From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from rhombus.bright.net ([205.212.123.75]) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 16L9mT-0003iM-00 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 16:15:37 -0500 Received: from tward (woos-max1-cs-30.dial.bright.net [209.143.18.49]) by rhombus.bright.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with SMTP id fBVLFdH9007109 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 16:15:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008701c19240$44232240$0100a8c0@tward> From: "Thomas Ward" To: References: Subject: Re: speakup 1.0 and slackware 8.0 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 16:15:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca Errors-To: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.7 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, kirk. It is true most sited people use alot of things via xterm, but think how many commandline apps there are that are not x based. Gcc comes to mind. Well, I know there is a new x server in Red Hat 7.2 and from what mmy family tells me it seams to operate pretty good. They use it more than I do, and they seam to like it alright. At least it is a low cost alternative to MS Windows, and we can expect x to get more stable as development is done to it to improve it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kirk Wood To: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 9:52 AM Subject: Re: speakup 1.0 and slackware 8.0 > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Shaun Oliver wrote: > > I'm in agreement with you. > > the shell is not for everyone. > > but having said that, if people think that lthe x-windows system is > > going to be like ms windows, they have another thing coming. > > they'll be both pleasantly surprised and in for a nasty shock. > > in as much as with linux there isn't as many crashes as there is with > > windows but by the same token, it pays to learn as much about your > > machine as possible because linux isn't going to hand hold anybody > > either. > > First, I want to challenge the notion that the sighted world all uses > X. Many of us (I am a sightling) don't. I will say the majority > due. Perhaps an overwhelming majority do. But the impression I have gotten > when I last went to a Linux User Group in the Dallas area is that many > still use a command shell window within X. > > As for the stability factor, I haven't tried X in about 2 years. But 2 > years ago X had a long way to hve the stability of WIndows 9.x. I know > that is blasphemy, but it is the truth. Perhaps the latest version are > much better. I know that XFree has moved into the 4 series. But don't > think that for a minute XFree 3 is as stable as Windows. I simply isn't, > the good news being that you don't have to take the entire system down to > recover. But if you have to restart the Windows, you have still lost > everything that was running in that session. And it is still unstable. > > I would compare XFree version 3 with Windows version 3. > > ======= > Kirk Wood > Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net > > One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do > foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. > -- Joe Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup