I find myself leaning tward free software more aned more also. I find the fact that I can modify it say if I find a bug or something. With comersial software, you half to wait for a patch. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Holmes" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:59 AM Subject: Re: I swear to tell the truth, > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >
