Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'

Thu May 16 20:30:36 EDT 2002

Right again, but until a GUI will be accessible for the blind in the same
conditions like in Windows (without requiring a hardware sinthesizer which
is very expensive comparing it with a software one, Linux OS will stay
behind, for the blind community, of course.

It will be a good idea to start developing that graphical interface with
accessibility in mind, something like the Microsoft active accessibility.

Teddy,
orasnita at home.ro

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Snow" <alex_snow at gmx.net>
To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'

I think linux would be widely used if a windowslike gui was developed for
it, so the average person could use it.  Also getting the message out that
linux isn't just for developers or server admins would help.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita at home.ro>
To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'

> You're absolutely right.
> I don't like Windows or Microsoft or Bill Gates, but Linux definitely has
> problems.
> It is a lot much harder to use than Windows.
>
> If it would be  such a great OS, more people would use Linux not Windows.
> And in addition, it is free.
>
> Teddy,
> orasnita at home.ro
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ameer Armaly" <Ameer_Armaly at hotmail.com>
> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
>
>
> Hi all.
> What would you rather do.  Check checkboxes, or arrow through config files
> (which make no sense att all!).  Everybody knows it, windows rules in the
> sense that the non-programer can use it.  It also isn't dependant on
> confusing drivers that are almost impossible to configure because of there
> confusingness.  now, if linux were a little less unix-style in the sense
> that it requires the time and patience of a programer, I would take a
second
> look.  My friend at ms agrees.  He used linux for 4 years, and says that
> you're not very far in most areas than you were three years ago.  Also,
why
> should you have to use cat to print files.  There should be a simple
"print"
> command, like in dos (which is a lot more user-friendly than linux), and
> these extreemely long and borring paths shouldn't be so cumbersome.  I
> should know, zI like command-lines, but I'd rather type "print
> /etc/httpd/conf/http.conf" rather than use cat.  Also, why not have html
in
> email.  It only makes it easier to go directly to a link rather than have
to
> copy it and past it into lynx.  Also, why should we have to use lynx
anyway.
> It at this stage is only an out-of-date piece of crap.  It can't interpret
> java, activeX, vbs, and who knows how many other things that ie can.
Also,
> you shouldn't have to wast your time working so hard on configuring the
> right alsa drivers for your soundcard.  In windows, you just tell it you
> have a sound card, and it just does the rest.  Also, home networking is
> another issue that linux needs to improve on.  You need to compile support
> into the colonel, and then do so many things to keep yourself from beeing
> hacked. But in windows xp, I just answered a few questions, and voila! my
> network was setup!  Now why can't linux be so easy?  Because there's no
> profit for the people who are working on it.  They have no financial goal,
> so most of them make really crappy software.  On the other hand, ms, who
is
> working for a profit, has a purpose and goal, so therefore they make good
> software.
> That's just my 2 cents.
> Feel free to ask me to support it with a full-blown
> windows-to-linux-back-to-windows convert, namely, A good friend of mine,
who
> will be glad to support my point.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Snow" <alex_snow at gmx.net>
> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
>
>
> > If only winblows used simple config files... instead of having to find
the
> > right tab in those huge properties forms.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Igor Gueths" <igueths at attbi.com>
> > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
> >
> >
> > Hi Alex. Check the security tab in internet destroyer. This is what I
hate
> > about integration! One thing affects another. I like the separation.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alex Snow <alex_snow at gmx.net>
> > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
> >
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > > I use outlook depress to read email, since my linux box is still in
> > pieces.
> > > How can I stop active x controls and other code from launching the
> files?
> > > Norton catches them only after the file is opened.  Is there any way
to
> > stop
> > > this?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Igor Gueths" <igueths at attbi.com>
> > > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Kerry. Well said, no doubt on your statements. I remember the
days
> > back
> > > > when plain text was perhaps the only method for sending e-mail (late
> > 80's
> > > > early 90's). Those were the good days!
> > > >
> > > > Gates go to hell, your OS is waiting for you there!
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Kerry,
> > > > >
> > > > > No question about it, things would be a whole lot better if
> > > > > nobody sent html emails - I only wanted to point out that many
> > > > > html emails can readily be handled by pine (and perhaps other
> > > > > mail readers) and also that html email comes with and without
> > > > > viruses as do plain text emails - banning html is no protection
> > > > > against viruses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Kerry Hoath wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Chuck I should point out that certain versions
> > > > > > of pine have contained buffer overflows in the html processing
> > > elements
> > > > > > and so did older versions of mutt and lynx.
> > > > > > I am not taking a stand one way or the other regarding html
> messages
> > > > > > except to say that there are dangers in html;
> > > > > > more so for Windows users than Linux ones but the Linux dangers
> > > > > > exist as well.
> > > > > > I don't mind html if there is an equivalent plain text section,
> > > > > > but replying to html only messages causes me grief.
> > > > > > I for my own reasons choose to send to mailing lists in plain
text
> > > > > > to minimize bandwidth usage and also message bloat.
> > > > > > I encourage people to set their look out distress
> > > > > > settings to send in plain text where possible but let it reply
to
> a
> > > message
> > > > > > in the format it was received in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards, Kerry.
> > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:16:13AM -0400, Charles Hallenbeck
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am still a pine user, and on my system pine reads html
> messages
> > > > > > > transparently, no problem. HTML has nothing to do with most
> > > > > > > viruses. Executable attachments that launch themselves are the
> > > > > > > real problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Steve Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since I've been using mutt to read my mail, I really haven't
> > been
> > > > > > > > affected either way with HTML mail.  When I used pine, it
was
> an
> > > > > > > > annoyance but no more than that.  But I think I would favor
a
> > > blockage
> > > > > > > > of HTML mail since the reasons sighted below and some people
> > still
> > > use
> > > > > > > > windows mailers on the list; so go for it!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 07:48:26PM +0100, 'Georgina' wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Because of the use of html messages being used to transmit
> > > Windows
> > > > > > > > > viruses, I wondered if folks would agree to having list
> > messages
> > > > > > > > > restricted to plain text only?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The list owner will act upon whatever the consensus is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gena
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have your say:
> > > > > > > > > Blindness Advocacy and Self Help Online www.bashonline.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please don't send me MS Word documents, see
> > > > > > > > > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Personal Contact Details:
> > > > > > > > > E-mail: gena at gena-j.net WWW: http://www.gena-j.net ICQ:
> > > 144169465
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Visit me at http://www.valstar.net/~hallenbeck
> > > > > > > The Moon is Waxing Crescent (10% of Full)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Visit me at http://www.valstar.net/~hallenbeck
> > > > > The Moon is Waxing Crescent (10% of Full)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup