I swear to tell the truth,

[Steve Holmes]

I noticed most of the wining in that testimonial was pleeding for
Freedom Scientific's profits!  Personally, I'm quite proud of what has
been developed in the free software movement and access to linux has
come along a big way and at no charge to end users!  Yes it has a long
ways to go too but I'm increasingly favoring the free software
approach as opposed to the comercial proprietary route.

On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 06:31:03PM -0400, Cecil H. Whitley wrote:
> 1.  There is no IBM, there was no sr/dos or sr/2 and the web browsers under
> os/2 are not accessable even though they work perfectly fine for a blind
> user with sr/2.  In addition, IBM did not have a group of employees that
> worked dilligently to make and keep os/2 accessable.
> 2.  Commercially available means "free" since there is no charge for
> internet explorer.  Therefore, the only accessable free browser is internet
> explorer.
> 3.  MSAA has always been available and if it were not for that blind people
> could not be using windows.  In addition, M.S. has always insured that their
> os was accessable before release.  Jaws 3.1 diskettes did not include a msaa
> disk because it was already present in all M.S. os's including NT 3.51 and
> windows 2.0.
> 4.  A multi-billion dollar corporation is  genorously providing employment
> to 40 individuals in order to make sure it's product is accessable to all
> persons with disabilities, evaluated as a percentage of available resources
> this exceeds every other company including Sun.
> 5.  If windows changes freedom scientific has to earn the money they charge
> for jaws by doing work.  Windows should remain as it is today with no
> furthur changes in order to increase FS's bottom line.  Furthurmore no
> furthur middleware should be developed for the same reason.  As a matter of
> fact, all applications anyone could be possibly need are already available
> so no more should be allowed on the market.
> 6.  Because it is developed by volunteers who do not charge for it, screen
> readers for linux can't be considered to make it accessable or to provide
> access to the internet..... oh yeah, and the install for XP talks sorta like
> a linux install using speakup.  Presumely this feature is being put in all
> previous windows versions retroactively?  Oh yeah, since when did kernel
> patches not be considered part of the operating system?
> 
> Anyone who wishes to forward these small comments of mine to the individual
> whom testified without considering the full implications of what he was
> saying is welcome to.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Cecil H. Whitley
> Registered Jaws user and very ashamed of that fact today.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup