Well, as a data point, BSD/OS (www.bsdi.com) is arguably "closed source", and gives out crash dumps.
I'm in the support group, and we find crash dumps *very* valuable. It is not necessary for the customer to necessarily have all the source, just a kernel with known characteristics...
This makes very little sense. The purpose of the kernel is to be the thing which allocates resources. If it screwed up, how do you "recover"?
Do both kernels have access to the serial ports? Does only one? If it's only one, how do you guess what state the port is in when it dies and the other takes over? If it's both, how do you keep them from conflicting?
It turns out that the program which keeps the kernels from conflicting is, in fact, the kernel.
I think you misunderstood him. Solaris (I assume) has the ability to dump core *for the kernel*. Obviously, not into the filesystem - thus the swap/savecore dance.
And no, it's not only for applications. And it's *very* useful.
This sounds *EXACTLY* like the way BSD kernels have, since the dawn of time, handled panics. If you have enough swap space, the kernel dumps a complete core image (in a special format) to the swap device. Then, on boot, it extracts it before enabling swap, and copies a kernel over. (Goes in/var/crash, if such a place exists.)
I've used this to debug (or have someone else debug) kernel panics on BSD/OS and NetBSD systems. It's a *very* nice feature, because, in the real world, you often have a crash that can't be encouraged to happen right when the engineer is handy.
Common feature, been available for years. I just *assumed* Linux had it.
The only point you made is that you steadfastly refuse to think.
You can learn a new language, *after which you can access AOL*.
No tool will allow a blind person to access AOL-with-only-graphics. Many tools *already* allow a blind person to access AOL-with-alt-tags. Alt tags cost very little.
Thus, we assert that it is a *reasonable* burden to expect AOL to provide alt tags for navigation buttons.
It is, in fact, the responsibility of everyone in this country (the US) to make *reasonable* efforts to make it *possible* for the disabled to access their services.
We don't require that you have no material which requires sight; we only require that, if it is *reasonable* to make something accessible to the blind, that you do so.
Since it is reasonable, trivial, and commonly done, yes, AOL is obligated to do it.
You keep bringing up this straw man, as if the suit would require AOL to stop using images at all, or require AOL to make everything text. Nothing of the sort has been attempted or suggested; the suggestions are only that things which are *already* textual be presented as text, not pictures-of-text-without-alt-tags.
You said something stupid. It was a knee-jerk reaction. It was wrong, and your ego prevents you from admitting that you didn't think it through. Get over it.
You're just trying to make a point. You can't possibly really be that stupid.
People can, in general, learn multiple languages.
Blind people cannot, in general, learn to see.
The question is also, of course, one of *cost*. How much would it cost for the next version of AOL's installer to use text rather than pictures of text to describe what it's doing? Not a whole lot.
I really look forward to hearing the kind of things you'd say if you ever spent a week or two without the use of your eyes.
I'm wondering if Kintanon is one of those people who "sees" words. I'm a heretic; I "hear" words. When I read or write text, I *HEAR* the words. So, of course, it doesn't seem like a visual medium to me.
It's really easy to forget that your primary means of interacting with the world isn't the only one.
What utter bullshit! You might as well argue that books are, "by definition", visual, so let's throw out Braille since it's obviously impossible.
What is "visual" about the web? People have chosen to represent what is fundementally mostly *verbal* data in a visual way. That is a poor choice, not an intrinsic character of the data.
No one's complaining that they can't see the pictures; they're complaining that the text is all pictures of text.
If you made a point of taking *every* picture that had text in it, and using that text for the alt tag for that picture, you'd probably find that people found pages a lot more accessible.
At that point, the only way you'll have inaccessible content is if you do all-graphical buttons with icons - and you'll find out that sighted people get screwed by them too.
Words are good. Since you need words, why not make the words *visible*?
The whole thing about Quake 3, games, etcetera, is frankly *STUPID*.
THINK!
I mean, really. THINK. Put concepts together.
What is Quake trying to "communicate"? It is trying to communicate a visual thing. What is the IRS web site trying to communicate? Data. Text.
The complaint is about text being hidden, not about things that were never verbal to begin with.
I'm not getting your point. The fact is, braille on drive-up ATM's sounds silly until you think about it, but it really does get used, and it's a good feature.
The reason deaf people don't complain about not being able to listen to CD's is that the *fundemental* content is not, *by its nature*, accessible.
Contrast this with the desire to understand *textual* data. We have here people who *understand text*. We have textual data. We are hiding that data in a specially encrypted form, so that only people who can decrypt that form can see it.
That's how the ADA has been interpreted. It's not that you have to allow a quadriplegic to be a flight attendant, it's that, if you've got a building that *could* plausibly have a ramp, not just stairs, you have to do that.
Don't believe me about the encryption? Tell me why it is that you can't read the obviously visual content below without some kind of help:
This is gonna come as a shock to you, but it is possible for a blind person to sit in the car with a driver, and use the ATM. See, many cars have an advanced feature we call "more than one window".
If, indeed, the Braille representation is not part of the web, then neither is the set of pixels on my display, or the set of pixels on the display of the author.
The web is a digital medium; we translate it into whatever encodings we want, but it has no *native* form other than streams of bits you can't see.
You're just stuck because you have eyes, and you've always seen things, and you can't get your head around the idea that this is not the only way the world could work.
The Web is not visual; you are merely seeing a translation to your preferred medium.
Stop projecting your experience as if it's the "real" world. It's just your experience of that world.
Text isn't visual. I sent email to a person I know. I saw the email, when I was sending it, because I used a visual editor. She never saw my email, even though she received it and wrote back. She felt my email as a series of dots on her fingertips.
Text is *not* the same as visual content.
Why do you think the web is visual? Not because *it* is visual. Because *you* are.
Don't let your experience blind you to the way the world works when you aren't looking.
We used to have a blind user on my ISP. She used lynx or www through a Braille terminal. She hated graphics-heavy web sites without alt tags.
If we are willing to say that the blind have a right to a chance, well, yes, they have a right to accessible web sites. It's not like you can't use alt tags.
(My site is, to the best of my knowledge, quite legible, even to blind people.)
I'm all for it. Why? Because, even though I can, for the most part, see, I don't like sites that demand that I turn on eighteen different security-weak plug-ins, and download a megabyte of content, just to get a bloody paragraph of text.
I'm all for simpler, more accessible web sites, and I personally do think the expectation that a page be accessible to the blind is a reasonable one.
Slashdot Mirror
eBay posted a "we will never spam you or share your address with third parties" privacy policy.
They gave a list of "inactive" customers to a third party, and spammed them all with a "look how cool our site is" message.
TrustE has not yanked their logo.
(More details available upon request, or read discussion in news.admin.net-abuse.email.)
This is a ludicrously specific question, IMHO.
Anyway, haven't used that drive, but I've used plenty of IBM drives, with no real problems. Been happy.
As pointed out, don't forget a backup strategy.
BSD/OS has had a similar feature. *completely* automatic? No.
/var/crash
cd
/sys/scripts/kanal 0
And you get a file called 'info.0' which is a nice summary of everything important to ftp up to BSDI's support group.
Well, as a data point, BSD/OS (www.bsdi.com) is arguably "closed source", and gives out crash dumps.
I'm in the support group, and we find crash dumps *very* valuable. It is not necessary for the customer to necessarily have all the source, just a kernel with known characteristics...
This makes very little sense. The purpose of the kernel is to be the thing which allocates resources. If it screwed up, how do you "recover"?
Do both kernels have access to the serial ports? Does only one? If it's only one, how do you guess what state the port is in when it dies and the other takes over? If it's both, how do you keep them from conflicting?
It turns out that the program which keeps the kernels from conflicting is, in fact, the kernel.
This mind is not buddha.
You must be joking.
:)
Hey, GUYS!
THIS IS A SYSTEM BASED ON GNU TOOLS!
YOU HAVE A DEBUGGER WHICH HAS SPECIAL HOOKS FOR DEBUGGING KERNEL CORE DUMPS!
This is *crazy*! That's like, uhm, like sort of a hack perpetrated by someone who was in a hurry and didn't know about prior art.
Which, I guess, is the allegation that Linux always faces from people. *sigh*. Oh, well, it'll get better.
Oops tracing may be fun, but if you're on any kind of schedule, or you're doing commercial support, crash dumps are *well* worth it.
Then you get a "double panic", a very cryptic message, and no crash dump. Very rare, but it can happen.
At least, that's how *BSD handles it. "double panic" is engineereese for "fix your broken hardware".
I think you misunderstood him. Solaris (I assume) has the ability to dump core *for the kernel*. Obviously, not into the filesystem - thus the swap/savecore dance.
And no, it's not only for applications. And it's *very* useful.
This sounds *EXACTLY* like the way BSD kernels have, since the dawn of time, handled panics. If you have enough swap space, the kernel dumps a complete core image (in a special format) to the swap device. Then, on boot, it extracts it before enabling swap, and copies a kernel over. (Goes in /var/crash, if such a place exists.)
I've used this to debug (or have someone else debug) kernel panics on BSD/OS and NetBSD systems. It's a *very* nice feature, because, in the real world, you often have a crash that can't be encouraged to happen right when the engineer is handy.
Common feature, been available for years. I just *assumed* Linux had it.
The only point you made is that you steadfastly refuse to think.
You can learn a new language, *after which you can access AOL*.
No tool will allow a blind person to access AOL-with-only-graphics. Many tools *already* allow a blind person to access AOL-with-alt-tags. Alt tags cost very little.
Thus, we assert that it is a *reasonable* burden to expect AOL to provide alt tags for navigation buttons.
It is, in fact, the responsibility of everyone in this country (the US) to make *reasonable* efforts to make it *possible* for the disabled to access their services.
We don't require that you have no material which requires sight; we only require that, if it is *reasonable* to make something accessible to the blind, that you do so.
Since it is reasonable, trivial, and commonly done, yes, AOL is obligated to do it.
You keep bringing up this straw man, as if the suit would require AOL to stop using images at all, or require AOL to make everything text. Nothing of the sort has been attempted or suggested; the suggestions are only that things which are *already* textual be presented as text, not pictures-of-text-without-alt-tags.
You said something stupid. It was a knee-jerk reaction. It was wrong, and your ego prevents you from admitting that you didn't think it through. Get over it.
No one said you had to be able to get *EVERY NUANCE* of the page. They said you had to be able to get through it at all.
And, I'd point out, these people may not *have* other choices; AOL is very widespread, not everyone else is.
What if they want access to AOL's local content? AOL spends a fair chunk of money building content you can't get unless you're a subscriber.
I notice that you've lost the original point, so now you're arguing with straw men.
Give it up. Your knee-jerk reaction was wrong. Get over it.
You're just trying to make a point. You can't possibly really be that stupid.
People can, in general, learn multiple languages.
Blind people cannot, in general, learn to see.
The question is also, of course, one of *cost*. How much would it cost for the next version of AOL's installer to use text rather than pictures of text to describe what it's doing? Not a whole lot.
I really look forward to hearing the kind of things you'd say if you ever spent a week or two without the use of your eyes.
What an amazing coincidence that someone young and not at all disabled should be able to see that we don't need any accomodations for the disabled.
Give it a while, kid. Wait until you find a way you're not perfect, and start looking for ways to get around it. It's a real eye-opening experience.
You're right, alt tags would be good...
So wouldn't it be reasonable to expect people to
put said alt tags in their pages?
A good point.
I'm wondering if Kintanon is one of those people who "sees" words. I'm a heretic; I "hear" words. When I read or write text, I *HEAR* the words. So, of course, it doesn't seem like a visual medium to me.
It's really easy to forget that your primary means of interacting with the world isn't the only one.
You take a few million of those electrons, and believe me, you can *feel* them. Ow!
"This post consists entirely of electrons that have killed someone at some point in history."
What utter bullshit! You might as well argue that books are, "by definition", visual, so let's throw out Braille since it's obviously impossible.
What is "visual" about the web? People have chosen to represent what is fundementally mostly *verbal* data in a visual way. That is a poor choice, not an intrinsic character of the data.
No one's complaining that they can't see the pictures; they're complaining that the text is all pictures of text.
If you made a point of taking *every* picture that had text in it, and using that text for the alt tag for that picture, you'd probably find that people found pages a lot more accessible.
At that point, the only way you'll have inaccessible content is if you do all-graphical buttons with icons - and you'll find out that sighted people get screwed by them too.
Words are good. Since you need words, why not make the words *visible*?
The whole thing about Quake 3, games, etcetera,
is frankly *STUPID*.
THINK!
I mean, really. THINK. Put concepts together.
What is Quake trying to "communicate"? It is trying to communicate a visual thing. What is the IRS web site trying to communicate? Data. Text.
The complaint is about text being hidden, not about things that were never verbal to begin with.
I'm not getting your point. The fact is, braille on drive-up ATM's sounds silly until you think about it, but it really does get used, and it's a good feature.
Think about how alt tags work. If I can see your image, I won't be seeing the alt tag.
So, if I'm loading images, I'll get the effect you wanted, and if I'm not loading images, I'll get a better effect than I would have otherwise.
All win, no lose.
You've missed the point.
The reason deaf people don't complain about not being able to listen to CD's is that the *fundemental* content is not, *by its nature*, accessible.
Contrast this with the desire to understand *textual* data. We have here people who *understand text*. We have textual data. We are hiding that data in a specially encrypted form, so that only people who can decrypt that form can see it.
That's how the ADA has been interpreted. It's not that you have to allow a quadriplegic to be a flight attendant, it's that, if you've got a building that *could* plausibly have a ramp, not just stairs, you have to do that.
Don't believe me about the encryption? Tell me why it is that you can't read the obviously visual content below without some kind of help:
1100101
1100001
1110011
1111001
101100
100000
1101001
1110011
1101110
100111
1110100
100000
1101001
1110100
1010
Representation is important, but it doesn't change your message, it just makes it easier (or harder) to see your message.
This is gonna come as a shock to you, but it is possible for a blind person to sit in the car with a driver, and use the ATM. See, many cars have an advanced feature we call "more than one window".
You're just not thinking.
GET OVER THE EYES FOR A MOMENT.
If, indeed, the Braille representation is not part of the web, then neither is the set of pixels on my display, or the set of pixels on the display of the author.
The web is a digital medium; we translate it into whatever encodings we want, but it has no *native* form other than streams of bits you can't see.
You're just stuck because you have eyes, and you've always seen things, and you can't get your head around the idea that this is not the only way the world could work.
The Web is not visual; you are merely seeing a translation to your preferred medium.
Stop projecting your experience as if it's the "real" world. It's just your experience of that world.
Text isn't visual. I sent email to a person I know. I saw the email, when I was sending it, because I used a visual editor. She never saw my email, even though she received it and wrote back. She felt my email as a series of dots on her fingertips.
Text is *not* the same as visual content.
Why do you think the web is visual? Not because *it* is visual. Because *you* are.
Don't let your experience blind you to the way the world works when you aren't looking.
We used to have a blind user on my ISP. She used lynx or www through a Braille terminal. She hated graphics-heavy web sites without alt tags.
If we are willing to say that the blind have a right to a chance, well, yes, they have a right to accessible web sites. It's not like you can't use alt tags.
(My site is, to the best of my knowledge, quite legible, even to blind people.)
I'm all for it. Why? Because, even though I can, for the most part, see, I don't like sites that demand that I turn on eighteen different security-weak plug-ins, and download a megabyte of content, just to get a bloody paragraph of text.
I'm all for simpler, more accessible web sites, and I personally do think the expectation that a page be accessible to the blind is a reasonable one.