What are consequences (the lack of freedom on the USA)

Thomas Dodd ted at cypress.com
Thu Sep 25 18:55:12 UTC 2003

seth vidal wrote:
>>The point being, toolkit choice does not make an app ugly or bad. The 
>>fact that it looks/acts different also doesn't make it bad. Personaly I 
>>like variety, and have no problems dealing with it. I dislike the 
>>"everything looks the same" world of M$ and Mac. Se previous message and 
>>discussion of car interiors.
> One problem:

This is not the point of the previous message.
I was refering to the complaint that Xine and other apps had strange 
interfaces, and that that is not so bad. Diversity is good. Again being 
different is inherently neither bad nor good. But it can be godd in some 
situations. I like OO.org, but wish it didn't resemble M$'s products so 
much. Same with Evolution.

I dislike that the default keyboard short cuts in GNOME follow M$. Some 
for Mozilla. I have had to re-learn them because they are different than 
what I know.

Is vi bad because it uses a different interface? How about emacs? Should 
the only text editor UI match Notepad/Wordpad? The editor form MS-DOS? 
Or is it ok that emacs uses Ctrl-A to move to the beginning of the like 
instead of <HOME>? how should I delete a character? 'x' in command mode 
(vi), Ctrl-D (emacs), or <Del>?
Is it OK that mozilla supports two?

Now to your concerns.
>  If you're disabled in some way then it can become very difficult to use
> interfaces that have an array of different knobs and dials.

So you use a different interface? A different app? Can I use 
mozilla/thunderbird or must I use Evolution? I don't like Evolution's 
UI. I like Pine. Mozilla is OK. You might like a different one.

> Please remember that there are a lot of people using linux who cannot
> see, cannot use their fingers, etc.

So ask/help the developers of the alternatives to allow for those 
situations. But I like lots of different knobs and dials(you should see 
my home theater). Don't take them away because someone might have 
trouble with them.

> Just b/c you can does not mean you have to be a chauvinist for the
> en-abled.

So my choices for variety should be limited/removed because someone 
might have trouble with it? I'm all for equal rights, equal protection, 
and accessability. But must everything be so? But don't protect someone 
else's right by restricting mine. Back to cars. My car has the dimmer 
switch on the floor. That means you my have 2 legs to drive it at night. 
Today you cannot by a new vehicle like that. Should I be forced top 
move/add a column dimmer so a one legged person can drive it at night? 
Should all manual transission be banned since one legged people cannot 
operate the clutch?

Lets go back to the previous topic. Add, allow for all the handicapped 
user you want. That's fine.


More information about the test mailing list