[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx

From: Janina Sajka
Subject: Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:19:09 -0400 (EDT)

Well, at the risk of straying well of topic ...

Of course DOS has lower reqs than Linux. It also provides less. Is it
sufficient for the non teckie user? Possibly. Should someone, therefore,
build DOS turnkey systems for blind users? That doesn't follow.

PS: RE DOS on kiosks -- This is interesting. I didn't know this. I suspect
they're going to run into trouble about the time we get some usability
reqs into public kiosks. Coming soon to a government office near you, and
moving further in the months following. If it's public, it needs to serve
the public. Clearly, the public isn't created equal, so I wonder how these
kiosks are going to support large print for one user, speech for another,
standard touch for the third, etc., etc. Under DOS? But, I don't expect
Caldera think like this yet. After August 7, 2000, they'll begin to,

                                Janina Sajka, Director
                                Information Systems Research & Development
                                American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)


On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, RobertM wrote:

> It is alleged that Janina Sajka once typed:
> [snip]
> > My second comment is to the folks desiring to equip blind users with web
> > capable talking computer systems. This is a laudable effort. I support you
> > and would be happy to advise, if you wish. I wonder, however, why you
> > would build on DOS in this day and age. Seems to me Linux is a far better
> > choice, given that free screen reader software is available for Linux, and
> > given that Linux is so much more capable an OS. Also, it's an OS with a
> > future, which DOS certainly isn't.
> As a bit of a DOS nut I'd like to but in with a couple of points on
> this:
> 1) DOS still has lower requirements than Linux. I can get a useable
>    dos box, browsing the web using a 286 with 2mb of ram, I can't
>    do that with linux.
> 2) The people at Caldera would disagree with you about DOS not having
>    a future. It may not be going anywhere much in the desktop market
>    but in the kiosk and embedded application market it's still
>    quite healthy
> and finally
> 3) For people that aren't either that technical or that interested in
>    computers DOS has a far lower cost of ownership. Given how many
>    people just turn off win95 boxes without shutting them down, I'd 
>    assume the same would happen with any unix box, DOS tends to cope
>    with being killed like that quite a bit better than either *nix or
>    win 95/NT
> Just my tuppence ha'penny's worth.
> [snip]
> -- 
> Robm
> 873
>   "Ask not what I can do for the stupid, 
>          but what the stupid can do for me" - Graeme Garden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]