Blind vs. mainstream distros
Linux for blind general discussion
blinux-list at redhat.com
Mon Apr 24 01:08:50 UTC 2017
The biggest problem with all this "stability" stuff is that all
operating systems will have their bugs. Windows has bugs, Mac
has huge cockroaches, and Linux has ants. So it really is a
problem of if a user wants more accessibility, or less bugs, and
it’s not always Orca’s fault.
Sent from Discordia using Gnus for Emacs.
Email: r.d.t.prater at gmail.com
Long days and pleasant nights!
Linux for blind general discussion <blinux-list at redhat.com> writes:
>> Additionally, Fedora is nearly dead center between the Arch philosophy
>> of the rolling release, having the latest and greatest at all costs, and
>> the Debian philosophy, in which older is better, so the latest changes
>> to Orca that make it work better on the web for example, which have been
>> available for some time, may not make it into the OS for as long as two
> It is not the Debian philosophy. Debian does not say "older is better",
> but "stable is better", as known and we know how to deal with a
> situation. And an update is possible is if it sure it will not break
> anything in stable.
> For persons who want to get benefit from an Orca improvement in Debian
> stable, installing backport is possible. It mainly works fine, without
> problems for the OS stability. But Orca updates may create lots of bugs.
> For example, so far, we hoped we would update from 3.16 to 3.22, but
> 3.22 introduced bugs on the Web and LibreOffice. Ok it's more reactive,
> it has improvements, but also regressions. And "basic" users hate
> regressions, and upgrading permanently has regressions risks. Except if
> we do non-reg tests, as I plan. But it's not done yet.
>> years. The 6-month release cycle is perfect, as nothing gets too old,
>> and upstream is imported fully and directly at first, with a chance for
>> instability and breakage to settle down before a full release, during
>> which time, new upstream versions can be integrated into the released
>> system if and only if nothing breaks. Meanwhile, any necessary patches
> This 6-months cycle is perfect for power-users. Not for elderly persons,
> new blind people, etc. which may be disturbed by so frequent changes and
> regressions. I don't forget that LibreOffice has not been accessible
> since 4.2.6, Firefox introduces many a11y bugs frequently, denounced by
> Joanie, and the a11y stack in GNOME has sometimes bugs if release of
> each lib is not exactly the same. A11y stack is ser1ral programs (about
> 15-20). Very difficult, in a short cycle, to ensure they stay without
> regressions. And upgrading each 6 months requires some skills,
> standalone, and not all users have it. And opposing power users of free
> shftware with beginners with Apple or Microsoft programs is not my
> dream, even today.
>> are, in theory at least, sent back directly upstream to the application
>> developers, similar to the way Arch works. And this is not at all the
>> endgame. The ultimate goal is to be able to do away with Vinux
>> completely, as upstream applications themselves will be perfected so
>> that they work with the available accessibility stack, and this will
>> eventually filter down into everything from Arch all the way down to
>> Debian Stable and CentOS, and even into the various derivatives and
>> forks such as Manjaro and Ubuntu. Yes, any chaining is mostly not really
> I can agree this point. I just am sure we'd be stronger everybody on a
> single workspace, but we probably can do with our respective distros.
>> a good thing, but we're much closer to the top of the chain now than we
>> ever have been, and the endgame is to work at the top of the chain in
>> all things.
>> Sent from the range
>> Blinux-list mailing list
>> Blinux-list at redhat.com
More information about the Blinux-list