I'd think they also could adapt their views on how "official" something must be for inclusion. These are human choices, not things decreed by nature or some divinity. Al On 03/29/2013 11:33 AM, Tony Baechler wrote: > Yes, Speakup wasn't officially in 2.6.32 kernels, but it could still be > compiled as modules. Debian Squeeze ships it, but they don't use a Red > Hat kernel. Even now, they can still make the argument that Speakup > isn't "official" because it's in staging which is considered unofficial. > Regardless, there are other ways of accessing RHEL such as ssh and there > is still no excuse why they can't comply with the ADA and make RHEL > accessible for certification. Also, there is yasr and Gnome Terminal > with Orca, so even without Speakup, there is still no excuse. That > still doesn't address the graphical part of the requirement or the > ability or lack thereof to use the VM. > > On 3/29/2013 6:18 AM, John G. Heim wrote: >> I ttalked to someone here at the University of Wisconsin who manages >> Red Hat >> servers. The UW has a site license for Red Hat. I don't know anything >> about >> it because my department uses debian (lucky for me). >> >> Anyway, he said the reason RH still doesn't give you speakup is that >> their >> current release still uses a 2.6.32 kernel and speakup wsn't included >> in the >> official kernel source until 2.6.37 -- which is correct, I believe. >> >> In a way, I can understand where RH is coming from but, holy cow, they >> are >> making it impossible for blind people to get certification from them. >> That's >> outrageous! I mean, I hate to use this cliche but this is an outrage. >> Personally, I don't give a flying fig about Red Hat because my department >> uses debian. But even so, I find this unconcionable. Somebody ought to >> sue >> their ass. > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at linux-speakup.org > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup >
