RH9 disks on the net.

RH9 disks on the net.

[William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209]

Hi all,

     I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that the disks of rh9 
that Tommy and Keith were kind enough to make available do *not* have 
Speakup in them.  I just built new kernel and kbd RPM's, and should have 
them up shortly.  I think I've figured out how to make ISO's, the 
difficulty being that for the first time in an official release, there's 
not enough room on the floppies for a kernel containing Speakup.

          Stay tuned.


-- 
Bill in Denver

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

Hi Bill,

Does this mean that Red Hat has stepped back from its commitment (such as it
was) to accessibility by skipping Speakup for this major release?  Wonder if
this is an extension of a revised policy to deny accessibility?  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...




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: "William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209" <wacker@octothorp.org>
To: "SPEAKUP Distribution List" <speakup@speech.braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 8:07 AM
Subject: RH9 disks on the net.


> Hi all,
>
>      I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that the disks of rh9
> that Tommy and Keith were kind enough to make available do *not* have
> Speakup in them.  I just built new kernel and kbd RPM's, and should have
> them up shortly.  I think I've figured out how to make ISO's, the
> difficulty being that for the first time in an official release, there's
> not enough room on the floppies for a kernel containing Speakup.
>
>           Stay tuned.
>
>
> --
> Bill in Denver
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209]

Hi, Darrell,

     Since RH doesn't communicate their thinking to the great unwashed 
masses such as ourselves, only $DEITY knows the whole story. A big part of 
their concern seems to be the fact that Speakup is not yet modular thereby 
exposing *real* people to whatever problems that might be inherent in the 
access technology.  There was a show-stopper bug in Speakup which caused 
non-English keyboards to not work correctly.  Even though the bug was 
discovered during the Beta of RH8.0, Speakup was included anyway.  It 
takes a lot of imagination to come up with a guess as to why Speakup 
wasn't pulled at that time, allowing time for the bug to be fixed.  
Instead, it was included in the final release, thereby causing a lot of 
unhappy users of non-English keyboards.

          73.
-- 
          Bill in Denver


On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Darrell Shandrow wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> Does this mean that Red Hat has stepped back from its commitment (such as it
> was) to accessibility by skipping Speakup for this major release?  Wonder if
> this is an extension of a revised policy to deny accessibility?  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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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!

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

Hi Bill,

OK.  That reasoning is certainly understandable.  Agreed that it would
probably be much better if Speakup were modular.  Hope Kirk and the others
will be able to create such an implementation.  Unfortunately, a hard-core
programmer I am not.  :-)

If Speakup weren't included due to reasons such as those you give, then I am
not as nervous.  It'll be interesting to see what RH does if Speakup becomes
modularized and more bugs are fixed, but Speakup does not get included.  Can
you see how some of us would consider its removal for RH 9.0 to constitute a
step in the wrong direction?

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: "William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209" <wacker@octothorp.org>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.


> Hi, Darrell,
>
>      Since RH doesn't communicate their thinking to the great unwashed
> masses such as ourselves, only $DEITY knows the whole story. A big part of
> their concern seems to be the fact that Speakup is not yet modular thereby
> exposing *real* people to whatever problems that might be inherent in the
> access technology.  There was a show-stopper bug in Speakup which caused
> non-English keyboards to not work correctly.  Even though the bug was
> discovered during the Beta of RH8.0, Speakup was included anyway.  It
> takes a lot of imagination to come up with a guess as to why Speakup
> wasn't pulled at that time, allowing time for the bug to be fixed.
> Instead, it was included in the final release, thereby causing a lot of
> unhappy users of non-English keyboards.
>
>           73.
> --
>           Bill in Denver
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > Does this mean that Red Hat has stepped back from its commitment (such
as it
> > was) to accessibility by skipping Speakup for this major release?
Wonder if
> > this is an extension of a revised policy to deny accessibility?  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...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Thomas D. Ward]

What about isos with the cdrom kernel? I'm rather eager to get rh 9 going.As
soon as possible.


----- Original Message -----
From: William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 <wacker@octothorp.org>
To: SPEAKUP Distribution List <speakup@speech.braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: RH9 disks on the net.


> Hi all,
>
>      I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that the disks of rh9
> that Tommy and Keith were kind enough to make available do *not* have
> Speakup in them.  I just built new kernel and kbd RPM's, and should have
> them up shortly.  I think I've figured out how to make ISO's, the
> difficulty being that for the first time in an official release, there's
> not enough room on the floppies for a kernel containing Speakup.
>
>           Stay tuned.
>
>
> --
> Bill in Denver
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

Darrell Shandrow writes:

So, Darrell, When you write trash like:


"Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny equal access."

and more trash like:

"Wonder if this is an extension of a revised policy to deny 
accessibility,"


you only make yourself sound like a bigot and an idiot.

Or, are you claiming some inside knowledge of new policies at RH? If so,
kindly provide documentation. We'd all like to know about that.

Else, we just know more about you. Perhaps you've just been hearing
voices?

Hmmm, when I listen to your signature real fast, it sounds like it says
"a nut network."

Must say it fits.


				Janina


> From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@azboss.net>
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Does this mean that Red Hat has stepped back from its commitment (such as it
> was) to accessibility by skipping Speakup for this major release?  Wonder if
> this is an extension of a revised policy to deny accessibility?  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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
> Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
> A+, CCNA, Network+!

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

Now, in this message, you sound far more sane. 

Suspicious? I can understand that. Blind folks have plenty reasons for
that. But words like "deliberate policy" are beyond the pale. 

Please note, it doesn't make good advocacy, either. Unless and until
such exists and you can show it, best to avoid such inflamatory
declaratives.

Darrell Shandrow writes:
> From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@azboss.net>
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> OK.  That reasoning is certainly understandable.  Agreed that it would
> probably be much better if Speakup were modular.  Hope Kirk and the others
> will be able to create such an implementation.  Unfortunately, a hard-core
> programmer I am not.  :-)
> 
> If Speakup weren't included due to reasons such as those you give, then I am
> not as nervous.  It'll be interesting to see what RH does if Speakup becomes
> modularized and more bugs are fixed, but Speakup does not get included.  Can
> you see how some of us would consider its removal for RH 9.0 to constitute a
> step in the wrong direction?
> 
> 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: "William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209" <wacker@octothorp.org>
> To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> 
> 
> > Hi, Darrell,
> >
> >      Since RH doesn't communicate their thinking to the great unwashed
> > masses such as ourselves, only $DEITY knows the whole story. A big part of
> > their concern seems to be the fact that Speakup is not yet modular thereby
> > exposing *real* people to whatever problems that might be inherent in the
> > access technology.  There was a show-stopper bug in Speakup which caused
> > non-English keyboards to not work correctly.  Even though the bug was
> > discovered during the Beta of RH8.0, Speakup was included anyway.  It
> > takes a lot of imagination to come up with a guess as to why Speakup
> > wasn't pulled at that time, allowing time for the bug to be fixed.
> > Instead, it was included in the final release, thereby causing a lot of
> > unhappy users of non-English keyboards.
> >
> >           73.
> > --
> >           Bill in Denver
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Bill,
> > >
> > > Does this mean that Red Hat has stepped back from its commitment (such
> as it
> > > was) to accessibility by skipping Speakup for this major release?
> Wonder if
> > > this is an extension of a revised policy to deny accessibility?  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...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Luke Davis]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka flamed, attacked, and misconstrued
thusly:

> Darrell Shandrow writes:
>
> "Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny equal access."

Actually, I believe this comment, which you so neatly took out of context,
originally was:

> 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...

He appears to be stating fact, here, not spreading baseless "trash", as
you state.

You further quoted him as saying:

> "Wonder if this is an extension of a revised policy to deny
> accessibility,"

First, not only is this quote taken out of context, it is also taken out
of order.  It is supposed to appear *above* the former statement, which
then serves to support the content of this one.
Further, he did not state this as fact, but proposed as conjecture, and,
moreover, posed it in the form of a question, as such not even claiming it
to be fact, but asking whether it might be the case, given the fact of the
denial of access he later mentioned.

> you only make yourself sound like a bigot and an idiot.

And you make yourself appear highly illogical, and as someone who wishes
to stir up trouble on the forum, by constantly attacking anyone who does
not hold a carbon copy of your own biases and opinions.  There is nothing
wrong with debating his statements.  However, doing so with more facts,
and with logic, will get you much further, and might actually win you the
argument such as it is, than will emotional outbursts, such as the one
you have just exhibited here and in the past, and, no doubt, such as that
of which I will soon surely be the target.

> Or, are you claiming some inside knowledge of new policies at RH? If so,
> kindly provide documentation. We'd all like to know about that.

It is worth noting, that he did not state that there was such a policy,
but merely suggested, and asked, whether there might be one, given recent
actions on the part of Redhat.
I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
listed.  However, an investigation of same might be in order, so that you
can coherently argue to the contrary.

> Else, we just know more about you. Perhaps you've just been hearing
> voices?

Case in point.  Now, not only have you stopped debating the issue you hold
so dear, all be it as non-realisticly as you did, you have reverted to
personal insults, perhaps in an effort to divert attention from the issue
at hand, by involving him in an emotional response?  Have you ever
considered running for political office?

Luke

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

Luke Davis writes:

"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.

PS: I leave your patronizing "so, dear" without further comment.

> From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> 
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka flamed, attacked, and misconstrued
> thusly:
> 
> > Darrell Shandrow writes:
> >
> > "Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny equal access."
> 
> Actually, I believe this comment, which you so neatly took out of context,
> originally was:
> 
> > 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...
> 
> He appears to be stating fact, here, not spreading baseless "trash", as
> you state.
> 
> You further quoted him as saying:
> 
> > "Wonder if this is an extension of a revised policy to deny
> > accessibility,"
> 
> First, not only is this quote taken out of context, it is also taken out
> of order.  It is supposed to appear *above* the former statement, which
> then serves to support the content of this one.
> Further, he did not state this as fact, but proposed as conjecture, and,
> moreover, posed it in the form of a question, as such not even claiming it
> to be fact, but asking whether it might be the case, given the fact of the
> denial of access he later mentioned.
> 
> > you only make yourself sound like a bigot and an idiot.
> 
> And you make yourself appear highly illogical, and as someone who wishes
> to stir up trouble on the forum, by constantly attacking anyone who does
> not hold a carbon copy of your own biases and opinions.  There is nothing
> wrong with debating his statements.  However, doing so with more facts,
> and with logic, will get you much further, and might actually win you the
> argument such as it is, than will emotional outbursts, such as the one
> you have just exhibited here and in the past, and, no doubt, such as that
> of which I will soon surely be the target.
> 
> > Or, are you claiming some inside knowledge of new policies at RH? If so,
> > kindly provide documentation. We'd all like to know about that.
> 
> It is worth noting, that he did not state that there was such a policy,
> but merely suggested, and asked, whether there might be one, given recent
> actions on the part of Redhat.
> I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> listed.  However, an investigation of same might be in order, so that you
> can coherently argue to the contrary.
> 
> > Else, we just know more about you. Perhaps you've just been hearing
> > voices?
> 
> Case in point.  Now, not only have you stopped debating the issue you hold
> so dear, all be it as non-realisticly as you did, you have reverted to
> personal insults, perhaps in an effort to divert attention from the issue
> at hand, by involving him in an emotional response?  Have you ever
> considered running for political office?
> 
> Luke
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Luke Davis]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:

> Luke Davis writes:
>
> "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?

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Thomas D. Ward]

Well, the main problem here is that Darel's message was not worded properly.
When I read the message I had taken the wording as if he was implying that
Red Hat was doing it to screw us. Which is not their intentions at all.
In the future a simple question such as: "Why did Red Hat pull speakup,"
have served the purpose better.
We do not need to insult Red Hat by comparing their polacies of CE classes
and there software.
If speakup hadn't been such a conflict and had been more modulerized it
probably would have stayed.
They have kept festival, emacspeak, etc and they haven't tossed them into
the garbage so any implied, suggested, or other notions about Red Hat
abandoning adaptive Linux distros is baseless.



----- Original Message -----
From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.


> Luke Davis writes:
>
> "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.
>
> PS: I leave your patronizing "so, dear" without further comment.
>
> > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka flamed, attacked, and misconstrued
> > thusly:
> >
> > > Darrell Shandrow writes:
> > >
> > > "Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny equal access."
> >
> > Actually, I believe this comment, which you so neatly took out of
context,
> > originally was:
> >
> > > 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...
> >
> > He appears to be stating fact, here, not spreading baseless "trash", as
> > you state.
> >
> > You further quoted him as saying:
> >
> > > "Wonder if this is an extension of a revised policy to deny
> > > accessibility,"
> >
> > First, not only is this quote taken out of context, it is also taken out
> > of order.  It is supposed to appear *above* the former statement, which
> > then serves to support the content of this one.
> > Further, he did not state this as fact, but proposed as conjecture, and,
> > moreover, posed it in the form of a question, as such not even claiming
it
> > to be fact, but asking whether it might be the case, given the fact of
the
> > denial of access he later mentioned.
> >
> > > you only make yourself sound like a bigot and an idiot.
> >
> > And you make yourself appear highly illogical, and as someone who wishes
> > to stir up trouble on the forum, by constantly attacking anyone who does
> > not hold a carbon copy of your own biases and opinions.  There is
nothing
> > wrong with debating his statements.  However, doing so with more facts,
> > and with logic, will get you much further, and might actually win you
the
> > argument such as it is, than will emotional outbursts, such as the one
> > you have just exhibited here and in the past, and, no doubt, such as
that
> > of which I will soon surely be the target.
> >
> > > Or, are you claiming some inside knowledge of new policies at RH? If
so,
> > > kindly provide documentation. We'd all like to know about that.
> >
> > It is worth noting, that he did not state that there was such a policy,
> > but merely suggested, and asked, whether there might be one, given
recent
> > actions on the part of Redhat.
> > I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he
> > listed.  However, an investigation of same might be in order, so that
you
> > can coherently argue to the contrary.
> >
> > > Else, we just know more about you. Perhaps you've just been hearing
> > > voices?
> >
> > Case in point.  Now, not only have you stopped debating the issue you
hold
> > so dear, all be it as non-realisticly as you did, you have reverted to
> > personal insults, perhaps in an effort to divert attention from the
issue
> > at hand, by involving him in an emotional response?  Have you ever
> > considered running for political office?
> >
> > Luke
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Luke Davis]

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
>
>

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Shaun Oliver]

*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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Shaun Oliver]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[ccrawford]

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.
> 
> 

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

I would agree with "piss poor." But, to my mind, this still doesn't rise to the level of deliberate decision to discriminate. Rather, it describes a deliberate RH
policy that allows no exceptions to standard procedures. Unfortunately, it's clear those procedures don't include any consideration of accessibility and any
accomondation to disability which might be reasonable.

Certainly, there should be a clear and proper policy regarding accomodations. Under U.S. law RH should get busy and fix this, or you (and/or other RCE candidates)
should take action. What you experienced is most likely the lack of any deliberation whatsoever around disability among those who are empowered to make policy at RH. I
would not expect you were actually in communication with the policy makers, just those discharging RH procedures.

Of course I don't have any evidence either. I don't know, for a fact, whether (or not) RH ever sat down to set a policy of discrimination. But, lacking evidence to the
contrary, it's just far more likely they haven't thought about it very much. Certainly they need to, and should be pushed into it, if that's what it takes.

Was what happened to you discriminatory? Absolutely. But, was it the result of a deliberate policy to discriminate? I doubt it. It was most likely the result of a
policy that says "everybody must do it the same way." So, the people you talked to deliberately followed the policy that says "everybody must do it the same way." It
had nothing to do with you, disability, race, gender, or planet of origin. It wasn't a decision to say "let's stick it to beings from Mars," or "all green people," or
"all people with no hands." It was laziness in the policy department that foolishly presumed that one size can fit all. They likely believe this makes the RCE more
valuable, because everybody goes through the same ringer. Unfortunately for them, they need to do a bit more work around this.



Aaron Howell writes:
> From: Aaron Howell <aaron@kitten.net.au>
> 
> 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

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina@afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

Hi Luke,

I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.

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: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.


> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
>
> > Luke Davis writes:
> >
> > "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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Gregory Nowak]

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?
> 
> 
> 

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Tommy Moore]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 02:03:19PM -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.

Evening Darrell.  Red Hat does not have to provide their materials in
electronic form just because the fact that your blind and can not read
the printed ones.

I myself would like them to do so, but there's not any law that says
they must.  Until there's a way to give the books in electronic form
to people with out having to worry about people copying it and sending
it to others not all publishers will be willing to hand out electronic
copies of their materials.

Tommy

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

Hi Tommy,

First, if Red Hat participates in anything that is government funded, then
there may very well be a basis in law for requiring it to provide a
reasonable accomodation such as electronic text.  Second, proper ethics and
morals require the human treatment of blind customers.  Part of such
treatment would be to provide reasonable accomodations by including
electronic copies of all material that is provided in print to the sighted.
If it is provided in print, then it should be provided in at least one
accessible format for those for whom blindness prohibits the reading of
print.  Anything less is simply not acceptable.  Please keep in mind that
numerous solutions were provided to Red Hat staff to insure the integrity of
its copyrights; Red Hat staff appeared to be totally disinterested in all
such possibilities.




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: "Tommy Moore" <tmoore@cmrc.org>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.


> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 02:03:19PM -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> > I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> > requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.
>
> Evening Darrell.  Red Hat does not have to provide their materials in
> electronic form just because the fact that your blind and can not read
> the printed ones.
>
> I myself would like them to do so, but there's not any law that says
> they must.  Until there's a way to give the books in electronic form
> to people with out having to worry about people copying it and sending
> it to others not all publishers will be willing to hand out electronic
> copies of their materials.
>
> Tommy

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

Those who have done the RHCE will know that we have to sign an NDA during the exam stating that we will not discuss any part of the exam
with anyone (we weren't even supposed to discuss what we'd done over lunch with our fellow exam participants).
legally, I can't tell you even what format the exam takes, the only information available to you as a non RHCE is what RedHat offers on its website describing the course and exam.
There is no reason at all that this NDA could not be extended to cover no disribution of the material you are given, even if its in electronic form.
After all, I _could_ scan the training material and drop the result on the web,
but you can bet RedHat would have me up before a copyright tribunal before I could say bookshare.org.
Their refusal to provide material in electronic format is pure laziness, and has nothing to do with the increased likelihood of distribution to non RHCE participants.
After all, A simple signature on a form promising I wouldn't distribute it landed me a nice accessible version of the Sun Solaris 7 System Admin training notes.
if Sun can do it, there's no reason RedHat can't, and Sun didn't even fight about it.
Regards
Aaron
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 03:47:21PM -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> Hi Tommy,
> 
> First, if Red Hat participates in anything that is government funded, then
> there may very well be a basis in law for requiring it to provide a
> reasonable accomodation such as electronic text.  Second, proper ethics and
> morals require the human treatment of blind customers.  Part of such
> treatment would be to provide reasonable accomodations by including
> electronic copies of all material that is provided in print to the sighted.
> If it is provided in print, then it should be provided in at least one
> accessible format for those for whom blindness prohibits the reading of
> print.  Anything less is simply not acceptable.  Please keep in mind that
> numerous solutions were provided to Red Hat staff to insure the integrity of
> its copyrights; Red Hat staff appeared to be totally disinterested in all
> such possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: "Tommy Moore" <tmoore@cmrc.org>
> To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> 
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 02:03:19PM -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> > > I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> > > requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.
> >
> > Evening Darrell.  Red Hat does not have to provide their materials in
> > electronic form just because the fact that your blind and can not read
> > the printed ones.
> >
> > I myself would like them to do so, but there's not any law that says
> > they must.  Until there's a way to give the books in electronic form
> > to people with out having to worry about people copying it and sending
> > it to others not all publishers will be willing to hand out electronic
> > copies of their materials.
> >
> > Tommy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

[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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Adam Myrow]

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.

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Lorenzo Prince]

This is quite a shame, and I hope it changes shortly.  I was hoping to
some day work for RH after I graduate from college as they're actually in
the state where I live.  I am a computer
science major, and would much rather work for an open-source company than
a company that only has their own interests in mind and only cares about
getting as much money as possible from their customers and hurting other
companies in a feeble attempt to get their second-rate products to gain a
majority of the market share.  I DON'T WANT TO WORK FOR
MICRO$HIT!!!!!!!!!!  Pardon the language.  LOL.

LINUX ROCKS!
Lorenzo

E Pluribus Unix

Darrell Shandrow staggered into view and mumbled:

> Hi Luke,
>
> I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.
>
> 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: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
>
>
> > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > > Luke Davis writes:
> > >
> > > "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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Aaron Howell]

RedHat concerns me in that respect.
Their recent move to only supporting distributions for 12 months in an attempt to force corporate customers into purchasing advanced server smacks of market domination techniques, not unlike those used by a certain company in Redmond.
Their market dominance is giving them sway with companies like Oracle, who are beginning to build applications which are only qualified to run on RH advanced server.
(we're facing this problem at work at present, we'd like to move to Debian for convenience but can't because of the need for application support).
The theory that RedHat will become the Micro$oft of the Unix world isn't perhaps as alarmist as it might seem.
Not because there aren't superior distributions out there, but because all the commercial apps will require RedHat if you expect to get support.
This won't mean you can't run commercial apps on other distros, especially those that use rpm for package management,
but it will create interesting support issues if you choose to do so.
(thats without even considering the fact that RH is snapping up the cream of the Linux development world).
Interesting times ahead i fear.
Regards
Aaron
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:53:05AM -0400, Lorenzo Prince wrote:
> This is quite a shame, and I hope it changes shortly.  I was hoping to
> some day work for RH after I graduate from college as they're actually in
> the state where I live.  I am a computer
> science major, and would much rather work for an open-source company than
> a company that only has their own interests in mind and only cares about
> getting as much money as possible from their customers and hurting other
> companies in a feeble attempt to get their second-rate products to gain a
> majority of the market share.  I DON'T WANT TO WORK FOR
> MICRO$HIT!!!!!!!!!!  Pardon the language.  LOL.
> 
> LINUX ROCKS!
> Lorenzo
> 
> E Pluribus Unix
> 
> Darrell Shandrow staggered into view and mumbled:
> 
> > Hi Luke,
> >
> > I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> > requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.
> >
> > 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: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > >
> > > > "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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Luke Davis]

Funny.  I was saying that (harping on it, more likely), between 98 and 01,
and everyone thought I was gnuts.  I started to doubt it, so shut up about
it, and now here we go again.

If other distributions are desirous of nocking them down a peg, they will
need to make themselves equally as desirable for server applications as
Redhat apparently now is.  So how?

Luke


On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Aaron Howell wrote:

> RedHat concerns me in that respect.
> Their recent move to only supporting distributions for 12 months in an attempt to force corporate customers into purchasing advanced server smacks of market domination techniques, not unlike those used by a certain company in Redmond.
> Their market dominance is giving them sway with companies like Oracle, who are beginning to build applications which are only qualified to run on RH advanced server.
> (we're facing this problem at work at present, we'd like to move to Debian for convenience but can't because of the need for application support).
> The theory that RedHat will become the Micro$oft of the Unix world isn't perhaps as alarmist as it might seem.
> Not because there aren't superior distributions out there, but because all the commercial apps will require RedHat if you expect to get support.
> This won't mean you can't run commercial apps on other distros, especially those that use rpm for package management,
> but it will create interesting support issues if you choose to do so.
> (thats without even considering the fact that RH is snapping up the cream of the Linux development world).
> Interesting times ahead i fear.
> Regards
> Aaron
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:53:05AM -0400, Lorenzo Prince wrote:
> > This is quite a shame, and I hope it changes shortly.  I was hoping to
> > some day work for RH after I graduate from college as they're actually in
> > the state where I live.  I am a computer
> > science major, and would much rather work for an open-source company than
> > a company that only has their own interests in mind and only cares about
> > getting as much money as possible from their customers and hurting other
> > companies in a feeble attempt to get their second-rate products to gain a
> > majority of the market share.  I DON'T WANT TO WORK FOR
> > MICRO$HIT!!!!!!!!!!  Pardon the language.  LOL.
> >
> > LINUX ROCKS!
> > Lorenzo
> >
> > E Pluribus Unix
> >
> > Darrell Shandrow staggered into view and mumbled:
> >
> > > Hi Luke,
> > >
> > > I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> > > requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.
> > >
> > > 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: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > > To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:19 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > "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
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[ccrawford]

	Under no circumstances should you conclude from these messages 
that RH is not a place to work.  Every journey begins with a single 
step and others have already made it.  So go for it!

-- charlie Crawford.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, 
Lorenzo Prince wrote:

> This is quite a shame, and I hope it changes shortly.  I was hoping to
> some day work for RH after I graduate from college as they're actually in
> the state where I live.  I am a computer
> science major, and would much rather work for an open-source company than
> a company that only has their own interests in mind and only cares about
> getting as much money as possible from their customers and hurting other
> companies in a feeble attempt to get their second-rate products to gain a
> majority of the market share.  I DON'T WANT TO WORK FOR
> MICRO$HIT!!!!!!!!!!  Pardon the language.  LOL.
> 
> LINUX ROCKS!
> Lorenzo
> 
> E Pluribus Unix
> 
> Darrell Shandrow staggered into view and mumbled:
> 
> > Hi Luke,
> >
> > I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> > requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.
> >
> > 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: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > >
> > > > "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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[ccrawford]

Money is the root of all evil.  There, I found the root directory -- 
smile.  Your concern is real and should be thought about.  I wonder if 
we will eventually see a Department of Justice investigation of 
anti-trust activities?  Hmmm.

-- charlie.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Aaron Howell wrote:

> RedHat concerns me in that respect.
> Their recent move to only supporting distributions for 12 months in an attempt to force corporate customers into purchasing advanced server smacks of market domination techniques, not unlike those used by a certain company in Redmond.
> Their market dominance is giving them sway with companies like Oracle, who are beginning to build applications which are only qualified to run on RH advanced server.
> (we're facing this problem at work at present, we'd like to move to Debian for convenience but can't because of the need for application support).
> The theory that RedHat will become the Micro$oft of the Unix world isn't perhaps as alarmist as it might seem.
> Not because there aren't superior distributions out there, but because all the commercial apps will require RedHat if you expect to get support.
> This won't mean you can't run commercial apps on other distros, especially those that use rpm for package management,
> but it will create interesting support issues if you choose to do so.
> (thats without even considering the fact that RH is snapping up the cream of the Linux development world).
> Interesting times ahead i fear.
> Regards
> Aaron
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:53:05AM -0400, Lorenzo Prince wrote:
> > This is quite a shame, and I hope it changes shortly.  I was hoping to
> > some day work for RH after I graduate from college as they're actually in
> > the state where I live.  I am a computer
> > science major, and would much rather work for an open-source company than
> > a company that only has their own interests in mind and only cares about
> > getting as much money as possible from their customers and hurting other
> > companies in a feeble attempt to get their second-rate products to gain a
> > majority of the market share.  I DON'T WANT TO WORK FOR
> > MICRO$HIT!!!!!!!!!!  Pardon the language.  LOL.
> > 
> > LINUX ROCKS!
> > Lorenzo
> > 
> > E Pluribus Unix
> > 
> > Darrell Shandrow staggered into view and mumbled:
> > 
> > > Hi Luke,
> > >
> > > I am aware of at least two instances where electronic materials were
> > > requested and denied, while sighted participants received print copies.
> > >
> > > 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: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@shellworld.net>
> > > To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:19 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RH9 disks on the net.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Luke Davis writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > "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
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> 

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Charles Crawford]

	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.

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Shaun Oliver]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Shaun Oliver]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Doug Sutherland]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Doug Sutherland]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Steve Holmes]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Doug Sutherland]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Doug Sutherland]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Doug Sutherland]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Thomas D. Ward]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Gregory Nowak]

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

Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Adam Myrow]

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.

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Thomas D. Ward]

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
> 

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Gregory Nowak]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Lorenzo Prince]

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
>

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Luke Davis]

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
>

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Luke Davis]

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
>

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Luke Davis]

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
>

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Alex Snow]

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
>

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Doug]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Thomas D. Ward]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Darrell Shandrow]

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!

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Lorenzo Prince]

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
>

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Buddy Brannan]

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

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Alex Snow]

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
>

Re: Linux distros (was Re: RH9 disks on the net.)

[Doug]

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

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Janina Sajka]

"Not necessary to have it start immediately?" How does that work? I'm quite sure you could know something I don't, but I have only ever seen ide-scsi started from the
boot loader. I have never seen it in modules.conf, for example.

If the drive isn't to be mapped scsi right away, are you suggesting it can start mapped ide and be switched to scsi somewhere after booting? That's a pretty radical
suggestion, imho.

But, let's take this back to the original point. If ide-scsi can be modular, and started from the boot loader, why not Speakup? That was the original point, after all.

Lorenzo Prince writes:
> From: Lorenzo Prince <lorenzo@princenet.sytes.net>
> 
> I believe it is loaded after all the drives are detected and it knows
> where the ide ports are and which one has the CDRW drive.  This can be
> compiled as a module, but it isn't necessary to have it start immediately.
> It can start at any time before the CDRW drive is used for writing.
> Basically, my point was that a module has to be loaded either from a
> script, from the command line, or in /etc/modules.conf using the module
> loader.  Even if run from the /etc/rc.d/rc.S script, a module won't be
> loaded before any text is printed to the screen.  This is why I thought,
> in the case of a modularized speakup, that it would probably still be
> necessary to patch the kernel itself to cause it to buffer console output
> until the Speakup module is actually loaded, as someone mentioned in an
> earlier post on this thread.
> 
> Lorenzo

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina@afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Gregory Nowak]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:10:41PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> "Not necessary to have it start immediately?" How does that work? I'm quite sure you could know something I don't, but I have only ever seen ide-scsi started from the
> boot loader. I have never seen it in modules.conf, for example.

I have, in Slackware's /etc/rc.d/rc.modules file.

Greg

Re: RH9 disks on the net.

[Steve Holmes]

Yeah, I actually do this.  My base hard drives are normal IDE and my
CD burner is IDE-scsi so I use the loadable SCSI support for it and my
internal zipdrive.  Actually right now, I don't have ide-scsi in the
loop at all and my CD Burner and zip drive are accessible.  The
CD-Writing-HOWTOO has a section on both implementing ide-scsi as a
kernel parameter and as separate modules.  The modules.conf entries
suggested for the proper loading sequence does look a bit complex at
best, however.

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 05:10:41PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> "Not necessary to have it start immediately?" How does that work? I'm quite sure you could know something I don't, but I have only ever seen ide-scsi started from the
> boot loader. I have never seen it in modules.conf, for example.