKUP_KEYMAP=n
You can copy .config to /usr/src/linux and run
make oldconfig after making these changes then
compile a kernel without speakup.
This does require building two kernels, one with
speakup and one without, but no boot params are
needed, and they can both be added to lilo.
-- Doug
In fact, it should probably
>the default, with a make config item to make "yes" the default, if that is
>really intended. Then it enters standard driver land, and doesn't get in
>the way.
>
>
>On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Lorenzo Prince wrote:
>
> > Speakup is a patch that was actually included separately. The kernel
> > source itself on the Slackware CD doesn't include it, however, it was
> > patched in to be included in the speakup.i, speakup.s, etc. precompiled
> > kernels. Wouldn't it be really nice, though, if Speakup could be included
> > as a "make config" question in the official kernel.org source? Just a
> > thought, if anyone who happens to have some influence on the nice folks at
> > kernel.org is on this list.
> >
> > Lorenzo
> >
> > E Pluribus Unix
> >
> > Gregory Nowak staggered into view and mumbled:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> > > > Patrick uses the unmodified kernel source, ie linus' source,
> > > > the stuff from kernel.org ... and I like it that way ... so
> > > > if supermount or anything else isn't in the official source
> > > > it won't be in slackware ... is it in the official kernel?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, really? Then what about speakup (grin)?
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.) Adam Myrow
` Doug Sutherland
@ ` Alex Snow
` Thomas D. Ward
2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Alex Snow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hotplug didnt pickup anything on my system...possibly bc none of it is
pnp. everything is mainly legacy non-pnp stuff except the lan and video
cards which slackware found with no problem at all.
--
A message from the system administrator: "I've upped my priority, now up yours!"
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Adam Myrow wrote:
> The idea of a utility confuses me. How does it deal with floppies? It's
> possible that what is actually happening is that it is using automount
> which is an optional feature of the kernel and was originally designed for
> NFS. It apparently has been used with CD ROMs as well, but I've never
> played with it.
>
> That's funny that you say that the Slackware kernel doesn't have enough.
> I find it too bloated still. It has support for RAID, PCMCIA, and other
> things I don't use. The first thing I do when I get a fresh copy of
> Slackware installed is to build a custom kernel. I like how Slackware
> encourages you to do it, where Redhat has a hands-off approach of
> automatically loading modules and assuming that you are leaving the kernel
> alone and will never compile one yourself. If you compile the drivers for
> your network card straight into the kernel in Redhat, it will get upset.
> Even in Slackware, it is possible to load modules for all sorts of
> drivers, and I can get a Slackware system working fine without a kernel
> build. However, I noticed that after building a custom kernel, I was able
> to shave several seconds off the boot time mainly by eliminating modules
> for stuff I don't use. My approach is to build almost everything into the
> kernel, but make modules out of things I will seldom use. For example,
> since I have Roadrunner, I build my network card's drivers in, and I keep
> PPP as a module in case I have to revert to dial-up. I also keep support
> for the Minix filesystem and loopfs as modules since I occasionally need
> loopfs and run into a Minix disk image here and there. About the only
> other modules are Alsa. The result is that my kernel is under 1MB and my
> system comes up pretty fast even on this ancient computer. To me, being
> able to tweak things to perfection is part of the beauty of Linux. You
> can't simply remove support for hardware you don't have in windows like
> that. BTW, the new hotplug support didn't detect anything on my computer,
> but I suspect it may do more on modern computers. It's probably a good
> compromise between the sluggish Kudzu of Redhat and no attempt at all to
> find hardware.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.) Adam Myrow
` Doug Sutherland
` Alex Snow
@ ` Thomas D. Ward
` Buddy Brannan
` Alex Snow
2 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Thomas D. Ward @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hi, Adam. As I mentioned in another post we are really comparing apples to
oranges, or two different approaches.
You must enjoy compiling kernels, editing files, and spending lots of time
customizing every little detail on your Linux os.
Sorry, to say but I personally as well as several others around the world
hate spending unneccessary time recompiling kernels or whatever. I would
just assume install an os, get everything working, and leave it alone.
RH/Mandrake have kernels which fit just about every and any situation which
means I've grown vary use to never compiling kernels. Why should I really
have to spend three or four hours of time doing that when I can already be
setup and enjoying my os.
Mandrake also has some edditions to their kernel source which are vary nice.
You can put the kernel in secured mode, and the supermount allows you to
automatically load floppies, cdroms, just by cd into that mount point.
It is something specific to <Mandrake, and I don't know of another distro
which has supermount.
I think many Slack users forget one slight problem. Many average computer
users would never be able to compile a kernel, and would find the task way
too complicated. I don't, but I know of people who would not make it through
make config.
Thus an all purpose kernel works fantastically for such users. Thus
utilities like supermount simplify everyones lives when you never have to
use mount to mount and unmount drives.
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Myrow <amyrow@midsouth.rr.com>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
> The idea of a utility confuses me. How does it deal with floppies? It's
> possible that what is actually happening is that it is using automount
> which is an optional feature of the kernel and was originally designed for
> NFS. It apparently has been used with CD ROMs as well, but I've never
> played with it.
>
> That's funny that you say that the Slackware kernel doesn't have enough.
> I find it too bloated still. It has support for RAID, PCMCIA, and other
> things I don't use. The first thing I do when I get a fresh copy of
> Slackware installed is to build a custom kernel. I like how Slackware
> encourages you to do it, where Redhat has a hands-off approach of
> automatically loading modules and assuming that you are leaving the kernel
> alone and will never compile one yourself. If you compile the drivers for
> your network card straight into the kernel in Redhat, it will get upset.
> Even in Slackware, it is possible to load modules for all sorts of
> drivers, and I can get a Slackware system working fine without a kernel
> build. However, I noticed that after building a custom kernel, I was able
> to shave several seconds off the boot time mainly by eliminating modules
> for stuff I don't use. My approach is to build almost everything into the
> kernel, but make modules out of things I will seldom use. For example,
> since I have Roadrunner, I build my network card's drivers in, and I keep
> PPP as a module in case I have to revert to dial-up. I also keep support
> for the Minix filesystem and loopfs as modules since I occasionally need
> loopfs and run into a Minix disk image here and there. About the only
> other modules are Alsa. The result is that my kernel is under 1MB and my
> system comes up pretty fast even on this ancient computer. To me, being
> able to tweak things to perfection is part of the beauty of Linux. You
> can't simply remove support for hardware you don't have in windows like
> that. BTW, the new hotplug support didn't detect anything on my computer,
> but I suspect it may do more on modern computers. It's probably a good
> compromise between the sluggish Kudzu of Redhat and no attempt at all to
> find hardware.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Thomas D. Ward
@ ` Buddy Brannan
` Alex Snow
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Buddy Brannan @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Three or four hours to compile a kernel? Man...your system must be
s-l-o-w. ...
--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV/3 | "And if the ground yawned,
Phone: (814) 455-7333 | I'd step to the side and say,
Email: davros@ycardz.com | "Hey ground! I'm nobody's lunch!"
http://www.ycardz.com/ | --Eddie From Ohio
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
` Thomas D. Ward
` Buddy Brannan
@ ` Alex Snow
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Alex Snow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
I did just what you are talking about with slack. installed the distro,
it configured everything I needed, and installed a suitable kernel from
the cdrom and it's been running fine for months.
--
A message from the system administrator: "I've upped my priority, now up yours!"
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Thomas D. Ward wrote:
> Hi, Adam. As I mentioned in another post we are really comparing apples to
> oranges, or two different approaches.
> You must enjoy compiling kernels, editing files, and spending lots of time
> customizing every little detail on your Linux os.
> Sorry, to say but I personally as well as several others around the world
> hate spending unneccessary time recompiling kernels or whatever. I would
> just assume install an os, get everything working, and leave it alone.
> RH/Mandrake have kernels which fit just about every and any situation which
> means I've grown vary use to never compiling kernels. Why should I really
> have to spend three or four hours of time doing that when I can already be
> setup and enjoying my os.
> Mandrake also has some edditions to their kernel source which are vary nice.
> You can put the kernel in secured mode, and the supermount allows you to
> automatically load floppies, cdroms, just by cd into that mount point.
> It is something specific to <Mandrake, and I don't know of another distro
> which has supermount.
> I think many Slack users forget one slight problem. Many average computer
> users would never be able to compile a kernel, and would find the task way
> too complicated. I don't, but I know of people who would not make it through
> make config.
> Thus an all purpose kernel works fantastically for such users. Thus
> utilities like supermount simplify everyones lives when you never have to
> use mount to mount and unmount drives.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Adam Myrow <amyrow@midsouth.rr.com>
> To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 9:44 PM
> Subject: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)
>
>
> > The idea of a utility confuses me. How does it deal with floppies? It's
> > possible that what is actually happening is that it is using automount
> > which is an optional feature of the kernel and was originally designed for
> > NFS. It apparently has been used with CD ROMs as well, but I've never
> > played with it.
> >
> > That's funny that you say that the Slackware kernel doesn't have enough.
> > I find it too bloated still. It has support for RAID, PCMCIA, and other
> > things I don't use. The first thing I do when I get a fresh copy of
> > Slackware installed is to build a custom kernel. I like how Slackware
> > encourages you to do it, where Redhat has a hands-off approach of
> > automatically loading modules and assuming that you are leaving the kernel
> > alone and will never compile one yourself. If you compile the drivers for
> > your network card straight into the kernel in Redhat, it will get upset.
> > Even in Slackware, it is possible to load modules for all sorts of
> > drivers, and I can get a Slackware system working fine without a kernel
> > build. However, I noticed that after building a custom kernel, I was able
> > to shave several seconds off the boot time mainly by eliminating modules
> > for stuff I don't use. My approach is to build almost everything into the
> > kernel, but make modules out of things I will seldom use. For example,
> > since I have Roadrunner, I build my network card's drivers in, and I keep
> > PPP as a module in case I have to revert to dial-up. I also keep support
> > for the Minix filesystem and loopfs as modules since I occasionally need
> > loopfs and run into a Minix disk image here and there. About the only
> > other modules are Alsa. The result is that my kernel is under 1MB and my
> > system comes up pretty fast even on this ancient computer. To me, being
> > able to tweak things to perfection is part of the beauty of Linux. You
> > can't simply remove support for hardware you don't have in windows like
> > that. BTW, the new hotplug support didn't detect anything on my computer,
> > but I suspect it may do more on modern computers. It's probably a good
> > compromise between the sluggish Kudzu of Redhat and no attempt at all to
> > find hardware.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Gregory Nowak
` Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.) Adam Myrow
@ ` Thomas D. Ward
1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Thomas D. Ward @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hi, Greg. All you need to do something like cd /mnt/cdrom in mandrake and
it automatically mounts the drive, and when you leave the /mnt/cdrom
Mandrake would automatically unmount it for you.
It reads what file system is at that particular mount point from
/etc/fstab, and then automatically does it for you when you switch to that
mount point.
Now, that I have experienced that with emacspeak on a Mandrake system it
is hard to imagine a distro that wouldn't want that supermount support.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:37:51PM -0400, Thomas D. Ward wrote:
> > One thing Mandrake has which blows everyone away in this one particilar
> > reguard is supermount support. With supermount you never have to use the
> > mount command to mount and unmount drives. I wish Patrick would add
> > something like supermount into Slack.
> >
>
> Your comments on the distribution which I have been happily using for about 2 and a half years now aside,
> how do you access file systems if you never use the mount command?
>
> Greg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
` Chuck Hallenbeck
@ ` Darrell Shandrow
` Janina Sajka
4 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Darrell Shandrow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hi Janina,
If you are continuing to read the messages of this thread, you are learning
of the evidence. I consider Red Hat's actions to be deliberate. Ignorance
can not be claimed, since many attempts at enlightenment have been made. I
stand by my consideration of their policies of sub-human treatment for the
blind as being deliberate.
Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
A+, CCNA, Network+!
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> Luke Davis writes:
> > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > > Luke Davis writes:
>
> False.
>
>
> There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision.
>
> There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed.
> I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would
> constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize
> the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say
> "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means.
>
> Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making
> reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate
> decision to deny?" Bull..
>
> Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny."
> Hardly.
>
> Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda
> where this deliberate decision was reached?
>
> So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in
> the plural. So, what else
> > >
> > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts
he
> > > listed."
> > >
> > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just
allegations.
> > > Rather outrageous ones, too.
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny
> > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide
to
> > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well...
> >
> > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Director
> Technology Research and Development
> Governmental Relations Group
> American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Darrell Shandrow
@ ` Janina Sajka
` Gregory Nowak
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
No not quite. Nor can you provide it, as it doesn't exist.
Two instances of a too-tight RCE policy with no disability accomodations doesn't make a deliberate policy, nor does it constitute "many attempts" to my mind.
But, more to the point, your original message in this thread claimed the removal of Speakup from the RH 9 kernel is a result of this deliberate policy you imagine. So,
let me ask you a simple question?
When did Red Hat change from an inclusive policy to a deliberately discriminatory one? Since they decided on their own to include Speakup in Red Hat 8.0, there must
have been an inclusive policy at some time. Would you now claim they've actively and deliberately changed their minds in the past six months? How do YOU account for
Speakup in the 8.0 kernel distribution?
> From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@azboss.net>
>
> Hi Janina,
>
> If you are continuing to read the messages of this thread, you are learning
> of the evidence. I consider Red Hat's actions to be deliberate. Ignorance
> can not be claimed, since many attempts at enlightenment have been made. I
> stand by my consideration of their policies of sub-human treatment for the
> blind as being deliberate.
>
> Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
> Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
> A+, CCNA, Network+!
> Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
> All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
--
Janina Sajka, Director
Technology Research and Development
Governmental Relations Group
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
@ ` Gregory Nowak
` Darrell Shandrow
` Aaron Howell
2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Nowak @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
If someone has direct knowledge/experience of proper accommodations being denied to blind people who have taken the RCE exam,
it would be interesting to know how many blind people total have tried to take it, and could not. That would put the 2 cases a bit more in context.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 05:42:56PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> No not quite. Nor can you provide it, as it doesn't exist.
>
> Two instances of a too-tight RCE policy with no disability accomodations doesn't make a deliberate policy, nor does it constitute "many attempts" to my mind.
>
> But, more to the point, your original message in this thread claimed the removal of Speakup from the RH 9 kernel is a result of this deliberate policy you imagine. So,
> let me ask you a simple question?
>
> When did Red Hat change from an inclusive policy to a deliberately discriminatory one? Since they decided on their own to include Speakup in Red Hat 8.0, there must
> have been an inclusive policy at some time. Would you now claim they've actively and deliberately changed their minds in the past six months? How do YOU account for
> Speakup in the 8.0 kernel distribution?
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` Gregory Nowak
@ ` Darrell Shandrow
` Janina Sajka
` Aaron Howell
2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Darrell Shandrow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hi Janina,
My original message was a question rather than a statement concerning Red
Hat's removal of Speakup. Again, it was a question rather than a statement.
It is true that I did base my question on evidence of instances of
wrongdoing by the company in other areas of its business.
Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
A+, CCNA, Network+!
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> No not quite. Nor can you provide it, as it doesn't exist.
>
> Two instances of a too-tight RCE policy with no disability accomodations
doesn't make a deliberate policy, nor does it constitute "many attempts" to
my mind.
>
> But, more to the point, your original message in this thread claimed the
removal of Speakup from the RH 9 kernel is a result of this deliberate
policy you imagine. So,
> let me ask you a simple question?
>
> When did Red Hat change from an inclusive policy to a deliberately
discriminatory one? Since they decided on their own to include Speakup in
Red Hat 8.0, there must
> have been an inclusive policy at some time. Would you now claim they've
actively and deliberately changed their minds in the past six months? How do
YOU account for
> Speakup in the 8.0 kernel distribution?
>
>
>
> > From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@azboss.net>
> >
> > Hi Janina,
> >
> > If you are continuing to read the messages of this thread, you are
learning
> > of the evidence. I consider Red Hat's actions to be deliberate.
Ignorance
> > can not be claimed, since many attempts at enlightenment have been made.
I
> > stand by my consideration of their policies of sub-human treatment for
the
> > blind as being deliberate.
> >
> > Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
> > Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
> > A+, CCNA, Network+!
> > Check out high quality telecommunications services at
http://ld.net/?nu7i
> > All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Director
> Technology Research and Development
> Governmental Relations Group
> American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Darrell Shandrow
@ ` Janina Sajka
` Charles Crawford
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
You haven't answered the question, though.
If there's this "deliberate policy" you allege, how is that that Speakup came to be included in the 8.0 distribution? How is it that RH Tech Support is still committed
to supporting it, according to the README.Accessibility included with RH 8.0?
Looks to me like the facts don't fit your allegations.
And, it looks to me like it's you who have a deliberate ppolicy about trashing them.
Darrell Shandrow writes:
> From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@azboss.net>
>
> Hi Janina,
>
> My original message was a question rather than a statement concerning Red
> Hat's removal of Speakup. Again, it was a question rather than a statement.
> It is true that I did base my question on evidence of instances of
> wrongdoing by the company in other areas of its business.
>
> Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
> Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
> A+, CCNA, Network+!
> Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
> All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
> To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
>
>
> > No not quite. Nor can you provide it, as it doesn't exist.
> >
> > Two instances of a too-tight RCE policy with no disability accomodations
> doesn't make a deliberate policy, nor does it constitute "many attempts" to
> my mind.
> >
> > But, more to the point, your original message in this thread claimed the
> removal of Speakup from the RH 9 kernel is a result of this deliberate
> policy you imagine. So,
> > let me ask you a simple question?
> >
> > When did Red Hat change from an inclusive policy to a deliberately
> discriminatory one? Since they decided on their own to include Speakup in
> Red Hat 8.0, there must
> > have been an inclusive policy at some time. Would you now claim they've
> actively and deliberately changed their minds in the past six months? How do
> YOU account for
> > Speakup in the 8.0 kernel distribution?
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@azboss.net>
> > >
> > > Hi Janina,
> > >
> > > If you are continuing to read the messages of this thread, you are
> learning
> > > of the evidence. I consider Red Hat's actions to be deliberate.
> Ignorance
> > > can not be claimed, since many attempts at enlightenment have been made.
> I
> > > stand by my consideration of their policies of sub-human treatment for
> the
> > > blind as being deliberate.
> > >
> > > Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
> > > Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
> > > A+, CCNA, Network+!
> > > Check out high quality telecommunications services at
> http://ld.net/?nu7i
> > > All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka, Director
> > Technology Research and Development
> > Governmental Relations Group
> > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> >
> > Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
--
Janina Sajka, Director
Technology Research and Development
Governmental Relations Group
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
@ ` Charles Crawford
` Shaun Oliver
` Shaun Oliver
` Darrell Shandrow
2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Charles Crawford @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
One thing we all might consider in all of this is the fact that there are
governmental bodies starting to buy Linux. We might want to remind all
producers of Linux that Section 508 exists.
-- charlie.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Charles Crawford
@ ` Shaun Oliver
0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Shaun Oliver @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:25:18AM -0400, Charles Crawford wrote:
> One thing we all might consider in all of this is the fact that
> there are governmental bodies starting to buy Linux. We might want to
> remind all producers of Linux that Section 508 exists.
>
again charley, we need to not bitch among ourselves on this matter.
we need each and everyone of us behind the thing and to have all the
information at hand and make sure it's accurate.
none of this half arsed bs that's been sprouted about on here of late.
and certainly not jumping on someone's head just because they didn't
choose their words carefully enough to make the point they really wanted
to make in the first place.
only when everyone can agree to this well we see results. but yes linux
distributers need to know of sec 508 and there needs to be a similar
standard applicable in australia as there is none at the current time.
I intend on taking up that challenge when I've done my studies or at
least passing it off to someone better equipt than me to take on such a
task.
--
Shaun Oliver
"Before I knew the best part of my life had come, it had gone."
EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
ICQ: 76958435
YAHOO: blindman01_2000
MSN: blindman_2001@hotmail.com
AIM: captain nemo 200
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` Charles Crawford
@ ` Shaun Oliver
` Darrell Shandrow
2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Shaun Oliver @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 07:11:28AM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> You haven't answered the question, though.
>
> If there's this "deliberate policy" you allege, how is that that Speakup came to be included in the 8.0 distribution? How is it that RH Tech Support is still committed
> to supporting it, according to the README.Accessibility included with RH 8.0?
>
> Looks to me like the facts don't fit your allegations.
> And, it looks to me like it's you who have a deliberate ppolicy about trashing them.
>
>
>
ok, I think there's been enough flaming on all counts here.
janina, personally I don't like redhat due to it's slowness but that's
just me. for what I want to do, I'd prefer to use debian and that's
partly because I know it better. everyone linux is linux is linux. let's
quit farting about and fussing over who's got a policy for this that or
the other and let's not go off half cocked with conjecture and
misinformation to cloud the issue even more.
red hat obviously have their reasons for not including speakup this time
around. However, while I think it ain't fare, life ain't fare but, let's
get and do our homework before we go off ranting and raving that this
distributer of that one ain't doing this because I got a whole load of
bs which I will now expound as fact.
we all have a right to be wrong and we all have a right to our
oppinions. and daryl, hows about you think how you word your questions
in the future, in fact hows about we al lthink how we word our questions
or oppinions so as to prevent this type or thing happening again. I
don't mind telling you I'm getting sick of this god damned thread.
it's about time we put it to bed people, I don't care who's right and
who's wrong. that's the beauty of living in a democratic society. now,
enough. let's leave this as is and agree that we need to ensure that
speakup be included in future versions of red hat.
if we continually fight among ourselves, how can we then expect anyone
to take us seriously.
we can't.
well, that's me done.
--
Shaun Oliver
"Before I knew the best part of my life had come, it had gone."
EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
ICQ: 76958435
YAHOO: blindman01_2000
MSN: blindman_2001@hotmail.com
AIM: captain nemo 200
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` Charles Crawford
` Shaun Oliver
@ ` Darrell Shandrow
2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Darrell Shandrow @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
Hi Janina,
I'll concede that, perhaps, Red Hat has a policy of accessibility with
respect to its software, but retains its deliberately ignorant policies with
respect to its certification and training programs. I'm just calling them
as I see them. If sincere attempts at education fail and a policy of
sub-human treatment persists, then that treatment could be said to be
deliberate.
Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
A+, CCNA, Network+!
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread
* Re: RH9 disks on the net.
` Janina Sajka
` Gregory Nowak
` Darrell Shandrow
@ ` Aaron Howell
2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Aaron Howell @ UTC (permalink / raw)
To: speakup
I've answered this before.
I don't believe Redhat chose to include Speakup in RH 8.0.
I believe it was included because RedHat chose to use an Alan Cocks patched kernel, and alan had included speakup.
The fact that Alan happens to be a RedHat employee needs to be set aside here,
The purpose of the -ac series of kernel patches is as a proving ground for patches which may/will one day become part of the standard kernel.
It is for this reason that speakup was in the -ac kernels.
RedHat aren't using a -ac kernel this time around, so no speakup,
and they've chosen for whatever reason - others on list know more about this than me), not to include it themselves as a patch,
even though they could have.
I hardly call the accidental inclusion of an accessibility aid in a release inclusionary practice.
notice that the Readme.accessibility file from RH 8 makes no mention of speakup at all.
Don't you think if it was a deliberate inclusion they would have at least made the effort to mention it there?
I rather suspect, given what i've seen of RH's desire to look good in the public eye while actually doing very little that
if they thought they'd included a major accessibility aid, they would have been crowing about it from here to slashdot.
Regards
Aaron
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 05:42:56PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> No not quite. Nor can you provide it, as it doesn't exist.
>
> Two instances of a too-tight RCE policy with no disability accomodations doesn't make a deliberate policy, nor does it constitute "many attempts" to my mind.
>
> But, more to the point, your original message in this thread claimed the removal of Speakup from the RH 9 kernel is a result of this deliberate policy you imagine. So,
> let me ask you a simple question?
>
> When did Red Hat change from an inclusive policy to a deliberately discriminatory one? Since they decided on their own to include Speakup in Red Hat 8.0, there must
> have been an inclusive policy at some time. Would you now claim they've actively and deliberately changed their minds in the past six months? How do YOU account for
> Speakup in the 8.0 kernel distribution?
>
>
>
> > From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@azboss.net>
> >
> > Hi Janina,
> >
> > If you are continuing to read the messages of this thread, you are learning
> > of the evidence. I consider Red Hat's actions to be deliberate. Ignorance
> > can not be claimed, since many attempts at enlightenment have been made. I
> > stand by my consideration of their policies of sub-human treatment for the
> > blind as being deliberate.
> >
> > Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
> > Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
> > A+, CCNA, Network+!
> > Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
> > All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Director
> Technology Research and Development
> Governmental Relations Group
> American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread