talking terminals

talking terminals

[cbrannon1979]

I was reading all the discussion about talking terminals yesterday.  The
way I see it, they have a very big disadvantage to a screenreader for a
blind person with a hardware synthesizer.  You need sighted help to install
Linux with a talking terminal.  And IMNSHO, a sighted person reading a screen
for me is a very poor substitute for speech output, especially if you're
like me, and don't
know anyone in your area who uses Linux.  I installed Zipspeak with absolutely
zero sighted assistance.  And as far as I can tell, kernels built with
Speakup can do this for full distributions, as well.  This would make
Linux the only operating system that can be installed by someone who is blind
without sighted help.  Maybe I could install DOS on my own, if I'd done it
enough, but I wouldn't have the computer actually talking to me while I was
installing.  And, with Speakup you get speech from bootup to power
down.  Only thing that
won't talk to you now is the BIOS, and there's supposedly a board you can get
that'll send the BIOS messages out the serial port.    Compare this setup to
Win-95, where speech isn't necessarily constant, even if you're booted and the 
screenreader's active.  (JFW crashes so easy its sick.)
But getting back to the topic of talking terminals. Anyone remember the
old Apple II computer from the seventies?  That's what I started out
on; and I seem to remember that the synthesizer for those was only about
$150, or so.  Question is, if a blind person doesn't have a hardware
synth, would it be possible to use an Apple II as a terminal under
Linux?  You can still find them, once in a while, and like I said, the
synth was cheap, even new.  I seem to remember them having a serial port,
so I'd think they could be usable as talking terminals, for someone with
limited funds who doesn't have, and can't afford a hardware synthesizer.
Later.

Re: talking terminals

[philwh]

I must say you are completely incorrect. I have installed linux
using a serial terminal dozens of times since 1994 when I started
with linux.
I have installed both slackware and redhat using a serial
terminal, the most recent last
friday afternoon when I installed
redhat 6.2 on my computer at work without any sighted help whatsoever.
just for anyone who wishes to know how,
at the boot prompt after booting the installation floppy from redhat,
type the following command to install using a 
serial terminal, or more acurately a serial console:
text console=ttyS0,9600n8
or in my case since i was impatient,
text console=ttyS0,115200n8

it worked without a problem.

phil

On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:56:03AM -0700, cbrannon1979@earthlink.net wrote:
> I was reading all the discussion about talking terminals yesterday.  The
> way I see it, they have a very big disadvantage to a screenreader for a
> blind person with a hardware synthesizer.  You need sighted help to install
> Linux with a talking terminal.  And IMNSHO, a sighted person reading a screen
> for me is a very poor substitute for speech output, especially if you're
> like me, and don't
> know anyone in your area who uses Linux.  I installed Zipspeak with absolutely
> zero sighted assistance.  And as far as I can tell, kernels built with
> Speakup can do this for full distributions, as well.  This would make
> Linux the only operating system that can be installed by someone who is blind
> without sighted help.  Maybe I could install DOS on my own, if I'd done it
> enough, but I wouldn't have the computer actually talking to me while I was
> installing.  And, with Speakup you get speech from bootup to power
> down.  Only thing that
> won't talk to you now is the BIOS, and there's supposedly a board you can get
> that'll send the BIOS messages out the serial port.    Compare this setup to
> Win-95, where speech isn't necessarily constant, even if you're booted and the 
> screenreader's active.  (JFW crashes so easy its sick.)
> But getting back to the topic of talking terminals. Anyone remember the
> old Apple II computer from the seventies?  That's what I started out
> on; and I seem to remember that the synthesizer for those was only about
> $150, or so.  Question is, if a blind person doesn't have a hardware
> synth, would it be possible to use an Apple II as a terminal under
> Linux?  You can still find them, once in a while, and like I said, the
> synth was cheap, even new.  I seem to remember them having a serial port,
> so I'd think they could be usable as talking terminals, for someone with
> limited funds who doesn't have, and can't afford a hardware synthesizer.
> Later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list

Re: talking terminals

[Brent Harding]

Would it do the same over modem? Did you put the CD in the machine to
install on, or do you have to upload it off the machine you use as a
terminal? What if I do it, substituting the port my modem uses? At 09:11 PM
8/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I must say you are completely incorrect. I have installed linux
>using a serial terminal dozens of times since 1994 when I started
>with linux.
>I have installed both slackware and redhat using a serial
>terminal, the most recent last
>friday afternoon when I installed
>redhat 6.2 on my computer at work without any sighted help whatsoever.
>just for anyone who wishes to know how,
>at the boot prompt after booting the installation floppy from redhat,
>type the following command to install using a 
>serial terminal, or more acurately a serial console:
>text console=ttyS0,9600n8
>or in my case since i was impatient,
>text console=ttyS0,115200n8
>
>it worked without a problem.
>
>phil
>
>On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:56:03AM -0700, cbrannon1979@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I was reading all the discussion about talking terminals yesterday.  The
>> way I see it, they have a very big disadvantage to a screenreader for a
>> blind person with a hardware synthesizer.  You need sighted help to install
>> Linux with a talking terminal.  And IMNSHO, a sighted person reading a
screen
>> for me is a very poor substitute for speech output, especially if you're
>> like me, and don't
>> know anyone in your area who uses Linux.  I installed Zipspeak with
absolutely
>> zero sighted assistance.  And as far as I can tell, kernels built with
>> Speakup can do this for full distributions, as well.  This would make
>> Linux the only operating system that can be installed by someone who is
blind
>> without sighted help.  Maybe I could install DOS on my own, if I'd done it
>> enough, but I wouldn't have the computer actually talking to me while I was
>> installing.  And, with Speakup you get speech from bootup to power
>> down.  Only thing that
>> won't talk to you now is the BIOS, and there's supposedly a board you
can get
>> that'll send the BIOS messages out the serial port.    Compare this
setup to
>> Win-95, where speech isn't necessarily constant, even if you're booted
and the 
>> screenreader's active.  (JFW crashes so easy its sick.)
>> But getting back to the topic of talking terminals. Anyone remember the
>> old Apple II computer from the seventies?  That's what I started out
>> on; and I seem to remember that the synthesizer for those was only about
>> $150, or so.  Question is, if a blind person doesn't have a hardware
>> synth, would it be possible to use an Apple II as a terminal under
>> Linux?  You can still find them, once in a while, and like I said, the
>> synth was cheap, even new.  I seem to remember them having a serial port,
>> so I'd think they could be usable as talking terminals, for someone with
>> limited funds who doesn't have, and can't afford a hardware synthesizer.
>> Later.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blinux-list mailing list
>> Blinux-list@redhat.com
>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Blinux-list mailing list
>Blinux-list@redhat.com
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>
>
>

Re: talking terminals

[philwh]

It should work over a modem.
I just plugged the serial terminal into com1, fired it up and loaded commo and jaws for dos.
I put the floppy into the drive, and puthe cdrom into its drive,
and booted the computer. at the boot prompt,
which i detected by listening for floppy drive noise, i typed the command
i mentioned below.
The only thing I could see wrong with a modem installation, is knowing when
to type the command.
phil
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:08:21PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> Would it do the same over modem? Did you put the CD in the machine to
> install on, or do you have to upload it off the machine you use as a
> terminal? What if I do it, substituting the port my modem uses? At 09:11 PM
> 8/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >I must say you are completely incorrect. I have installed linux
> >using a serial terminal dozens of times since 1994 when I started
> >with linux.
> >I have installed both slackware and redhat using a serial
> >terminal, the most recent last
> >friday afternoon when I installed
> >redhat 6.2 on my computer at work without any sighted help whatsoever.
> >just for anyone who wishes to know how,
> >at the boot prompt after booting the installation floppy from redhat,
> >type the following command to install using a 
> >serial terminal, or more acurately a serial console:
> >text console=ttyS0,9600n8
> >or in my case since i was impatient,
> >text console=ttyS0,115200n8
> >
> >it worked without a problem.
> >
> >phil
> >
> >On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:56:03AM -0700, cbrannon1979@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> I was reading all the discussion about talking terminals yesterday.  The
> >> way I see it, they have a very big disadvantage to a screenreader for a
> >> blind person with a hardware synthesizer.  You need sighted help to install
> >> Linux with a talking terminal.  And IMNSHO, a sighted person reading a
> screen
> >> for me is a very poor substitute for speech output, especially if you're
> >> like me, and don't
> >> know anyone in your area who uses Linux.  I installed Zipspeak with
> absolutely
> >> zero sighted assistance.  And as far as I can tell, kernels built with
> >> Speakup can do this for full distributions, as well.  This would make
> >> Linux the only operating system that can be installed by someone who is
> blind
> >> without sighted help.  Maybe I could install DOS on my own, if I'd done it
> >> enough, but I wouldn't have the computer actually talking to me while I was
> >> installing.  And, with Speakup you get speech from bootup to power
> >> down.  Only thing that
> >> won't talk to you now is the BIOS, and there's supposedly a board you
> can get
> >> that'll send the BIOS messages out the serial port.    Compare this
> setup to
> >> Win-95, where speech isn't necessarily constant, even if you're booted
> and the 
> >> screenreader's active.  (JFW crashes so easy its sick.)
> >> But getting back to the topic of talking terminals. Anyone remember the
> >> old Apple II computer from the seventies?  That's what I started out
> >> on; and I seem to remember that the synthesizer for those was only about
> >> $150, or so.  Question is, if a blind person doesn't have a hardware
> >> synth, would it be possible to use an Apple II as a terminal under
> >> Linux?  You can still find them, once in a while, and like I said, the
> >> synth was cheap, even new.  I seem to remember them having a serial port,
> >> so I'd think they could be usable as talking terminals, for someone with
> >> limited funds who doesn't have, and can't afford a hardware synthesizer.
> >> Later.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Blinux-list mailing list
> >> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> >> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Blinux-list mailing list
> >Blinux-list@redhat.com
> >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list

Re: talking terminals

[Brent Harding]

When the floppy noise completes, just like normal, just using the phone
lines instead of serial ports. Can networking work the same thing, like
text eth0?
At 10:25 PM 8/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
>It should work over a modem.
>I just plugged the serial terminal into com1, fired it up and loaded commo
and jaws for dos.
>I put the floppy into the drive, and puthe cdrom into its drive,
>and booted the computer. at the boot prompt,
>which i detected by listening for floppy drive noise, i typed the command
>i mentioned below.
>The only thing I could see wrong with a modem installation, is knowing when
>to type the command.
>phil
>On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:08:21PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
>> Would it do the same over modem? Did you put the CD in the machine to
>> install on, or do you have to upload it off the machine you use as a
>> terminal? What if I do it, substituting the port my modem uses? At 09:11 PM
>> 8/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> >I must say you are completely incorrect. I have installed linux
>> >using a serial terminal dozens of times since 1994 when I started
>> >with linux.
>> >I have installed both slackware and redhat using a serial
>> >terminal, the most recent last
>> >friday afternoon when I installed
>> >redhat 6.2 on my computer at work without any sighted help whatsoever.
>> >just for anyone who wishes to know how,
>> >at the boot prompt after booting the installation floppy from redhat,
>> >type the following command to install using a 
>> >serial terminal, or more acurately a serial console:
>> >text console=ttyS0,9600n8
>> >or in my case since i was impatient,
>> >text console=ttyS0,115200n8
>> >
>> >it worked without a problem.
>> >
>> >phil
>> >
>> >On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:56:03AM -0700, cbrannon1979@earthlink.net
wrote:
>> >> I was reading all the discussion about talking terminals yesterday.  The
>> >> way I see it, they have a very big disadvantage to a screenreader for a
>> >> blind person with a hardware synthesizer.  You need sighted help to
install
>> >> Linux with a talking terminal.  And IMNSHO, a sighted person reading a
>> screen
>> >> for me is a very poor substitute for speech output, especially if you're
>> >> like me, and don't
>> >> know anyone in your area who uses Linux.  I installed Zipspeak with
>> absolutely
>> >> zero sighted assistance.  And as far as I can tell, kernels built with
>> >> Speakup can do this for full distributions, as well.  This would make
>> >> Linux the only operating system that can be installed by someone who is
>> blind
>> >> without sighted help.  Maybe I could install DOS on my own, if I'd
done it
>> >> enough, but I wouldn't have the computer actually talking to me while
I was
>> >> installing.  And, with Speakup you get speech from bootup to power
>> >> down.  Only thing that
>> >> won't talk to you now is the BIOS, and there's supposedly a board you
>> can get
>> >> that'll send the BIOS messages out the serial port.    Compare this
>> setup to
>> >> Win-95, where speech isn't necessarily constant, even if you're booted
>> and the 
>> >> screenreader's active.  (JFW crashes so easy its sick.)
>> >> But getting back to the topic of talking terminals. Anyone remember the
>> >> old Apple II computer from the seventies?  That's what I started out
>> >> on; and I seem to remember that the synthesizer for those was only about
>> >> $150, or so.  Question is, if a blind person doesn't have a hardware
>> >> synth, would it be possible to use an Apple II as a terminal under
>> >> Linux?  You can still find them, once in a while, and like I said, the
>> >> synth was cheap, even new.  I seem to remember them having a serial
port,
>> >> so I'd think they could be usable as talking terminals, for someone with
>> >> limited funds who doesn't have, and can't afford a hardware synthesizer.
>> >> Later.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Blinux-list mailing list
>> >> Blinux-list@redhat.com
>> >> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Blinux-list mailing list
>> >Blinux-list@redhat.com
>> >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blinux-list mailing list
>> Blinux-list@redhat.com
>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Blinux-list mailing list
>Blinux-list@redhat.com
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>
>
>

Re: talking terminals

[philwh]

I do not think so.
there isn't anything on the linux system at that point to
handle the input from the network card.
at the boot prompt, the kernel is just about to load.
there isn't any telnet or anything else available yet,
not until the system is pretty much installed.
phil
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:19:48PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> When the floppy noise completes, just like normal, just using the phone
> lines instead of serial ports. Can networking work the same thing, like
> text eth0?
> At 10:25 PM 8/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >It should work over a modem.
> >I just plugged the serial terminal into com1, fired it up and loaded commo
> and jaws for dos.
> >I put the floppy into the drive, and puthe cdrom into its drive,
> >and booted the computer. at the boot prompt,
> >which i detected by listening for floppy drive noise, i typed the command
> >i mentioned below.
> >The only thing I could see wrong with a modem installation, is knowing when
> >to type the command.
> >phil
> >On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:08:21PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> >> Would it do the same over modem? Did you put the CD in the machine to
> >> install on, or do you have to upload it off the machine you use as a
> >> terminal? What if I do it, substituting the port my modem uses? At 09:11 PM
> >> 8/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >> >I must say you are completely incorrect. I have installed linux
> >> >using a serial terminal dozens of times since 1994 when I started
> >> >with linux.
> >> >I have installed both slackware and redhat using a serial
> >> >terminal, the most recent last
> >> >friday afternoon when I installed
> >> >redhat 6.2 on my computer at work without any sighted help whatsoever.
> >> >just for anyone who wishes to know how,
> >> >at the boot prompt after booting the installation floppy from redhat,
> >> >type the following command to install using a 
> >> >serial terminal, or more acurately a serial console:
> >> >text console=ttyS0,9600n8
> >> >or in my case since i was impatient,
> >> >text console=ttyS0,115200n8
> >> >
> >> >it worked without a problem.
> >> >
> >> >phil
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:56:03AM -0700, cbrannon1979@earthlink.net
> wrote:
> >> >> I was reading all the discussion about talking terminals yesterday.  The
> >> >> way I see it, they have a very big disadvantage to a screenreader for a
> >> >> blind person with a hardware synthesizer.  You need sighted help to
> install
> >> >> Linux with a talking terminal.  And IMNSHO, a sighted person reading a
> >> screen
> >> >> for me is a very poor substitute for speech output, especially if you're
> >> >> like me, and don't
> >> >> know anyone in your area who uses Linux.  I installed Zipspeak with
> >> absolutely
> >> >> zero sighted assistance.  And as far as I can tell, kernels built with
> >> >> Speakup can do this for full distributions, as well.  This would make
> >> >> Linux the only operating system that can be installed by someone who is
> >> blind
> >> >> without sighted help.  Maybe I could install DOS on my own, if I'd
> done it
> >> >> enough, but I wouldn't have the computer actually talking to me while
> I was
> >> >> installing.  And, with Speakup you get speech from bootup to power
> >> >> down.  Only thing that
> >> >> won't talk to you now is the BIOS, and there's supposedly a board you
> >> can get
> >> >> that'll send the BIOS messages out the serial port.    Compare this
> >> setup to
> >> >> Win-95, where speech isn't necessarily constant, even if you're booted
> >> and the 
> >> >> screenreader's active.  (JFW crashes so easy its sick.)
> >> >> But getting back to the topic of talking terminals. Anyone remember the
> >> >> old Apple II computer from the seventies?  That's what I started out
> >> >> on; and I seem to remember that the synthesizer for those was only about
> >> >> $150, or so.  Question is, if a blind person doesn't have a hardware
> >> >> synth, would it be possible to use an Apple II as a terminal under
> >> >> Linux?  You can still find them, once in a while, and like I said, the
> >> >> synth was cheap, even new.  I seem to remember them having a serial
> port,
> >> >> so I'd think they could be usable as talking terminals, for someone with
> >> >> limited funds who doesn't have, and can't afford a hardware synthesizer.
> >> >> Later.
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Blinux-list mailing list
> >> >> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> >> >> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Blinux-list mailing list
> >> >Blinux-list@redhat.com
> >> >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Blinux-list mailing list
> >> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> >> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Blinux-list mailing list
> >Blinux-list@redhat.com
> >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list

Re: talking terminals

[Count Zero]

The machines I'm talking about were the old II plus and IIE.  The echo
synthesiser came with a screen reading package that worked in dos and some
applications, although I'm not sure many people today would consider it
decent.  Of course, the interface back then was a lot simpler so even if
something didn't talk very well, you could figure it out.

I very seriously doubt you could run linux on these systems, they were
based on the 6502 procesor and so can only work with 64K banks of ram
individually.

regards,
Tom 

Re: talking terminals

[Brent Harding]

Cool, did it have the ability to be used as a gateway for a network, to use
as a cheap firewall solution? I suppose with that little processer, and
ram, it probably couldn't do much more than be used as a terminal.
At 09:30 PM 8/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I don't think you can get Linux to run on an Apple II. I used
>to have an Apple IIc that had a 20 Megahertz ProDrive. The Apple II
>microcomputers ran an 8 bit 65c02 microprocessor at a 1 MHz
>clock rate.  This is still plenty fast enough to run a 
>terminal program. Apple II also supported a Unix like operating
>system called kix. It came with a Pascal compiler and was quite 
>comfortable to anyone used to Unix.  But, it was by no means a full
>fledged Unix compatible system. Did I mention that the amount of ram on
>this system was 128 K?  That's 128 kilobytes, not Megabytes. It was
>originally only 64 K but I bought a memory expansion card for it.
>
>In summary, it is highly doubtful that anyone has or will port Linux to
>the Apple II platform :-)
>
>Rudy
>
>p.s. Apple II did offer an alternative operating system called kix which
>was very comfortable to anyone used to Unix, but it was not an actual
>Unix implementation. It was more like the environment you get on a DOS
>machine when you run MKS tools. It did support a Pascal compiler thogh.
>
>
>
>> How did you get the software on to these machines, was there a decent
>> screen reader for them, heard of outspoken, but heard it needed sighted
>> assistance to use. The new Imac's and stuff don't work with speech, I hear,
>> but if we could get linux on them, with this echo compatible double talk,
>> we might be able to use it as a cheap talking linux system.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blinux-list mailing list
>> Blinux-list@redhat.com
>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>> 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Blinux-list mailing list
>Blinux-list@redhat.com
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>
>
>

Re: talking terminals

[A. R. Vener]

I don't think you can get Linux to run on an Apple II. I used
to have an Apple IIc that had a 20 Megahertz ProDrive. The Apple II
microcomputers ran an 8 bit 65c02 microprocessor at a 1 MHz
clock rate.  This is still plenty fast enough to run a 
terminal program. Apple II also supported a Unix like operating
system called kix. It came with a Pascal compiler and was quite 
comfortable to anyone used to Unix.  But, it was by no means a full
fledged Unix compatible system. Did I mention that the amount of ram on
this system was 128 K?  That's 128 kilobytes, not Megabytes. It was
originally only 64 K but I bought a memory expansion card for it.

In summary, it is highly doubtful that anyone has or will port Linux to
the Apple II platform :-)

Rudy

p.s. Apple II did offer an alternative operating system called kix which
was very comfortable to anyone used to Unix, but it was not an actual
Unix implementation. It was more like the environment you get on a DOS
machine when you run MKS tools. It did support a Pascal compiler thogh.



> How did you get the software on to these machines, was there a decent
> screen reader for them, heard of outspoken, but heard it needed sighted
> assistance to use. The new Imac's and stuff don't work with speech, I hear,
> but if we could get linux on them, with this echo compatible double talk,
> we might be able to use it as a cheap talking linux system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
> 

Re: talking terminals

[Brent Harding]

How did you get the software on to these machines, was there a decent
screen reader for them, heard of outspoken, but heard it needed sighted
assistance to use. The new Imac's and stuff don't work with speech, I hear,
but if we could get linux on them, with this echo compatible double talk,
we might be able to use it as a cheap talking linux system.

Re: talking terminals

[Count Zero]

Hi all,

Yes, I can tell you that it is certainly possible to use an old Apple as a
talking terminal.  They are indeed available very cheaply, in fact somebody
is liable to just give you their old one if you ask nicely.  There are a
couple of caveats though.  First, you need what is called an apple
superserial card to give your machine a serial port.  Fortunately, these
are readily available on ebay or other sources of old stuff, and they're
usually pretty cheap.  Next comes the synthesyser.  Yes these were pretty
inexpensive, at least the old Echo II from Street electronics was.  You may
have a very hard time finding one of these however.  I've got two, and
believe me I'm not parting with either of them.  There is one company who
still makes an echo compatible board for the apple with the extra bonus
that it uses a doubletalk chip, meaning the speech is a hell of a lot
better than the old echo.  These go for a couple hundred dollars from what
I understand.

So much for the hardware.  You need a terminal program for the apple.  Back
then, your standard terminal program did not talk right out of the box,
rather you needed to get a custom program either written from scratch or
modified.  There is apparently a version of proterm that supports the echo
and some other synthes, I don't know where you'd get this.  There was
another program called termtalk that was written by a now defunct company
called computer aids corporation.  Most of their assets were taken over by
gw micro, so it might be worth contacting them to see ifthey'd either let
you have a copy or sell you one real cheap.

These caveats aside, you have an excellent idea for a talking terminal for
someone whose budget is extremely limited.  As is probably obvious, I'm an
old apple man as well.  I've still got my first system in fact.  I've got
plenty of reminiscences about the old machines, but if you want to discuss
those, we should take it off the list to avoid clutter.

Best regards,
Tom 

Re: talking terminals

[tyler]

where can i get he svlpro source code? i wish i had it, could compile it
under debian and make a great screen reader out o it. i cant seem to get
screader working in slackware's ash. and i want to make 
a bootdisk / rootdisk for blind users with a dectalk pc synth.
brette barbac, if you are on this list, can you please give me the source
to svlpro 7? i beleave in open source.


tyler@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

Re: talking terminals

[Brent Harding]

We'll never get windows installed without help. It asks for that serial
number every time you install, and when to enter it, my friend has a quiet
hard drive that you can barely hear, so knowing when it stops for something
is tough. No linux serial numbers, got that installed fine with speakup.
At 07:56 AM 8/22/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I was reading all the discussion about talking terminals yesterday.  The
>way I see it, they have a very big disadvantage to a screenreader for a
>blind person with a hardware synthesizer.  You need sighted help to install
>Linux with a talking terminal.  And IMNSHO, a sighted person reading a screen
>for me is a very poor substitute for speech output, especially if you're
>like me, and don't
>know anyone in your area who uses Linux.  I installed Zipspeak with
absolutely
>zero sighted assistance.  And as far as I can tell, kernels built with
>Speakup can do this for full distributions, as well.  This would make
>Linux the only operating system that can be installed by someone who is blind
>without sighted help.  Maybe I could install DOS on my own, if I'd done it
>enough, but I wouldn't have the computer actually talking to me while I was
>installing.  And, with Speakup you get speech from bootup to power
>down.  Only thing that
>won't talk to you now is the BIOS, and there's supposedly a board you can get
>that'll send the BIOS messages out the serial port.    Compare this setup to
>Win-95, where speech isn't necessarily constant, even if you're booted and
the 
>screenreader's active.  (JFW crashes so easy its sick.)
>But getting back to the topic of talking terminals. Anyone remember the
>old Apple II computer from the seventies?  That's what I started out
>on; and I seem to remember that the synthesizer for those was only about
>$150, or so.  Question is, if a blind person doesn't have a hardware
>synth, would it be possible to use an Apple II as a terminal under
>Linux?  You can still find them, once in a while, and like I said, the
>synth was cheap, even new.  I seem to remember them having a serial port,
>so I'd think they could be usable as talking terminals, for someone with
>limited funds who doesn't have, and can't afford a hardware synthesizer.
>Later.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Blinux-list mailing list
>Blinux-list@redhat.com
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>
>
>