Re: down for the count

Re: down for the count

[Jacob Schmude]

Hi
	Slackware isn't as hard to upgrade now. From 4.0 onward, there's
an upgradepkg utility that will upgrade a package. From 4.0 to 7.0 would
be a bit tricky, simply because of the switch to libc6. The simple way to
do it would be to install the glibc libraries first, then upgrade the
distro. You'd just go into a directory and do upgradepkg *.tgz and it will
upgrade packages and not install any new packages.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:

> Jacob -
> Those are helpful observations. I have only used Slackware in the past -
> 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and now 4.0, so I know its structure pretty well and may just
> stick with it. It is the awkwardness of upgrading that tempts me to switch.
> Chuck.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: down for the count

[philwh]

I just want to drop my 0.001 cent in here.
The company I work for just bought one of the dells with
linux preinstalled. it was redhat by the way.
the first console does come up with x-windows,
but you can change to another virtual console and get a
text login.
I had to configure it as a ppp server,
and it wasn't an easy task. redhat isn't the most friendly
linux distribution to work with.
i agree with others here, stick with slackware.
I run 4 machines with slackware at home,and hav never had
a problem. whereas at work, I must use redhat,
and seem to have problems installing any package
that doesn't happen to come in an rpm package.
and, i wasn't overly impressed with the dell machine either.
it came as a desktop machine, and didn't seem to be very upgradable.
although this may have been the fault of the i t person that ordered it.

phil

On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:27:12PM -0600, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
> 
> On 2000-09-30 speakup@braille.uwo.ca said:
>    >Hi
>    >This is mearly my own personal experiences, but I think you'd be
>    >better off with slackware. I have gotten debian to install, but
>    >it's a somewhat tricky process. I tried it recently, though, and it
>    >wouldn't boot correctly on the upgraded machine. I kept getting the
>    >message init: respawning too fast, disabled for five minutes. I
>    >don't know what this means, but slackware does not seem to do this.
>    >I've always been able to install slackware flawlessly and am
>    >happily running it perfectly. The good side of debian, assuming you
>    >get it to work, is the package manager. It handles packages very
>    >nicely indeed, certainly better than rpm or any other packager.
>    >dependencies are taken care of for you automatically, and you can
>    >upgrade the whol thing through the net with two commands. However,
>    >I've found slackware to be more convenient, especially it's init
>    >structure. I find the system V init-style scripts used by debian
>    >and red hat annoying. Slackware has about four scripts, which you
>    >edit manually. Debian's number varies depending on how many
>    >packages you install, and then you need to worry about symlinks. I
>    >hate the runlevel directories, there's symlinks all over the place.
>    >Six directories to manage instead of one. I know debian has
>    >update-rc.d, but it has failed me before. Slackware also has System
>    >V init capability in version 7.0 and later, which is useful if you
>    >install some commercial software that expects this init style, but
>    >the main init is through four scripts, sometimes five. What I find
>    >most annoying about debian, however, is the fact that you can't
>    >edit /etc/mailcap manually. It just gets overwritten. You need to
>    >go in and create a file in /usr/lib/mime/packages containing the
>    >lines and then run update-mime. However, you can't name the file
>    >anything, it needs to be the name of an already installed package.
>    >This does not apply to any other distribution I know of. Of course
>    >the problem with this is that if that package wants to place its
>    >own version of a file there, it will and if your options are set
>    >wrong, will do this without warning you. You may get asked, or you
>    >may not. It depends. Jacob
>    >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
>    >> Hi Jacob...
>    >> I am torn between upgrading to a current Slackware or switching
>    >>to Debian. I  have not talked to Dell yet so I do not know what
>    >>what distro they have  built in. I am really tired of messing with
>    >>kludgy hardware and a solid  platform would be nice for a change.
>    >_______________________________________________
>    >Speakup mailing list
>    >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>    >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> Jacob -
> Those are helpful observations. I have only used Slackware in the past -
> 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and now 4.0, so I know its structure pretty well and may just
> stick with it. It is the awkwardness of upgrading that tempts me to switch.
> Chuck.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: down for the count

[Charles Hallenbeck]

On 2000-09-30 speakup@braille.uwo.ca said:
   >Hi
   >This is mearly my own personal experiences, but I think you'd be
   >better off with slackware. I have gotten debian to install, but
   >it's a somewhat tricky process. I tried it recently, though, and it
   >wouldn't boot correctly on the upgraded machine. I kept getting the
   >message init: respawning too fast, disabled for five minutes. I
   >don't know what this means, but slackware does not seem to do this.
   >I've always been able to install slackware flawlessly and am
   >happily running it perfectly. The good side of debian, assuming you
   >get it to work, is the package manager. It handles packages very
   >nicely indeed, certainly better than rpm or any other packager.
   >dependencies are taken care of for you automatically, and you can
   >upgrade the whol thing through the net with two commands. However,
   >I've found slackware to be more convenient, especially it's init
   >structure. I find the system V init-style scripts used by debian
   >and red hat annoying. Slackware has about four scripts, which you
   >edit manually. Debian's number varies depending on how many
   >packages you install, and then you need to worry about symlinks. I
   >hate the runlevel directories, there's symlinks all over the place.
   >Six directories to manage instead of one. I know debian has
   >update-rc.d, but it has failed me before. Slackware also has System
   >V init capability in version 7.0 and later, which is useful if you
   >install some commercial software that expects this init style, but
   >the main init is through four scripts, sometimes five. What I find
   >most annoying about debian, however, is the fact that you can't
   >edit /etc/mailcap manually. It just gets overwritten. You need to
   >go in and create a file in /usr/lib/mime/packages containing the
   >lines and then run update-mime. However, you can't name the file
   >anything, it needs to be the name of an already installed package.
   >This does not apply to any other distribution I know of. Of course
   >the problem with this is that if that package wants to place its
   >own version of a file there, it will and if your options are set
   >wrong, will do this without warning you. You may get asked, or you
   >may not. It depends. Jacob
   >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
   >> Hi Jacob...
   >> I am torn between upgrading to a current Slackware or switching
   >>to Debian. I  have not talked to Dell yet so I do not know what
   >>what distro they have  built in. I am really tired of messing with
   >>kludgy hardware and a solid  platform would be nice for a change.
   >_______________________________________________
   >Speakup mailing list
   >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
   >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
Jacob -
Those are helpful observations. I have only used Slackware in the past -
2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and now 4.0, so I know its structure pretty well and may just
stick with it. It is the awkwardness of upgrading that tempts me to switch.
Chuck.

Re: down for the count

[Brent Harding]

I was thinking of getting a prebuilt linux machine to run stuff on if I get
high speed access. Which kind are the best to get? I was thinking a dell,
but am not sure now. I hear redhat's OK, but debian really has a time with
compiling odd stuff not in .deb's either. It's different file locations are
such that many programs can't find what they need, and I'm not much at coding.
At 03:36 PM 9/30/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I just want to drop my 0.001 cent in here.
>The company I work for just bought one of the dells with
>linux preinstalled. it was redhat by the way.
>the first console does come up with x-windows,
>but you can change to another virtual console and get a
>text login.
>I had to configure it as a ppp server,
>and it wasn't an easy task. redhat isn't the most friendly
>linux distribution to work with.
>i agree with others here, stick with slackware.
>I run 4 machines with slackware at home,and hav never had
>a problem. whereas at work, I must use redhat,
>and seem to have problems installing any package
>that doesn't happen to come in an rpm package.
>and, i wasn't overly impressed with the dell machine either.
>it came as a desktop machine, and didn't seem to be very upgradable.
>although this may have been the fault of the i t person that ordered it.
>
>phil
>
>On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:27:12PM -0600, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
>> 
>> On 2000-09-30 speakup@braille.uwo.ca said:
>>    >Hi
>>    >This is mearly my own personal experiences, but I think you'd be
>>    >better off with slackware. I have gotten debian to install, but
>>    >it's a somewhat tricky process. I tried it recently, though, and it
>>    >wouldn't boot correctly on the upgraded machine. I kept getting the
>>    >message init: respawning too fast, disabled for five minutes. I
>>    >don't know what this means, but slackware does not seem to do this.
>>    >I've always been able to install slackware flawlessly and am
>>    >happily running it perfectly. The good side of debian, assuming you
>>    >get it to work, is the package manager. It handles packages very
>>    >nicely indeed, certainly better than rpm or any other packager.
>>    >dependencies are taken care of for you automatically, and you can
>>    >upgrade the whol thing through the net with two commands. However,
>>    >I've found slackware to be more convenient, especially it's init
>>    >structure. I find the system V init-style scripts used by debian
>>    >and red hat annoying. Slackware has about four scripts, which you
>>    >edit manually. Debian's number varies depending on how many
>>    >packages you install, and then you need to worry about symlinks. I
>>    >hate the runlevel directories, there's symlinks all over the place.
>>    >Six directories to manage instead of one. I know debian has
>>    >update-rc.d, but it has failed me before. Slackware also has System
>>    >V init capability in version 7.0 and later, which is useful if you
>>    >install some commercial software that expects this init style, but
>>    >the main init is through four scripts, sometimes five. What I find
>>    >most annoying about debian, however, is the fact that you can't
>>    >edit /etc/mailcap manually. It just gets overwritten. You need to
>>    >go in and create a file in /usr/lib/mime/packages containing the
>>    >lines and then run update-mime. However, you can't name the file
>>    >anything, it needs to be the name of an already installed package.
>>    >This does not apply to any other distribution I know of. Of course
>>    >the problem with this is that if that package wants to place its
>>    >own version of a file there, it will and if your options are set
>>    >wrong, will do this without warning you. You may get asked, or you
>>    >may not. It depends. Jacob
>>    >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
>>    >> Hi Jacob...
>>    >> I am torn between upgrading to a current Slackware or switching
>>    >>to Debian. I  have not talked to Dell yet so I do not know what
>>    >>what distro they have  built in. I am really tired of messing with
>>    >>kludgy hardware and a solid  platform would be nice for a change.
>>    >_______________________________________________
>>    >Speakup mailing list
>>    >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>    >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> Jacob -
>> Those are helpful observations. I have only used Slackware in the past -
>> 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and now 4.0, so I know its structure pretty well and may
just
>> stick with it. It is the awkwardness of upgrading that tempts me to switch.
>> Chuck.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: down for the count

[Kirk Wood]

Without trying to slam anyone, I would not take an install problem on one
machine to mean much. I also wouldn't take a lack of install problem to
mean much. I can truthfully say I have never had a problem installing
Winblows 3.x on a machine (and did it many times). Anyone care to say it
is superior?

I have had trouble with a Slackware install. But I also worked through
said install. As for the problems in maintaining RedHat, I think the
problem that some run into is trying too hard. I have installed both RPM
and the compile thing. For some, RPM is easier. For others, it will lead
to problems later. (Domn, that is starting to sound like so many other
things with computers and life in general.) But for most things, there are
straight forward tools to do your configuration for you. My complaint
about RedHat is that you get many things installed that you don't know
about. Then again, I think that a great thing would be a database with all
dependancies listed for each package. Yea, I know RPMs provide that (in
theory). But there is no tool (for any distro I have seen) that allows one
to plan ahead seeing all dependancies and configure the system to install
just the way you want it minus perhaps the settings.

I think going with a preconfigured machine is a good idea. It won't take
any longer to wipe out the installed OS then if you get one with
Winblows. I mean really, fdisk covers a multitude of sins. If you know you
are going to run linux and that is an option for the machine it makes
sense. You can always blow it away and install a different distro. (And
you can later do the same thing to that distro. I know it is obvious, but
too often it is forgotten.)

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: down for the count

[Victor Tsaran]

Kirk, when you install Redhat, you're given choices to choose which packages
(individually) you want to install. Don't you dare to dissellect the package
that is dependent on some other package, and you're in trouble. Of course,
if you sellected default install, Redhat will decide for you, but isn't that
the case with all default installations?
Best,
Vic

******* ******* *******
have you thought of visiting Cybertsar's Internet Kingdom? It is still
alive!
Here is the URL:
http://nimbus.ocis.temple.edu/~vtsaran/
******* ******* *******
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Wood" <cpt.kirk@1tree.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: down for the count


> Without trying to slam anyone, I would not take an install problem on one
> machine to mean much. I also wouldn't take a lack of install problem to
> mean much. I can truthfully say I have never had a problem installing
> Winblows 3.x on a machine (and did it many times). Anyone care to say it
> is superior?
>
> I have had trouble with a Slackware install. But I also worked through
> said install. As for the problems in maintaining RedHat, I think the
> problem that some run into is trying too hard. I have installed both RPM
> and the compile thing. For some, RPM is easier. For others, it will lead
> to problems later. (Domn, that is starting to sound like so many other
> things with computers and life in general.) But for most things, there are
> straight forward tools to do your configuration for you. My complaint
> about RedHat is that you get many things installed that you don't know
> about. Then again, I think that a great thing would be a database with all
> dependancies listed for each package. Yea, I know RPMs provide that (in
> theory). But there is no tool (for any distro I have seen) that allows one
> to plan ahead seeing all dependancies and configure the system to install
> just the way you want it minus perhaps the settings.
>
> I think going with a preconfigured machine is a good idea. It won't take
> any longer to wipe out the installed OS then if you get one with
> Winblows. I mean really, fdisk covers a multitude of sins. If you know you
> are going to run linux and that is an option for the machine it makes
> sense. You can always blow it away and install a different distro. (And
> you can later do the same thing to that distro. I know it is obvious, but
> too often it is forgotten.)
>
> --
> Kirk Wood
> Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
> ------------------
>
> Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
> Alfred North Whitehead
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: down for the count

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

With debian, you can look at the package lists and see the dependancies for
those packages.  So if you really wanted to install just the ones you
needed, you could browse the package lists and make a note of the ones you
need.  I've not done a debian install for awhile but I think you can
manually select the packages you want, then debian should deal with the
dependancies anyway, so you shouldn't need to do this.  How people running
other distros know what they need installed to run stuff is sometimes
beyond me.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: down for the count

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

The other thing about buying a machine without windows on it is that you
aren't sending any more money in microsoft's direction... which sounds like
a good reason to me.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: down for the count

[Kirk Wood]

Victor,

The problem of dependancies when selecting individual packages is exactly
the problem I am talking about. The fact is, that all distros have this
same kind of thing going on (as far as I have seen). You don't have
something that raises red flags when selecting individual packages to let
you know about dependancy requirements.

My ideal situation would allow you to go through individual packages
(grouped by what they do) and select them. It would then either
automatically take care of dependancies (with a way to see what was
automatically selected) or just keep a list of unfulfilled
dependancies. Ideally it would allow you to see just how many packages
were resting on a dependancy. (As an example you might see a lot of
packages requiring libc but only one or two requireing a more obscure
library.)

I would also use this oportunity to allow you to sellect what server to
install if you say you would like to have smtp server. Most distros of
course select sendmail for this. They figure it does everything. But many
people don't need everything.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: down for the count

[Kirk Wood]

Actually, many times you do end up paying for a M$ liscence anyway, but at
least your making a statement about it. You see M$ offers (or used to
offer) a lower cost per lisense if one was purchased for every machine
produced. This was supposed to be on account of easier auditing. But the
US government called it monopoly manipulation. I don't know if M$
continues the practice or if Dell is bound by such a deal. Again, part of
the M$ stratagy of hiding what companies pay for a lisense so they can
shaft some.

-- 
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
------------------

Seek simplicity -- and distrust it.
		Alfred North Whitehead

Re: down for the count

[Frank J. Carmickle]

Hi Chuck

I would strongly suggest not going with a prebuilt system.  That is my
personal preference.  I like Asus mother boards micron memory fujitsu hard
drives and sblive is the best consumer audio card right now.  If you build
your own system you can get the thing that you want.  If you buy someones
prebuilt system you will get parts that they can get cheep.  I also like
buying a nice case.  Sometimes big companies cases are nice and sometimes
they are really crappy.  Depending on your budget I would go with either
an Athlon or a K62 or K63.  Right now you can get the Asus a7v for around
$140 and the 800mhz thunderbird athlon for around $160.  And if your
afraid to put it together yourself don't be.  If you can get some sighted
asistance for an hour you will have no problem getting it all put
together.  These new boards are jumperless and you don't need to really
set much in the bios.  

Just my $0.02.  If you need any help just drop me a line.  I would love to
help any way I can.

Frank

speakup on a sparc

[Raul A. Gallegos]

I don't mean to sound dense since I have utterly no programming experience so forgive this stupid question.

I know you can't take a binary compiled in Linux and expect it to work in Sparc system.  However, why can't speakup if compiled into the Solarus Unix OS 
work?  Is there that many differences in the processor that it mkaes it hard?  If this was possible then one could have a talking sun box using serial ports.  
Again, if this is utterly out of line I apologize.  I can manage a sun and pc box running any *ix os and do good at it, but I can't program my way out of a paper 
bag unless it's shell scripting.



Raul A. Gallegos mailto:raul@asmodean.net
icq and evoice # 5283055
http://www.asmodean.net

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Kerry Hoath]

Ok well most of speakup is written in C so in theory it is portable but there
is a but.

Regarding speakup and solarus I doubt Sun is going to give you the source to
solarus and even if they do, integrating speakup would violate the gpl since
you'd be mixing speakup with non-gpl code. Not that Kirk would mind too much
I'd wager; but the internals of solarus and Linux are extremely different.
Let's  say we fix the kernel differences; there are more woes because the sparc
has different serial hardware. Whereas the pc uses 8250 16450 and 16550 chips
mostly; the sparcs older ones a tleast use the Zilog z8530 a chip capable of
both rs232 and 422 and in no way register compatible with the 8250 and
workalike chips.
Kirk does his serial interface code inside speakup which saves mucking with
the kernel serial code; I guess that is what you do in kernel space but it
has it's disadvantages because to port to new serial chips we need to write new
drivers for the chips. I think I know programming talent
that might be interested, now to find some cheap cheap cheap sun 4c gear in
Australia so they have the hardware to tinker with. Remember however that as
an integral part of the Sun openprom you can use a serial console so yes speakup
would rock on a Sun but we do have serial right from powerup if we need it.
This isn't the case under Inhell boxes; at least you can set up a sun over
serial port and I really like that.

Regards, Kerry.
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 12:20:59AM -0500, Raul A. Gallegos wrote:
> I don't mean to sound dense since I have utterly no programming experience so forgive this stupid question.
> 
> I know you can't take a binary compiled in Linux and expect it to work in Sparc system.  However, why can't speakup if compiled into the Solarus Unix OS 
> work?  Is there that many differences in the processor that it mkaes it hard?  If this was possible then one could have a talking sun box using serial ports.  
> Again, if this is utterly out of line I apologize.  I can manage a sun and pc box running any *ix os and do good at it, but I can't program my way out of a paper 
> bag unless it's shell scripting.
> 
> 
> 
> Raul A. Gallegos mailto:raul@asmodean.net
> icq and evoice # 5283055
> http://www.asmodean.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Buddy Brannan]

Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.
Since Speakup is of course specifically a patch into the Linux kernel, I
doube it can be patched into a Solaris kernel.

--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV
Email: davros@ycardz.com
Voice mail: 877-791-5298
All opinions are all mine!

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Victor Tsaran]

For additional comments please refer to Kerry's excellent message. It would be
really neat if we could port Speakup to Sollaris. I doubt that SUN would be
interested, well, perhaps. How about if we try to send a note to Sollaris
developers. Perhaps they will write their own "Speakup"!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Buddy Brannan" <davros@ycardz.com>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: speakup on a sparc


| Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
| can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.
| Since Speakup is of course specifically a patch into the Linux kernel, I
| doube it can be patched into a Solaris kernel.
|
| --
| Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV
| Email: davros@ycardz.com
| Voice mail: 877-791-5298
| All opinions are all mine!
|
| _______________________________________________
| Speakup mailing list
| Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
| http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Chris Nestrud]

I believe that you can get an educational license for Solaris source code.
Still, as has been said, their are enough differences that porting
Speakup to Solaris would be a huge undertaking. It would also probably, at
least partially, split the two source trees, linux and solaris.

Chris


On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Victor Tsaran wrote:

> For additional comments please refer to Kerry's excellent message. It would be
> really neat if we could port Speakup to Sollaris. I doubt that SUN would be
> interested, well, perhaps. How about if we try to send a note to Sollaris
> developers. Perhaps they will write their own "Speakup"!
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Buddy Brannan" <davros@ycardz.com>
> To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:33 AM
> Subject: Re: speakup on a sparc
> 
> 
> | Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
> | can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.
> | Since Speakup is of course specifically a patch into the Linux kernel, I
> | doube it can be patched into a Solaris kernel.
> |
> | --
> | Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV
> | Email: davros@ycardz.com
> | Voice mail: 877-791-5298
> | All opinions are all mine!
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | Speakup mailing list
> | Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> | http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

World Blind Union

[Janina Sajka]

The World Blind Union quadrennial convention is scheduled to take place in
Melbourne, Australia this coming November. Yours truly is attending. I
would love the opportunity to meet any of my Aussie friends during my
brief, 6 night, sojourn down under

Far more iumportantly, however, I would also love it if any of you would
be interested in trying to get some kind of linux demo going at this
conference. I think it would be particularly valuable given the low costs
involved with linux, brltty, Speakup, and Emacspeak. I think low cost
information access would be of interest to the many WBU attendees
especially from more economically disadvantaged countries. Certainly, it
is high time that blind people's opportunities under linux had some
attention from the professional blindness community.

I offer this suggestion with no knowledge whatsoever about whether it is
still possible to get booth space in the demo area at WBU, or what that
might cost. But, whatever those particulars, I know I could not undertake
this alone because I'm there primarily to show DAISY and American
Foundation for the Blind (AFB)'s imminent publications using DAISY.

Anyone want to take this up with me?

				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

janina@afb.net
(202) 408-8175
http://www.afb.org/gov.html


The invention of the printing press is often named as the crowning
achievment of the past millenium. Yet, it's significance is about to be
eclipsed. Read our White Paper: "Surpassing Gutenberg" available at:

	http://www.afb.org/ebook.html

Are you a software developer? Make your applications accessible. Read
http://www.afb.org/technology/accessapp.html to learn how.

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Brent Harding]

Not real sure on sun's accessibility position, speakup on something other
than intel might be a possibility. What about running it in forms of linux
that run on a Maccintosh?
At 11:02 AM 10/3/00 -0400, you wrote:
>For additional comments please refer to Kerry's excellent message. It
would be
>really neat if we could port Speakup to Sollaris. I doubt that SUN would be
>interested, well, perhaps. How about if we try to send a note to Sollaris
>developers. Perhaps they will write their own "Speakup"!
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Buddy Brannan" <davros@ycardz.com>
>To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:33 AM
>Subject: Re: speakup on a sparc
>
>
>| Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
>| can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.
>| Since Speakup is of course specifically a patch into the Linux kernel, I
>| doube it can be patched into a Solaris kernel.
>|
>| --
>| Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV
>| Email: davros@ycardz.com
>| Voice mail: 877-791-5298
>| All opinions are all mine!
>|
>| _______________________________________________
>| Speakup mailing list
>| Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>| http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Kirk Reiser]

Buddy Brannan <davros@ycardz.com> writes:

> Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
> can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.

Well, the architecture patches for sparc are already in the speakup
tree.  I haven't had a chance to try them out on a sparc machine but
would be willing to help anyone that had a sparc to play with.

  Kirk

-- 

Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Kerry Hoath]

I surely have a sparc but I bet there is no driver for the
Zilog 8530 serial ports in the speakup stuff for sparc?
Most sparcs don't use 8250/16550 ports unless they are really knew and mine is
a sparc 4/75

Regards, Kerry.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 09:43:35AM -0400, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> Buddy Brannan <davros@ycardz.com> writes:
> 
> > Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
> > can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.
> 
> Well, the architecture patches for sparc are already in the speakup
> tree.  I haven't had a chance to try them out on a sparc machine but
> would be willing to help anyone that had a sparc to play with.
> 
>   Kirk
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
> e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
> phone: (519) 661-3061
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Brent Harding]

Wonder if it'd be worth buying as a second machine to try it on, maybe not
if it's untested. The second machine I'd eventually get wouldn't need
windows on it, so anything I could get a sightless install of linux on to
would be good. The redhat serial interface method would probably work
really good, as if I ever do install linux to machines that will usually
have no synth connected to them, I'd have to do it some how.
At 09:43 AM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Buddy Brannan <davros@ycardz.com> writes:
>
>> Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
>> can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.
>
>Well, the architecture patches for sparc are already in the speakup
>tree.  I haven't had a chance to try them out on a sparc machine but
>would be willing to help anyone that had a sparc to play with.
>
>  Kirk
>
>-- 
>
>Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
>e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
>phone: (519) 661-3061
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Kerry Hoath]

Don't go buy a sparc;
pcs seem to cause enough trouble as it is and you don't strike me as the sort
of person who would cope well inside a forth monitor.
Stay with pcs; far more people have them and the parts are cheaper. You'll
also get better support off the mailing lists with your problems.

When Kirk says untested; he really means he hasn't even tried it so it's up
to brave folks like myself to give it a spin.
You can't run Windows on a sparc unless you use an emulator they use totally
different processors to a pc.

Regards, Kerry.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:17:24PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> Wonder if it'd be worth buying as a second machine to try it on, maybe not
> if it's untested. The second machine I'd eventually get wouldn't need
> windows on it, so anything I could get a sightless install of linux on to
> would be good. The redhat serial interface method would probably work
> really good, as if I ever do install linux to machines that will usually
> have no synth connected to them, I'd have to do it some how.
> At 09:43 AM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Buddy Brannan <davros@ycardz.com> writes:
> >
> >> Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
> >> can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc processor.
> >
> >Well, the architecture patches for sparc are already in the speakup
> >tree.  I haven't had a chance to try them out on a sparc machine but
> >would be willing to help anyone that had a sparc to play with.
> >
> >  Kirk
> >
> >-- 
> >
> >Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
> >e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
> >phone: (519) 661-3061
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Kirk Reiser]

Kerry Hoath <kerry@gotss.eu.org> writes:

> I surely have a sparc but I bet there is no driver for the
> Zilog 8530 serial ports in the speakup stuff for sparc?

Do you know whether the Zilog uarts use the same command set as the
16550/8350s?  If not, it shouldn't be to difficult to write the code
if you have the specs on those uarts.  If you do, and they are
different send them to me and I'll put some patches together to try.

  Kirk

-- 

Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
phone: (519) 661-3061

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Kerry Hoath]

I don't currently have the specs on the 8530 and they are different from
the 8250/16550. I'd recommend emailing the guy who wrote the z8530
driver and see if he can get you specs. Note however that with the sparc
kernel; you can't opt to compile the serial ports out, in fact they are
compiled in regardless no choice. Whatever you say you get serial support.
Why? Because the console might be on a serial port and the kernel must cope
with this.
For this reason it might be advisable to talk to the serial driver rather than
the ports ddirectly. Ask the guy who wrote the driver for these chips he'd
know best. I'll keep my eyes out for a sparc for you :-)

Regards, Kerry.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 09:04:34PM -0400, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> Kerry Hoath <kerry@gotss.eu.org> writes:
> 
> > I surely have a sparc but I bet there is no driver for the
> > Zilog 8530 serial ports in the speakup stuff for sparc?
> 
> Do you know whether the Zilog uarts use the same command set as the
> 16550/8350s?  If not, it shouldn't be to difficult to write the code
> if you have the specs on those uarts.  If you do, and they are
> different send them to me and I'll put some patches together to try.
> 
>   Kirk
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
> e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
> phone: (519) 661-3061
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: speakup on a sparc

[Brent Harding]

Are they actually better, or just different? I suppose it's not really the
right thing for too many people to jump in to. How did kirk make the
drivers for it then, or do the kernels just come that way, but no guarantee
that one would get a double talk PC, or dec express going in one. I suppose
if I were in a job situation who uses spark, I'd have to try it, but
probably not advisable otherwise.
At 10:55 AM 10/19/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Don't go buy a sparc;
>pcs seem to cause enough trouble as it is and you don't strike me as the sort
>of person who would cope well inside a forth monitor.
>Stay with pcs; far more people have them and the parts are cheaper. You'll
>also get better support off the mailing lists with your problems.
>
>When Kirk says untested; he really means he hasn't even tried it so it's up
>to brave folks like myself to give it a spin.
>You can't run Windows on a sparc unless you use an emulator they use totally
>different processors to a pc.
>
>Regards, Kerry.
>
>On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:17:24PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
>> Wonder if it'd be worth buying as a second machine to try it on, maybe not
>> if it's untested. The second machine I'd eventually get wouldn't need
>> windows on it, so anything I could get a sightless install of linux on to
>> would be good. The redhat serial interface method would probably work
>> really good, as if I ever do install linux to machines that will usually
>> have no synth connected to them, I'd have to do it some how.
>> At 09:43 AM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Buddy Brannan <davros@ycardz.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
>> >> can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc
processor.
>> >
>> >Well, the architecture patches for sparc are already in the speakup
>> >tree.  I haven't had a chance to try them out on a sparc machine but
>> >would be willing to help anyone that had a sparc to play with.
>> >
>> >  Kirk
>> >
>> >-- 
>> >
>> >Kirk Reiser				The Computer Braille Facility
>> >e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca		University of Western Ontario
>> >phone: (519) 661-3061
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Speakup mailing list
>> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
>-- 
>--
>Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
>Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
>ICQ UIN: 62823451
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

RE: speakup on a sparc

[Klarich, Terry]

I have approached SUN about this on a few occassions with no success.  Their
stance is just to use the serial console.  (which I do for work)

These days, one can obtain solaris for the media costs.  The source can be
made available to those who have special development needs.  Not sure on the
exact details; but, can find out of anyone is interested.

Personally, I would think speakup with linux on a sparc would be time better
spent.  Linux far exceeds solaris 2.8 on my Ultra 5.

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Tsaran [mailto:vtsaran@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 10:02 AM
To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: speakup on a sparc


For additional comments please refer to Kerry's excellent message. It would
be
really neat if we could port Speakup to Sollaris. I doubt that SUN would be
interested, well, perhaps. How about if we try to send a note to Sollaris
developers. Perhaps they will write their own "Speakup"!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Buddy Brannan" <davros@ycardz.com>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: speakup on a sparc


| Well, Kirk can address this better, but I don't see any reason why you
| can't run Linux on a Sparc *if* you're running Linux for a Sparc
processor.
| Since Speakup is of course specifically a patch into the Linux kernel, I
| doube it can be patched into a Solaris kernel.
|
| --
| Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV
| Email: davros@ycardz.com
| Voice mail: 877-791-5298
| All opinions are all mine!
|
| _______________________________________________
| Speakup mailing list
| Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
| http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup