On Feb 19 2008 18:16, Karl Dahlke wrote: > >I completely understand your point about the word adapter. >It is highly overloaded, to the point that it is almost meaningless. >How about "accessibility"? >Drivers and modules designed to make linux more accessible >could be placed in drivers/accessibility in the source tree. >It's just a suggestion. >If there is a better word for this concept, please let me know.
Yes, that does not sound bad. It is a common term in the redmond os, and I think I even saw it in the kde control center last time I used that. >And I finally understand what you are trying to say about /proc. >Processes, and perhaps memory and raid by extension, RAID is in /sys/block/md*/md ;-) >but not everything under the planet. >Would it be better for accessibility drivers to create files through sysfs, >e.g. >/sys/accessibility/jupiter/synth >Naturally the jupiter subtree would appear when that module was loaded, >and disappear when it was removed. Naturally, just like it would in procfs. >One person said, essentially, >"We'll worry about this when the first such driver comes along." >But that's a chicken egg problem, isn't it? To a given extent yes, because procfs code is somewhat different from sysfs is somewhat different from a character-based device. (Maybe you also want to have both a device and a sysfs file, like md.) >Let's set it up now, so things have a place to be. >Besides, speakup has been around for a long long time, >and jupiter almost as long. >These have both been converted to use the new notifiers, >along with pcclicks (sounds accompanying console output), >halfqwerty (one handed typing), and others. (Mentioning "halfqwerty" reminds me of Sony's 13-key Thumb Phrase "IM".) >Many of these will not need any virtual files, but some will, >and they need a place to be. >Beyond this, the software should exist somewhere, someday, in the source tree. >Not every driver under the sun, but some of them, >that have proved their merit, and meet the high standard of Linux coding, etc. >Mac comes bundled with an internal screen reader, >and windows has had an accessibility section for a long time, why not linux? What accessibility functions does Windows have that Linux (in general, things are usually implemented only in X or KDE) does not? >This is the best operating system in so many ways; >let's not be behind when it comes to accessibility. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
