From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9703F1EF77A; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from opera.rednote.net (opera.rednote.net [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe70:e783]) by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F511EF73A for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from opera.rednote.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by opera.rednote.net (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s99KQkLj012931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 20:26:46 GMT Received: (from janina@localhost) by opera.rednote.net (8.14.8/8.14.6/Submit) id s99KQkYV012930 for speakup@linux-speakup.org; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:26:46 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: opera.rednote.net: janina set sender to janina@rednote.net using -f Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:26:46 -0400 From: Janina Sajka To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story Message-ID: <20141009202646.GM1044@opera.rednote.net> References: <86a956i23h.fsf@vibrator.pk5001z> <20141009125200.GI1044@opera.rednote.net> <86ppe1gyed.fsf@vibrator.pk5001z> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86ppe1gyed.fsf@vibrator.pk5001z> X-Operating-System: Linux opera.rednote.net 3.16.3-200.fc20.x86_64 X-PGP-Key: http://rednote.net/JaninaSajka_gpg_key.html User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 X-BeenThere: speakup@linux-speakup.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 20:26:53 -0000 Oh, I understand that Speakup was the problem in the situation you've been telling us about. I get that. My point is that it could just as easily been something else. Happens all the time. To categorically ban application X because you had a bad experience with it in one situation is not very smart, imo. To turn around and say that disabled thing was the problem, and we just won't have that is downright insulting when they didn't have running backups and some other componant could have been the culpirt just as easily. Janina Deedra Waters writes: > Janina, > > speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a > monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup. > > As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to > begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was > helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash. > > Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin > with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to > begin with. > > I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it > wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes > it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes > down the whole box. > > > -- > Website: http://deedra.the-brannons.com > blog: http://deedra.the-brannons.com/blog > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@linux-speakup.org > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Email: janina@rednote.net Linux Foundation Fellow Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/