* talking terminals @ cbrannon1979 ` philwh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: cbrannon1979 @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals talking terminals cbrannon1979 @ ` philwh ` Brent Harding 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: philwh @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` philwh @ ` Brent Harding ` philwh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Brent Harding @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` Brent Harding @ ` philwh ` Brent Harding 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: philwh @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` philwh @ ` Brent Harding ` philwh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Brent Harding @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` Brent Harding @ ` philwh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: philwh @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008220754340.513-100000@gondor.notarealdoma in.org>]
* Re: talking terminals [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008220754340.513-100000@gondor.notarealdoma in.org> @ ` Brent Harding ` Count Zero 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Brent Harding @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008220754340.513-100000@gondor.notarealdoma in.org> ` Brent Harding @ ` Count Zero ` tyler ` Brent Harding 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Count Zero @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` Count Zero @ ` tyler ` Brent Harding 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: tyler @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` Count Zero ` tyler @ ` Brent Harding ` A. R. Vener ` Count Zero 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Brent Harding @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` Brent Harding @ ` A. R. Vener ` Brent Harding ` Count Zero 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: A. R. Vener @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` A. R. Vener @ ` Brent Harding 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Brent Harding @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: talking terminals ` Brent Harding ` A. R. Vener @ ` Count Zero 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Count Zero @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: blinux-list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~ UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
talking terminals cbrannon1979
` philwh
` Brent Harding
` philwh
` Brent Harding
` philwh
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008220754340.513-100000@gondor.notarealdoma in.org>
` Brent Harding
` Count Zero
` tyler
` Brent Harding
` A. R. Vener
` Brent Harding
` Count Zero
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).