I don't see why everyone is so down on the GPL. The so called viral action of it is there for a good reason, to make sure more free software gets made.
The problem isn't lack of support in kernels, lots of operating systems can support Ipv6, the problem is lack of things like browsers that support IPv6. Bind does, lynx doesn't. That is the problem, all those network applications that have to be made IPv6 aware.
>And another annotation: >Forget the Linux is so good because it is command >line. theme. Linux is so good because >applications are cleanly separated into >application core and user interface. That is the >big advantage over another OS where applications >are huge monolithic code monsters which cannot >run without an open window (no brands here:).
While I would agree that the seperation of program core from the primary benifit, I would not be so quick to downplay the advantages of a command line interface. While it may be slightly cryptic, so is programming. Therefor my assertation would be that for anyone who codes, ie someone who has found a method of getting characters in and out of the system one at a time since this is what coding presently relies upon, would prefer to have a CLI to accomidate their particular disability. There are no circumstances I can see where a usable UI can be set up for the completely blind, ie those who use braille terminals, without a CLI. And I will continue to support my theory that CLIs are the most adaptable system in common use today. A GUI like X is stuck as a GUI, one cannot take it's graphical representation and effectivly convey the information through sound or touch. A CLI on the other hand, can more easily be portrayed in a tactile fasion, and can at least be partially transmitted as auditory info. A series of keystrokes is a more adaptable solution than a button that says 'click here' because while the button is more easily understood from a visual representation, it is virtually impossible to convey in tactile or auditory fasion.
>Now it is possible to rewrite an user interface >which serves your special needs. (Speech, >touch...) Your goal is _not_ to do all your work >on the command line. Your goal is to have an >_intelligent_ user interface which is adapted to >your needs. The Command line may be fast but its >not intelligent.
I would beg to differ. While the ability to create one's own personalized interface is without doubt a great thing, and one I would fight to keep, I would say that until someone shows me another UI I find as appealing, I will strive to do all my work from a CLI, and move to GUIs for only those things they do better, graphics and netscape.
I don't think people should be obsessing over making X more accesable to those with visual or mouse related difficulties, because graphics and cursors is what X is about. When I started using linux, probably the most attractive point about it was that everything could be done from a command line. Command line programs are by nature expandable to almost any disability, since all one need do is find a way of getting text in and out. If you have problems seeing, use big text or a braille terminal, if you have problems typing, find something you can type with and get/write drivers. I always thought the purpose of X was to provide graphical wrappers for programs when someone wanted them, if X isn't your thing, don't use it, or modify it so you can use it. The problem as I see it is programs like realaudio or half the windows apps in existance that run only under GUIs when they don't need to. For this reason, I say Linux is *WAY* ahead of Microsoft on disability access, let's see you do anything in NT or 95 with a braille terminal or just plain text, whereas Linux proves that the GUI really isn't nessesary for a web or DNS server, or for reading email, or a hundred other tasks that MS can't do in text mode.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally we get to see an end to NSI's ugly system. If I had to interact with that one more time...
I don't see why everyone is so down on the GPL. The so called viral action of it is there for a good reason, to make sure more free software gets made.
The problem isn't lack of support in kernels, lots of operating systems can support Ipv6, the problem is lack of things like browsers that support IPv6. Bind does, lynx doesn't. That is the problem, all those network applications that have to be made IPv6 aware.
>And another annotation: :).
>Forget the Linux is so good because it is command
>line. theme. Linux is so good because
>applications are cleanly separated into
>application core and user interface. That is the
>big advantage over another OS where applications
>are huge monolithic code monsters which cannot
>run without an open window (no brands here
While I would agree that the seperation of program core from the primary benifit, I would not be so quick to downplay the advantages of a command line interface. While it may be slightly cryptic, so is programming. Therefor my assertation would be that for anyone who codes, ie someone who has found a method of getting characters in and out of the system one at a time since this is what coding presently relies upon, would prefer to have a CLI to accomidate their particular disability. There are no circumstances I can see where a usable UI can be set up for the completely blind, ie those who use braille terminals, without a CLI. And I will continue to support my theory that CLIs are the most adaptable system in common use today. A GUI like X is stuck as a GUI, one cannot take it's graphical representation and effectivly convey the information through sound or touch. A CLI on the other hand, can more easily be portrayed in a tactile fasion, and can at least be partially transmitted as auditory info. A series of keystrokes is a more adaptable solution than a button that says 'click here' because while the button is more easily understood from a visual representation, it is virtually impossible to convey in tactile or auditory fasion.
>Now it is possible to rewrite an user interface
>which serves your special needs. (Speech,
>touch...) Your goal is _not_ to do all your work
>on the command line. Your goal is to have an
>_intelligent_ user interface which is adapted to
>your needs. The Command line may be fast but its
>not intelligent.
I would beg to differ. While the ability to create one's own personalized interface is without doubt a great thing, and one I would fight to keep, I would say that until someone shows me another UI I find as appealing, I will strive to do all my work from a CLI, and move to GUIs for only those things they do better, graphics and netscape.
I don't think people should be obsessing over making X more accesable to those with visual or mouse related difficulties, because graphics and cursors is what X is about. When I started using linux, probably the most attractive point about it was that everything could be done from a command line. Command line programs are by nature expandable to almost any disability, since all one need do is find a way of getting text in and out. If you have problems seeing, use big text or a braille terminal, if you have problems typing, find something you can type with and get/write drivers. I always thought the purpose of X was to provide graphical wrappers for programs when someone wanted them, if X isn't your thing, don't use it, or modify it so you can use it. The problem as I see it is programs like realaudio or half the windows apps in existance that run only under GUIs when they don't need to. For this reason, I say Linux is *WAY* ahead of Microsoft on disability access, let's see you do anything in NT or 95 with a braille terminal or just plain text, whereas Linux proves that the GUI really isn't nessesary for a web or DNS server, or for reading email, or a hundred other tasks that MS can't do in text mode.