* Speakup in user space, why or why not? @ Sina Bahram ` Gregory Nowak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Hi all, I have a bit of a general question, but please read the whole message before replying to my question. Can there be a version of speakup for user space, with no modifications at all necessary for the kernel? I do understand that this means boot messages will not be read ... I do understand that this means that installations will not be carried out as before, and no, I am not suggesting this as a replacement. I simply would like an application based version of speakup without modifications necessary to the kernel at all. Is this possible? If this is possible, would it then be able to run on operating system other than system five? For example, I want to learn FreeBSD, because a friend of mine has been telling me all about it, and I'd like to play around with it. I would, of course, like to use speakup with it. Could this be possible? I suppose I'm asking if this could be more possible if SpeakUP lived in user space, because if worse came to worse, one could always run Linux binaries in FreeBSD. Thanks for any advice you all, and I hope everyone has a great upcoming week. Take care, Sina ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? Speakup in user space, why or why not? Sina Bahram @ ` Gregory Nowak ` Garrett Klein ` Sina Bahram 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Gregory Nowak @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:03:37PM -0400, Sina Bahram wrote: > For example, I want to learn FreeBSD, because a friend of > mine has been telling me all about it, and I'd like to play around with it. > I would, of course, like to use speakup with it. Could this be possible? Yes, it could. Netbsd, and probably freebsd as well allows you to install the system via a serial console. Once that's done, you can use ssh on a speakup-enabled gnu/linux system to access your freebsd box, thus being able to use speakup in freebsd (grin). Seriously though, yes, I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but not having speakup run in user space is not a big obstacle to using freebsd, provided that you have at least 2 computers that you can use, one to run gnu/linux, and the other to run freebsd. Greg - -- web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc skype: gregn1 (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) - -- Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQChA7s9z/XlyUyARAlerAKC3g169ihiQ6gvZMxYtzY8dKZXdjACeMPUr 5UYqwQCpojXSeZ7bZuPPj1Y= =GirF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Gregory Nowak @ ` Garrett Klein ` Sina Bahram ` Sina Bahram 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Garrett Klein @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Another option is using yasr with FreeBSD, after instalation of course. Note that I've never actually tried this myself, but in theory it should work. Garrett On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 01:34:40PM -0500, Gregory Nowak wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:03:37PM -0400, Sina Bahram wrote: > > For example, I want to learn FreeBSD, because a friend of > > mine has been telling me all about it, and I'd like to play around with it. > > I would, of course, like to use speakup with it. Could this be possible? > > Yes, it could. Netbsd, and probably freebsd as well allows you to > install the system via a serial console. Once that's done, you can use > ssh on a speakup-enabled gnu/linux system to access your freebsd box, > thus being able to use speakup in freebsd (grin). Seriously though, > yes, I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but not having speakup > run in user space is not a big obstacle to using freebsd, provided > that you have at least 2 computers that you can use, one to run > gnu/linux, and the other to run freebsd. > > Greg > > > > -- > web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org > gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc > skype: gregn1 > (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) > > -- > Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBQ0Apl/Q3GgYHRr/HAQpFAw//WudbMSVSawv2APTOoXLSTF0HzDMwp/k9 I7FvHGQdPEJwgXvkwMihUY8qm2W+3WG3uJTVerTecJcIzNShK2ce4FGUkBwl3A3w 4vOkNfCsKGLzAtVF88m/6LYju6vWJK3WmJj3o/ZT6qe3pMfiqJsGtY1RIbI8VxuQ tiq4xIA5VRqNCaenA3ruOOvoYOeLx1J9arYEoWN8JVgPeN12A4Tdzx8O5wiJiRXn 2eTgh8+4/h2Sd7y4gME4QT1LpLEa9JhOhsHYzNPCC6hMvhPeG8qXuSuvKk/2jSI0 9vNFVwv4VXolxNJ5XXKAnvv68eNOkh+/pzQAwITquuj9GoIpd2Su8EsGwUq0mCSE gnY7GcpPHtz7lQldqOobzJncwTXb2Dw+fGgPmpWZc9yyy5TtDz/R4Y3tRQsxWNSu ysQOltGVzdqXZSNZJfY+EITnTzbyPLtUZrl8pJJtpfjzNmKfT2B1PLbazMJDih6R W3s1/X8JYh2pLbhxbyj5ijFXzN8s+CGcdj1+zFlLQ9ZkEElRVPQdxGkN3m7hZoJC cRcDvDZ1SdDSMBno1rsPhC9Z03v6Vsbzqk6LJkYVgQgTd9YnSM3FiuZwqeAnNTj6 Ndd7n/k+qfUiloTEyTk9jb4F7xP2wHHPHO+BtGA6n1aZdVwD/DYrDRnOKeNaSOov aur9ZVhQtTM= =JDMF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Garrett Klein @ ` Sina Bahram ` Janina Sajka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' I thank you all for one fact. I have learned that I need to learn how to write emails better. I will never, ever again, mention an example! Please do not suggest ways of making FreeBSD accessible ... It was an off hand comment. I did not imply that FreeBSD is inaccessible because it doesn't have SpeakUP on it or anything ... I was simply using it as an example. I know about BrailleTTY, I know about YASR, and I know about EmacSpeak, and some other stuff ... That's not the point of my email though, my friends. User space ... That is the question: user space. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Garrett Klein Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:40 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Another option is using yasr with FreeBSD, after instalation of course. Note that I've never actually tried this myself, but in theory it should work. Garrett On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 01:34:40PM -0500, Gregory Nowak wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:03:37PM -0400, Sina Bahram wrote: > > For example, I want to learn FreeBSD, because a friend of mine has > > been telling me all about it, and I'd like to play around with it. > > I would, of course, like to use speakup with it. Could this be possible? > > Yes, it could. Netbsd, and probably freebsd as well allows you to > install the system via a serial console. Once that's done, you can use > ssh on a speakup-enabled gnu/linux system to access your freebsd box, > thus being able to use speakup in freebsd (grin). Seriously though, > yes, I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but not having speakup > run in user space is not a big obstacle to using freebsd, provided > that you have at least 2 computers that you can use, one to run > gnu/linux, and the other to run freebsd. > > Greg > > > > -- > web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org gpg public key: > http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc > skype: gregn1 > (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) > > -- > Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBQ0Apl/Q3GgYHRr/HAQpFAw//WudbMSVSawv2APTOoXLSTF0HzDMwp/k9 I7FvHGQdPEJwgXvkwMihUY8qm2W+3WG3uJTVerTecJcIzNShK2ce4FGUkBwl3A3w 4vOkNfCsKGLzAtVF88m/6LYju6vWJK3WmJj3o/ZT6qe3pMfiqJsGtY1RIbI8VxuQ tiq4xIA5VRqNCaenA3ruOOvoYOeLx1J9arYEoWN8JVgPeN12A4Tdzx8O5wiJiRXn 2eTgh8+4/h2Sd7y4gME4QT1LpLEa9JhOhsHYzNPCC6hMvhPeG8qXuSuvKk/2jSI0 9vNFVwv4VXolxNJ5XXKAnvv68eNOkh+/pzQAwITquuj9GoIpd2Su8EsGwUq0mCSE gnY7GcpPHtz7lQldqOobzJncwTXb2Dw+fGgPmpWZc9yyy5TtDz/R4Y3tRQsxWNSu ysQOltGVzdqXZSNZJfY+EITnTzbyPLtUZrl8pJJtpfjzNmKfT2B1PLbazMJDih6R W3s1/X8JYh2pLbhxbyj5ijFXzN8s+CGcdj1+zFlLQ9ZkEElRVPQdxGkN3m7hZoJC cRcDvDZ1SdDSMBno1rsPhC9Z03v6Vsbzqk6LJkYVgQgTd9YnSM3FiuZwqeAnNTj6 Ndd7n/k+qfUiloTEyTk9jb4F7xP2wHHPHO+BtGA6n1aZdVwD/DYrDRnOKeNaSOov aur9ZVhQtTM= =JDMF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Sina Bahram @ ` Janina Sajka ` Sina Bahram ` Lorenzo Taylor 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Sina, I don't understand the "why" of your question. You already have emacspeak, speech-dispatcher, and yasr for speech as user space based access. You So, what's the point? Sina Bahram writes: > I thank you all for one fact. I have learned that I need to learn how to > write emails better. > > I will never, ever again, mention an example! > > Please do not suggest ways of making FreeBSD accessible ... It was an off > hand comment. I did not imply that FreeBSD is inaccessible because it > doesn't have SpeakUP on it or anything ... I was simply using it as an > example. > > I know about BrailleTTY, I know about YASR, and I know about EmacSpeak, and > some other stuff ... That's not the point of my email though, my friends. > > User space ... That is the question: user space. > > Take care, > Sina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] > On Behalf Of Garrett Klein > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:40 PM > To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. > Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Another option is using yasr with FreeBSD, after instalation of course. Note > that I've never actually tried this myself, but in theory it should work. > > Garrett > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 01:34:40PM -0500, Gregory Nowak wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:03:37PM -0400, Sina Bahram wrote: > > > For example, I want to learn FreeBSD, because a friend of mine has > > > been telling me all about it, and I'd like to play around with it. > > > I would, of course, like to use speakup with it. Could this be possible? > > > > > Yes, it could. Netbsd, and probably freebsd as well allows you to > > install the system via a serial console. Once that's done, you can use > > ssh on a speakup-enabled gnu/linux system to access your freebsd box, > > thus being able to use speakup in freebsd (grin). Seriously though, > > yes, I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but not having speakup > > run in user space is not a big obstacle to using freebsd, provided > > that you have at least 2 computers that you can use, one to run > > gnu/linux, and the other to run freebsd. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > -- > > web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org gpg public key: > > http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc > > skype: gregn1 > > (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) > > > > -- > > Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIVAwUBQ0Apl/Q3GgYHRr/HAQpFAw//WudbMSVSawv2APTOoXLSTF0HzDMwp/k9 > I7FvHGQdPEJwgXvkwMihUY8qm2W+3WG3uJTVerTecJcIzNShK2ce4FGUkBwl3A3w > 4vOkNfCsKGLzAtVF88m/6LYju6vWJK3WmJj3o/ZT6qe3pMfiqJsGtY1RIbI8VxuQ > tiq4xIA5VRqNCaenA3ruOOvoYOeLx1J9arYEoWN8JVgPeN12A4Tdzx8O5wiJiRXn > 2eTgh8+4/h2Sd7y4gME4QT1LpLEa9JhOhsHYzNPCC6hMvhPeG8qXuSuvKk/2jSI0 > 9vNFVwv4VXolxNJ5XXKAnvv68eNOkh+/pzQAwITquuj9GoIpd2Su8EsGwUq0mCSE > gnY7GcpPHtz7lQldqOobzJncwTXb2Dw+fGgPmpWZc9yyy5TtDz/R4Y3tRQsxWNSu > ysQOltGVzdqXZSNZJfY+EITnTzbyPLtUZrl8pJJtpfjzNmKfT2B1PLbazMJDih6R > W3s1/X8JYh2pLbhxbyj5ijFXzN8s+CGcdj1+zFlLQ9ZkEElRVPQdxGkN3m7hZoJC > cRcDvDZ1SdDSMBno1rsPhC9Z03v6Vsbzqk6LJkYVgQgTd9YnSM3FiuZwqeAnNTj6 > Ndd7n/k+qfUiloTEyTk9jb4F7xP2wHHPHO+BtGA6n1aZdVwD/DYrDRnOKeNaSOov > aur9ZVhQtTM= > =JDMF > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Janina Sajka Phone: +1.240.715.1272 Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com Bringing the Owasys 22C screenless cell phone to the U.S. and Canada. Go to http://www.ScreenlessPhone.Com to learn more. Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG) janina@freestandards.org http://a11y.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Janina Sajka @ ` Sina Bahram ` Janina Sajka ` Lorenzo Taylor 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Hi Janina, The point is one of personal curiocity, questions about software engineering, and just general interest in why. I really would like to know if something like this is possible, and if the only reason for having it in the kernel is for boot messages. Plus, I like SpeakUP, *smile* Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Janina Sajka Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 3:38 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? Sina, I don't understand the "why" of your question. You already have emacspeak, speech-dispatcher, and yasr for speech as user space based access. You So, what's the point? Sina Bahram writes: > I thank you all for one fact. I have learned that I need to learn how > to write emails better. > > I will never, ever again, mention an example! > > Please do not suggest ways of making FreeBSD accessible ... It was an > off hand comment. I did not imply that FreeBSD is inaccessible because > it doesn't have SpeakUP on it or anything ... I was simply using it as > an example. > > I know about BrailleTTY, I know about YASR, and I know about > EmacSpeak, and some other stuff ... That's not the point of my email though, my friends. > > User space ... That is the question: user space. > > Take care, > Sina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca > [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] > On Behalf Of Garrett Klein > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:40 PM > To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. > Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Another option is using yasr with FreeBSD, after instalation of > course. Note that I've never actually tried this myself, but in theory it should work. > > Garrett > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 01:34:40PM -0500, Gregory Nowak wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:03:37PM -0400, Sina Bahram wrote: > > > For example, I want to learn FreeBSD, because a friend of mine has > > > been telling me all about it, and I'd like to play around with it. > > > I would, of course, like to use speakup with it. Could this be possible? > > > > > Yes, it could. Netbsd, and probably freebsd as well allows you to > > install the system via a serial console. Once that's done, you can > > use ssh on a speakup-enabled gnu/linux system to access your freebsd > > box, thus being able to use speakup in freebsd (grin). Seriously > > though, yes, I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but not > > having speakup run in user space is not a big obstacle to using > > freebsd, provided that you have at least 2 computers that you can > > use, one to run gnu/linux, and the other to run freebsd. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > -- > > web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org gpg public key: > > http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc > > skype: gregn1 > > (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) > > > > -- > > Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIVAwUBQ0Apl/Q3GgYHRr/HAQpFAw//WudbMSVSawv2APTOoXLSTF0HzDMwp/k9 > I7FvHGQdPEJwgXvkwMihUY8qm2W+3WG3uJTVerTecJcIzNShK2ce4FGUkBwl3A3w > 4vOkNfCsKGLzAtVF88m/6LYju6vWJK3WmJj3o/ZT6qe3pMfiqJsGtY1RIbI8VxuQ > tiq4xIA5VRqNCaenA3ruOOvoYOeLx1J9arYEoWN8JVgPeN12A4Tdzx8O5wiJiRXn > 2eTgh8+4/h2Sd7y4gME4QT1LpLEa9JhOhsHYzNPCC6hMvhPeG8qXuSuvKk/2jSI0 > 9vNFVwv4VXolxNJ5XXKAnvv68eNOkh+/pzQAwITquuj9GoIpd2Su8EsGwUq0mCSE > gnY7GcpPHtz7lQldqOobzJncwTXb2Dw+fGgPmpWZc9yyy5TtDz/R4Y3tRQsxWNSu > ysQOltGVzdqXZSNZJfY+EITnTzbyPLtUZrl8pJJtpfjzNmKfT2B1PLbazMJDih6R > W3s1/X8JYh2pLbhxbyj5ijFXzN8s+CGcdj1+zFlLQ9ZkEElRVPQdxGkN3m7hZoJC > cRcDvDZ1SdDSMBno1rsPhC9Z03v6Vsbzqk6LJkYVgQgTd9YnSM3FiuZwqeAnNTj6 > Ndd7n/k+qfUiloTEyTk9jb4F7xP2wHHPHO+BtGA6n1aZdVwD/DYrDRnOKeNaSOov > aur9ZVhQtTM= > =JDMF > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Janina Sajka Phone: +1.240.715.1272 Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com Bringing the Owasys 22C screenless cell phone to the U.S. and Canada. Go to http://www.ScreenlessPhone.Com to learn more. Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG) janina@freestandards.org http://a11y.org _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Sina Bahram @ ` Janina Sajka ` Kenny Hitt ` Lorenzo Taylor 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Janina Sajka @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Well, I would expect the canonical answer to come from Kirk himself, but I would expect it's more than just the boot up messages. There's also the issue of ubiquitous availability, and persistence. In other words, you get Speakup across any and all consoles that you might open. In my case that's 24 consoles (or 23 on the machines where I also have a GUI Desktop). Try that from user space. I don't think it could be done. Then there's persistence--meaning that your access continues to function in the face of whatever might happen to an application you're running. Not only kernel panics will talk, but any application gone awry can often, nay usually, be brought under control from a second console. Sina Bahram writes: > Hi Janina, > > The point is one of personal curiocity, questions about software > engineering, and just general interest in why. > > I really would like to know if something like this is possible, and if the > only reason for having it in the kernel is for boot messages. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Janina Sajka @ ` Kenny Hitt ` Sina Bahram ` Lorenzo Taylor 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Kenny Hitt @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Hi. I have brltty in all consoles also. It starts up with an init script before login, so there is only one process running. Kenny On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 04:23:54PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote: > Well, I would expect the canonical answer to come from Kirk himself, but > I would expect it's more than just the boot up messages. There's also > the issue of ubiquitous availability, and persistence. > > In other words, you get Speakup across any and all consoles that you > might open. In my case that's 24 consoles (or 23 on the machines where I > also have a GUI Desktop). Try that from user space. I don't think it > could be done. > > Then there's persistence--meaning that your access continues to function > in the face of whatever might happen to an application you're running. > Not only kernel panics will talk, but any application gone awry can > often, nay usually, be brought under control from a second console. > > Sina Bahram writes: > > Hi Janina, > > > > The point is one of personal curiocity, questions about software > > engineering, and just general interest in why. > > > > I really would like to know if something like this is possible, and if the > > only reason for having it in the kernel is for boot messages. > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Kenny Hitt @ ` Sina Bahram 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Correct Basically ... Having your selected process start up with different terminals is not an issue because all processes have init as their parent, if and when their parent dies. All one has to do is fork, have the child continue on and the parent exit. Hence a daemon ... Well, there is actually a little bit more to a daemon, as they should fork twice and exec to avoid having a controlling terminal, but ... Same concept Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Kenny Hitt Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 7:51 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? Hi. I have brltty in all consoles also. It starts up with an init script before login, so there is only one process running. Kenny On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 04:23:54PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote: > Well, I would expect the canonical answer to come from Kirk himself, > but I would expect it's more than just the boot up messages. There's > also the issue of ubiquitous availability, and persistence. > > In other words, you get Speakup across any and all consoles that you > might open. In my case that's 24 consoles (or 23 on the machines where > I also have a GUI Desktop). Try that from user space. I don't think it > could be done. > > Then there's persistence--meaning that your access continues to > function in the face of whatever might happen to an application you're running. > Not only kernel panics will talk, but any application gone awry can > often, nay usually, be brought under control from a second console. > > Sina Bahram writes: > > Hi Janina, > > > > The point is one of personal curiocity, questions about software > > engineering, and just general interest in why. > > > > I really would like to know if something like this is possible, and > > if the only reason for having it in the kernel is for boot messages. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Janina Sajka ` Kenny Hitt @ ` Lorenzo Taylor ` Sina Bahram 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Lorenzo Taylor @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Janina Sajka: # In other words, you get Speakup across any and all consoles that you # might open. In my case that's 24 consoles (or 23 on the machines where I # also have a GUI Desktop). Try that from user space. I don't think it # could be done. Brltty does it. And I don't think it's just because it uses a braille display. Somehow, it always has access to the currently open console in userspace. # Then there's persistence--meaning that your access continues to function # in the face of whatever might happen to an application you're running. # Not only kernel panics will talk, but any application gone awry can # often, nay usually, be brought under control from a second console. I'm not sure about kernel panics, but brltty does this too from userspace. While I had my braille display, if I had any trouble with an app, I could always switch to another console to fix or kill it if necessary. Lorenzo - -- Living your life is a task so difficult, it has never been attempted before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQKN3G9IpekrhBfIRAotlAJ99HRhdeFdzWBAlUfNBTorpOj/R9QCeMvfO t+WB2ED3luF+/7HG6YEwSks= =KF1R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Lorenzo Taylor @ ` Sina Bahram ` Gene Collins 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Alright ... So those two issues are out of the way. Again, I say ... Is it possible then? Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Taylor Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 11:20 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Janina Sajka: # In other words, you get Speakup across any and all consoles that you # might open. In my case that's 24 consoles (or 23 on the machines where I # also have a GUI Desktop). Try that from user space. I don't think it # could be done. Brltty does it. And I don't think it's just because it uses a braille display. Somehow, it always has access to the currently open console in userspace. # Then there's persistence--meaning that your access continues to function # in the face of whatever might happen to an application you're running. # Not only kernel panics will talk, but any application gone awry can # often, nay usually, be brought under control from a second console. I'm not sure about kernel panics, but brltty does this too from userspace. While I had my braille display, if I had any trouble with an app, I could always switch to another console to fix or kill it if necessary. Lorenzo - -- Living your life is a task so difficult, it has never been attempted before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQKN3G9IpekrhBfIRAotlAJ99HRhdeFdzWBAlUfNBTorpOj/R9QCeMvfO t+WB2ED3luF+/7HG6YEwSks= =KF1R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Sina Bahram @ ` Gene Collins ` Sina Bahram ` Sina Bahram 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Gene Collins @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Hi Sina and all. Me thinks you have asked a loaded question, to which you allready know the answer. You seem to want to dismiss the reasons that Speakup was designed as part of the kernel, and that's fine. The real issue is who is going to write or port Speakup to user space. Cross platform compatibility is not an obstical, other apps do it. Accessibility across all text consoles is not an issue, again, other apps do it. So why isn't there a Speakup user space program? You know the answer. It's possible, but Kirk doesn't have the time, or perhaps even the interest. Witness his lack of response to this thread. Yes, it's possible, so when are you going to have it done. You know it's possible, but you insist on wasting bandwidth on the list, trying to bate Kirk or someone else into doing something you want. Your time and everyone elses would have been better spent if you had just asked if anyone is willing to port Speakup to user space. I understand some of your frustration. You like Speakup and would like to have it generally available anywhere. Unfortunately, it isn't, and is not likely to be, because the author doesn't have the time, or perhaps the interest in such a project. So htat leaves you with learning enough to write the port yourself, or finding someone who has the skill and knowledge, and is willing to take on such a task. That would means that every time there was an upgrade to Speakup, he or she would have to port the upgrade. I suspect you already know this, but I'll point it out for the benefit of other readers. Speakup is a series of code segments that are patched into the kernel source code. This means that some of those patches cannot function as standalone code that would run in user space. So someone would have to write additional code to fillin the gaps. Is it possible? Probably. The question is, "who has the time, knowledge and skill, and the interest?" Find that person, or learn what it takes to do it yourself, and you can have what you want. By the way, this message is not ment to be disrespectful, or discourteous. It's just ment to point out the way things are. Gene >Alright ... So those two issues are out of the way. > >Again, I say ... Is it possible then? > >Take care, >Sina > >-----Original Message----- >From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] >On Behalf Of Lorenzo Taylor >Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 11:20 PM >To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. >Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >According to Janina Sajka: ># In other words, you get Speakup across any and all consoles that you # >might open. In my case that's 24 consoles (or 23 on the machines where I # >also have a GUI Desktop). Try that from user space. I don't think it # could >be done. > >Brltty does it. And I don't think it's just because it uses a braille >display. >Somehow, it always has access to the currently open console in userspace. > ># Then there's persistence--meaning that your access continues to function # >in the face of whatever might happen to an application you're running. ># Not only kernel panics will talk, but any application gone awry can # >often, nay usually, be brought under control from a second console. > >I'm not sure about kernel panics, but brltty does this too from userspace. >While I had my braille display, if I had any trouble with an app, I could >always switch to another console to fix or kill it if necessary. > >Lorenzo >- -- >Living your life is a task so difficult, it has never been attempted before. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) > >iD8DBQFDQKN3G9IpekrhBfIRAotlAJ99HRhdeFdzWBAlUfNBTorpOj/R9QCeMvfO >t+WB2ED3luF+/7HG6YEwSks= >=KF1R >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >_______________________________________________ >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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Gene Collins @ ` Sina Bahram ` Gene Collins ` Scott Howell ` Sina Bahram 1 sibling, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Hi Gene, I have asked a ligitamet question for the purpose of knowledge and open discussion ... A wonderful bit of which has happened already. Yet I receive this email from you that wishes to accuse. Frankly, I don't have time to ask loaded questions, so if I'm asking, it means I want to know. I'm sending another email with my answers inline, but I find it quite sad that you have sent such an immature response to a ligitamet question that the rest of us are discussing like adults. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Collins Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:44 AM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? Hi Sina and all. Me thinks you have asked a loaded question, to which you allready know the answer. You seem to want to dismiss the reasons that Speakup was designed as part of the kernel, and that's fine. The real issue is who is going to write or port Speakup to user space. Cross platform compatibility is not an obstical, other apps do it. Accessibility across all text consoles is not an issue, again, other apps do it. So why isn't there a Speakup user space program? You know the answer. It's possible, but Kirk doesn't have the time, or perhaps even the interest. Witness his lack of response to this thread. Yes, it's possible, so when are you going to have it done. You know it's possible, but you insist on wasting bandwidth on the list, trying to bate Kirk or someone else into doing something you want. Your time and everyone elses would have been better spent if you had just asked if anyone is willing to port Speakup to user space. I understand some of your frustration. You like Speakup and would like to have it generally available anywhere. Unfortunately, it isn't, and is not likely to be, because the author doesn't have the time, or perhaps the interest in such a project. So htat leaves you with learning enough to write the port yourself, or finding someone who has the skill and knowledge, and is willing to take on such a task. That would means that every time there was an upgrade to Speakup, he or she would have to port the upgrade. I suspect you already know this, but I'll point it out for the benefit of other readers. Speakup is a series of code segments that are patched into the kernel source code. This means that some of those patches cannot function as standalone code that would run in user space. So someone would have to write additional code to fillin the gaps. Is it possible? Probably. The question is, "who has the time, knowledge and skill, and the interest?" Find that person, or learn what it takes to do it yourself, and you can have what you want. By the way, this message is not ment to be disrespectful, or discourteous. It's just ment to point out the way things are. Gene >Alright ... So those two issues are out of the way. > >Again, I say ... Is it possible then? > >Take care, >Sina > >-----Original Message----- >From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca >[mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] >On Behalf Of Lorenzo Taylor >Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 11:20 PM >To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. >Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >According to Janina Sajka: ># In other words, you get Speakup across any and all consoles that you ># might open. In my case that's 24 consoles (or 23 on the machines >where I # also have a GUI Desktop). Try that from user space. I don't >think it # could be done. > >Brltty does it. And I don't think it's just because it uses a braille >display. >Somehow, it always has access to the currently open console in userspace. > ># Then there's persistence--meaning that your access continues to >function # in the face of whatever might happen to an application you're running. ># Not only kernel panics will talk, but any application gone awry can # >often, nay usually, be brought under control from a second console. > >I'm not sure about kernel panics, but brltty does this too from userspace. >While I had my braille display, if I had any trouble with an app, I >could always switch to another console to fix or kill it if necessary. > >Lorenzo >- -- >Living your life is a task so difficult, it has never been attempted before. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) > >iD8DBQFDQKN3G9IpekrhBfIRAotlAJ99HRhdeFdzWBAlUfNBTorpOj/R9QCeMvfO >t+WB2ED3luF+/7HG6YEwSks= >=KF1R >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >_______________________________________________ >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 _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Sina Bahram @ ` Gene Collins ` Sina Bahram ` Scott Howell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Gene Collins @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Hi Sina. If your question was ment to be philisophical in nature, as to why Speakup was not originally designed as a user space program, than you don't get to ignore the issues of installation and bootup messages. You already know that it's possible to write a speakup like user space program, because there are other apps out there that do parts of what you want. So if your question truly is technical in nature, there is no reson why Speakup can't be a user space program, except that nobody has done it yet. So if you really are after knowledge, tell me what you think you've learned. Whining about my response to you and calling me names publicly doesn't give you an out. The only reasons Speakup is in kernel space are the very ones you want to ignore. Speakup is hiddenfrom all running applications on the system. They don't get to bypass it, and having Speakup in kernel space allows for talking installations, spoken bootup message, and in many cases, spoken kernel error messages. If you want to dismiss those reasons, then there is no reason why Speakup shouldn't be a user space app, except for the reason of time and interest I have already mentioned. Go for it. If on the other hand the point of raising this discussion is to try to change Kirk's mind about future Speakup design, well, it's possible, but not very likely. Remember, name calling is not an exceptable response. Have a nice day. Gene ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Gene Collins @ ` Sina Bahram 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Thank you for your email Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Collins Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:58 AM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? Hi Sina. If your question was ment to be philisophical in nature, as to why Speakup was not originally designed as a user space program, than you don't get to ignore the issues of installation and bootup messages. You already know that it's possible to write a speakup like user space program, because there are other apps out there that do parts of what you want. So if your question truly is technical in nature, there is no reson why Speakup can't be a user space program, except that nobody has done it yet. So if you really are after knowledge, tell me what you think you've learned. Whining about my response to you and calling me names publicly doesn't give you an out. The only reasons Speakup is in kernel space are the very ones you want to ignore. Speakup is hiddenfrom all running applications on the system. They don't get to bypass it, and having Speakup in kernel space allows for talking installations, spoken bootup message, and in many cases, spoken kernel error messages. If you want to dismiss those reasons, then there is no reason why Speakup shouldn't be a user space app, except for the reason of time and interest I have already mentioned. Go for it. If on the other hand the point of raising this discussion is to try to change Kirk's mind about future Speakup design, well, it's possible, but not very likely. Remember, name calling is not an exceptable response. Have a nice day. Gene _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Sina Bahram ` Gene Collins @ ` Scott Howell ` Charles Hallenbeck ` ace 1 sibling, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Scott Howell @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Naaaaa, Gene's message was not imature or any such thing, I think you missed the point and didn't read the entire message. What he was saying in a much longer version than I would have is this. You want it, find someone or do it yourself. If Kirk or anyone else wanted to do this, you bet it would have been done. So, there's the short version. Its possible, but no one is interested in doing it. I think that sums it up real nice. Gee I think Gene said it nicer than I. Btw, I think Gene was quite adult about the entire message her wrote, I think you simply took it the wrong way. On Oct 3, 2005, at 1:02 AM, Sina Bahram wrote: > Hi Gene, > > I have asked a ligitamet question for the purpose of knowledge and > open > discussion ... A wonderful bit of which has happened already. > > Yet I receive this email from you that wishes to accuse. Frankly, I > don't > have time to ask loaded questions, so if I'm asking, it means I > want to > know. > > I'm sending another email with my answers inline, but I find it > quite sad > that you have sent such an immature response to a ligitamet > question that > the rest of us are discussing like adults. > > Take care, > Sina ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Scott Howell @ ` Charles Hallenbeck ` Sina Bahram ` ace 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Charles Hallenbeck @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Scott, Ditto. I agree. Sometimes one needs to read an email more than once before reacting. Or take a coffee break or something. Chuck On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 06:12:54PM -0400, Scott Howell wrote: > Naaaaa, Gene's message was not imature or any such thing, I think you > missed the point and didn't read the entire message. What he was > saying in a much longer version than I would have is this. > > You want it, find someone or do it yourself. If Kirk or anyone else > wanted to do this, you bet it would have been done. > So, there's the short version. Its possible, but no one is interested > in doing it. I think that sums it up real nice. Gee I think Gene said > it nicer than I. > Btw, I think Gene was quite adult about the entire message her wrote, > I think you simply took it the wrong way. > > > On Oct 3, 2005, at 1:02 AM, Sina Bahram wrote: > > >Hi Gene, > > > >I have asked a ligitamet question for the purpose of knowledge and > >open > >discussion ... A wonderful bit of which has happened already. > > > >Yet I receive this email from you that wishes to accuse. Frankly, I > >don't > >have time to ask loaded questions, so if I'm asking, it means I > >want to > >know. > > > >I'm sending another email with my answers inline, but I find it > >quite sad > >that you have sent such an immature response to a ligitamet > >question that > >the rest of us are discussing like adults. > > > >Take care, > >Sina > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- The Moon is New But you can still get downloads from http://www.mhcable.com/~chuckh or you could Jabber with me, using the JID chuckh@hhs48.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Charles Hallenbeck @ ` Sina Bahram 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' I suppose my response to it was a reaction to an overextension of the "if you want it, do it yourself" response. The accusation of wasting everyone's bandwidth also didn't help things. Along with the tone of the email, which seemed to imply that I was, and I paraphrase: "bating Kirk and others"? Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Charles Hallenbeck Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 7:36 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? Scott, Ditto. I agree. Sometimes one needs to read an email more than once before reacting. Or take a coffee break or something. Chuck On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 06:12:54PM -0400, Scott Howell wrote: > Naaaaa, Gene's message was not imature or any such thing, I think you > missed the point and didn't read the entire message. What he was > saying in a much longer version than I would have is this. > > You want it, find someone or do it yourself. If Kirk or anyone else > wanted to do this, you bet it would have been done. > So, there's the short version. Its possible, but no one is interested > in doing it. I think that sums it up real nice. Gee I think Gene said > it nicer than I. > Btw, I think Gene was quite adult about the entire message her wrote, > I think you simply took it the wrong way. > > > On Oct 3, 2005, at 1:02 AM, Sina Bahram wrote: > > >Hi Gene, > > > >I have asked a ligitamet question for the purpose of knowledge and > >open discussion ... A wonderful bit of which has happened already. > > > >Yet I receive this email from you that wishes to accuse. Frankly, I > >don't have time to ask loaded questions, so if I'm asking, it means I > >want to know. > > > >I'm sending another email with my answers inline, but I find it quite > >sad that you have sent such an immature response to a ligitamet > >question that the rest of us are discussing like adults. > > > >Take care, > >Sina > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- The Moon is New But you can still get downloads from http://www.mhcable.com/~chuckh or you could Jabber with me, using the JID chuckh@hhs48.com _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Scott Howell ` Charles Hallenbeck @ ` ace ` Sina Bahram 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: ace @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Personally, I think you all took Sina the wrong way. You lot seem to be overlooking his/her point completely. He/she was looking for information. Simply that. Searching for information. Knowledge. To be educated. Not for when such a project can be done or who will do it. I understood your point entirely, Sina. At 06:12 PM 10/3/2005, you wrote: >Naaaaa, Gene's message was not imature or any such thing, I think you >missed the point and didn't read the entire message. What he was >saying in a much longer version than I would have is this. > >You want it, find someone or do it yourself. If Kirk or anyone else >wanted to do this, you bet it would have been done. >So, there's the short version. Its possible, but no one is interested >in doing it. I think that sums it up real nice. Gee I think Gene said >it nicer than I. >Btw, I think Gene was quite adult about the entire message her wrote, >I think you simply took it the wrong way. > > >On Oct 3, 2005, at 1:02 AM, Sina Bahram wrote: > >>Hi Gene, >> >>I have asked a ligitamet question for the purpose of knowledge and >>open >>discussion ... A wonderful bit of which has happened already. >> >>Yet I receive this email from you that wishes to accuse. Frankly, I >>don't >>have time to ask loaded questions, so if I'm asking, it means I >>want to >>know. >> >>I'm sending another email with my answers inline, but I find it >>quite sad >>that you have sent such an immature response to a ligitamet >>question that >>the rest of us are discussing like adults. >> >>Take care, >>Sina > > >_______________________________________________ >Speakup mailing list >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` ace @ ` Sina Bahram 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Thanks much for your email, and it is he. All that he/she must get tiring to type, *smile*: thank you though. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of ace Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:18 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? Personally, I think you all took Sina the wrong way. You lot seem to be overlooking his/her point completely. He/she was looking for information. Simply that. Searching for information. Knowledge. To be educated. Not for when such a project can be done or who will do it. I understood your point entirely, Sina. At 06:12 PM 10/3/2005, you wrote: >Naaaaa, Gene's message was not imature or any such thing, I think you >missed the point and didn't read the entire message. What he was saying >in a much longer version than I would have is this. > >You want it, find someone or do it yourself. If Kirk or anyone else >wanted to do this, you bet it would have been done. >So, there's the short version. Its possible, but no one is interested >in doing it. I think that sums it up real nice. Gee I think Gene said >it nicer than I. >Btw, I think Gene was quite adult about the entire message her wrote, I >think you simply took it the wrong way. > > >On Oct 3, 2005, at 1:02 AM, Sina Bahram wrote: > >>Hi Gene, >> >>I have asked a ligitamet question for the purpose of knowledge and >>open discussion ... A wonderful bit of which has happened already. >> >>Yet I receive this email from you that wishes to accuse. Frankly, I >>don't have time to ask loaded questions, so if I'm asking, it means I >>want to know. >> >>I'm sending another email with my answers inline, but I find it quite >>sad that you have sent such an immature response to a ligitamet >>question that the rest of us are discussing like adults. >> >>Take care, >>Sina > > >_______________________________________________ >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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Gene Collins ` Sina Bahram @ ` Sina Bahram 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' My answers are below You wrote: Hi Sina and all. Me thinks you have asked a loaded question, to which you allready know the answer. See my previous email on this remark You seem to want to dismiss the reasons that Speakup was designed as part of the kernel, and that's fine. I am not dismissing them as unimportant or not sometimes crucial. I wanted to avoid having them be the only reasons brought up, because I was sincerely interested to see if there were any engineering constraints rather than preferences, dictating the decision to have speakup in the kernel. The real issue is who is going to write or port Speakup to user space. No, it's not. That may be an issue later on, but right now I am asking a question to gleme some knowledge. It's called discovery. If it proves to be possible, doable, wanted, and so forth. Then a different discussion about who, what, how, and so forth can occur. Cross platform compatibility is not an obstical, other apps do it. Accessibility across all text consoles is not an issue, again, other apps do it. Good to know, as we have discussed. So why isn't there a Speakup user space program? You know the answer. If I did, I wouldn't be asking. It's possible, but Kirk doesn't have the time, or perhaps even the interest. Witness his lack of response to this thread. That's fine ... I wouldn't mind having him chime in from an engineering point of view, but I completely understand time constraints. Oh, and by the way, I think Kirk is quite capable of telling us his own reasons ... If you wish to offer suggestions, I will appreciate them with open ears, but let's try to avoid talking for others. Yes, it's possible, so when are you going to have it done. This is quite illustrative of a very immature attitude towards answering questions, towards software design discussion, and frankly towards basic manners. I never offered to do it. I am quite familiar with the proverb of teaching someone to fish rather than handing them one. I am also aware that the entire population is not able to design their own fishing rod, maybe because of lack of meterials, maybe because of a lack of skill, or maybe because of a lack of resources with respect to time. Sorry for stretching the analogy, but I find it quite annoying to hear a response of "yes, it's possible, so do so". We all know that this is linux, and if you want something, you can feel free to do so yourself, but being able to, and having to do so for absolutely every possible question is quite a stupid suggestion. You know it's possible, but you insist on wasting bandwidth on the list, trying to bate Kirk or someone else into doing something you want. I'll give you one thing. You're exceptionally good at making assumptions, then making accusations based on those false assumptions, and then insulting someone in the same sentence. I was not trying to bate anyone. I was asking a question, and until I hear otherwise, I will continue to do so on this list ... In fact, maybe you can save bandwidth by not responding to my emails. That way, I don't have to hear all of your insulting and false accusations, and you don't have to hear me respond to them. Your time and everyone elses would have been better spent if you had just asked if anyone is willing to port Speakup to user space. No, I don't think so. I wish to understand the problem, and have an educated discussion: something you apparently seem unable to do. I understand some of your frustration. You like Speakup and would like to have it generally available anywhere. Unfortunately, it isn't, and is not likely to be, because the author doesn't have the time, or perhaps the interest in such a project. So htat leaves you with learning enough to write the port yourself, or finding someone who has the skill and knowledge, and is willing to take on such a task. That would means that every time there was an upgrade to Speakup, he or she would have to port the upgrade. Not if it is done correclty via modular design. I suspect you already know this, but I'll point it out for the benefit of other readers. Speakup is a series of code segments that are patched into the kernel source code. This means that some of those patches cannot function as standalone code that would run in user space. So someone would have to write additional code to fillin the gaps. Is it possible? Probably. The question is, "who has the time, knowledge and skill, and the interest?" Find that person, or learn what it takes to do it yourself, and you can have what you want. You're write ... Those patches couldn't. other code could. By the way, this message is not ment to be disrespectful, or discourteous. It's just ment to point out the way things are. It definitely came across as so. You would not believe how rude, unhelpful, disrespectful, and acusatory it came across as. Gene ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Janina Sajka ` Sina Bahram @ ` Lorenzo Taylor ` Sina Bahram ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Lorenzo Taylor @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Comparing speakup to yasr or emacspeak is like comparing a sports car to a bicycle. Speakup by far gives much better access to the text console than emacspeak and yasr combined. Even brltty, if you have access to a braille display gives better access to the console than emacspeak or yasr. Take brltty as an example. As soon as it loads into memory, the user has access to every character on the screen, including the login prompt, and none of it is in the kernel. It can run on several different Unix-like operating systems with no trouble. Any screen reader should give the same console access, which is what makes Speakup the best thing going right now. The problem is cross-OS compatibility. Since Speakup is entirely kernel-based, there is no way to port it to other operating systems or to allow new linux users who are afraid of compiling a kernel for the first time or who don't know how or want to deviate from the stock kernel of their distro to use it. Emacspeak, on the other hand, requires that the user already be logged in in order to use it, and yasr is the same in that regard. Emacspeak requires emacs in order to function and yasr gets its console data by opening a pseudoterminal and running a shell in it, which can't be done until the user is already logged in. Plus, using yasr is like using speakup with the cursoring turned off. It can really be a pain to navigate around the console sometimes. Take it from an avid speakup user, both with hardware speech on one computer and software speech on the other, I wouldn't want to use anything else for console speech. I just think it would be appropriate to have a similar screen reader with all the functionality of Speakup without having to recompile my kernel to get it. And it would also be nice to be able to run the same screen reader on other operating systems such as FreeBSD without having to use 2 computers. Hope this explains things more clearly, Lorenzo - -- Living your life is a task so difficult, it has never been attempted before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQKEGG9IpekrhBfIRAkZ5AJ9TLhzRKAKOY9ihiYL+HpYwZvFtnwCfYVnt hTO5tmy1j7dgRNNyEEKCdgA= =8zhH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Lorenzo Taylor @ ` Sina Bahram ` Luke Yelavich ` Jim Grimsby 2 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' You summed things up greatly. Thanks for your input. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Taylor Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 11:10 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Comparing speakup to yasr or emacspeak is like comparing a sports car to a bicycle. Speakup by far gives much better access to the text console than emacspeak and yasr combined. Even brltty, if you have access to a braille display gives better access to the console than emacspeak or yasr. Take brltty as an example. As soon as it loads into memory, the user has access to every character on the screen, including the login prompt, and none of it is in the kernel. It can run on several different Unix-like operating systems with no trouble. Any screen reader should give the same console access, which is what makes Speakup the best thing going right now. The problem is cross-OS compatibility. Since Speakup is entirely kernel-based, there is no way to port it to other operating systems or to allow new linux users who are afraid of compiling a kernel for the first time or who don't know how or want to deviate from the stock kernel of their distro to use it. Emacspeak, on the other hand, requires that the user already be logged in in order to use it, and yasr is the same in that regard. Emacspeak requires emacs in order to function and yasr gets its console data by opening a pseudoterminal and running a shell in it, which can't be done until the user is already logged in. Plus, using yasr is like using speakup with the cursoring turned off. It can really be a pain to navigate around the console sometimes. Take it from an avid speakup user, both with hardware speech on one computer and software speech on the other, I wouldn't want to use anything else for console speech. I just think it would be appropriate to have a similar screen reader with all the functionality of Speakup without having to recompile my kernel to get it. And it would also be nice to be able to run the same screen reader on other operating systems such as FreeBSD without having to use 2 computers. Hope this explains things more clearly, Lorenzo - -- Living your life is a task so difficult, it has never been attempted before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQKEGG9IpekrhBfIRAkZ5AJ9TLhzRKAKOY9ihiYL+HpYwZvFtnwCfYVnt hTO5tmy1j7dgRNNyEEKCdgA= =8zhH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Lorenzo Taylor ` Sina Bahram @ ` Luke Yelavich ` Jim Grimsby 2 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Luke Yelavich @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: speakup -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 01:09:58PM EST, Lorenzo Taylor wrote: > Take brltty as an example. As soon as it loads into memory, the user has access > to every character on the screen, including the login prompt, and none of it is > in the kernel. It can run on several different Unix-like operating systems with > no trouble. Any screen reader should give the same console access, which is > what makes Speakup the best thing going right now. The problem is cross-OS > compatibility. Since Speakup is entirely kernel-based, there is no way to port > it to other operating systems or to allow new linux users who are afraid of > compiling a kernel for the first time or who don't know how or want to deviate > from the stock kernel of their distro to use it. I very much agree. The only problem I see is trapping keypress events. But then if the locktones utility can trap capslock/numlock/scroll lock key presses, then it muscen't be that difficult to do. The rebuilding of kernels is also a lot more work for those who make modifications of distros available for others to use, especially if the distribution has a heavily patched kernel, which many do. > Take it from an avid speakup user, both with hardware speech on one computer and > software speech on the other, I wouldn't want to use anything else for console > speech. I just think it would be appropriate to have a similar screen reader > with all the functionality of Speakup without having to recompile my kernel to > get it. And it would also be nice to be able to run the same screen reader on > other operating systems such as FreeBSD without having to use 2 computers. A user-space speakup would also allow for more features such as per user speech and tracking settings, whether a console login is spoken or not, detection of whether X is running on the active console, which would then ensure nothing was spoken when keypress events occurred, etc. The other big thing would be the abillity to support hardware speech synthesizers which use USB, or via USB to serial adapters, good for laptop/notebook use. I can understand that boot messages are nice to be able to hear, however one could compensate by having an initrd image with the speakup daemon included, which would then give speech output during filesystem mount and checking if the user so desired. As long as the boot loader can find the initrd and the kernel loads it, what real need are the other boot messages, as one can generally look at them in the dmesg log anyway. Thanks for bringing this up Sina, as it is something I have been thinking about for a long time now, especially in terms of distro adoption. Many distributions are reluctant to include some kernel patches, and are also unsure whether to build Speakup as modules or into the kernel itself. However, if the screen reader package was simply another daemon loaded during startup, I think a lot more distributions would include the package, and alot more distros would come up speaking if requested during the install. - -- Luke Yelavich GPG key: 0xD06320CE (http://www.themuso.com/themuso-gpg-key.txt) Email & MSN: themuso@themuso.com ICQ: 18444344 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQKsQjVefwtBjIM4RAnJMAJ9f0f5WeQfyNs/fcyzx/M0GnhO/owCfYOb4 uo4GBvT15gII8KDU1V/Ir3I= =A8t+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Lorenzo Taylor ` Sina Bahram ` Luke Yelavich @ ` Jim Grimsby 2 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Jim Grimsby @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Hi, so basically the kernel version could be used to get the operating system installed and to read your boot messages on Linux. The user space version could be used to work with other operating systems and allow you to update your kernel with out losing speakup. Sounds like the best of both worlds to this boy. -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Taylor Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 8:10 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Comparing speakup to yasr or emacspeak is like comparing a sports car to a bicycle. Speakup by far gives much better access to the text console than emacspeak and yasr combined. Even brltty, if you have access to a braille display gives better access to the console than emacspeak or yasr. Take brltty as an example. As soon as it loads into memory, the user has access to every character on the screen, including the login prompt, and none of it is in the kernel. It can run on several different Unix-like operating systems with no trouble. Any screen reader should give the same console access, which is what makes Speakup the best thing going right now. The problem is cross-OS compatibility. Since Speakup is entirely kernel-based, there is no way to port it to other operating systems or to allow new linux users who are afraid of compiling a kernel for the first time or who don't know how or want to deviate from the stock kernel of their distro to use it. Emacspeak, on the other hand, requires that the user already be logged in in order to use it, and yasr is the same in that regard. Emacspeak requires emacs in order to function and yasr gets its console data by opening a pseudoterminal and running a shell in it, which can't be done until the user is already logged in. Plus, using yasr is like using speakup with the cursoring turned off. It can really be a pain to navigate around the console sometimes. Take it from an avid speakup user, both with hardware speech on one computer and software speech on the other, I wouldn't want to use anything else for console speech. I just think it would be appropriate to have a similar screen reader with all the functionality of Speakup without having to recompile my kernel to get it. And it would also be nice to be able to run the same screen reader on other operating systems such as FreeBSD without having to use 2 computers. Hope this explains things more clearly, Lorenzo - -- Living your life is a task so difficult, it has never been attempted before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQKEGG9IpekrhBfIRAkZ5AJ9TLhzRKAKOY9ihiYL+HpYwZvFtnwCfYVnt hTO5tmy1j7dgRNNyEEKCdgA= =8zhH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: Speakup in user space, why or why not? ` Gregory Nowak ` Garrett Klein @ ` Sina Bahram 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Sina Bahram @ UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.' Hi Greg, *smile*, thanks for the company line, ... So, no seriously, I'm not kidding, *grin* Yes, I know I can do it that way ... In fact, I am doing it that way, but it doesn't answer the question. Thanks for the response, and the smile, though. Take care, Sina -----Original Message----- From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Gregory Nowak Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:35 PM To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. Subject: Re: Speakup in user space, why or why not? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:03:37PM -0400, Sina Bahram wrote: > For example, I want to learn FreeBSD, because a friend of mine has > been telling me all about it, and I'd like to play around with it. > I would, of course, like to use speakup with it. Could this be possible? Yes, it could. Netbsd, and probably freebsd as well allows you to install the system via a serial console. Once that's done, you can use ssh on a speakup-enabled gnu/linux system to access your freebsd box, thus being able to use speakup in freebsd (grin). Seriously though, yes, I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but not having speakup run in user space is not a big obstacle to using freebsd, provided that you have at least 2 computers that you can use, one to run gnu/linux, and the other to run freebsd. Greg - -- web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc skype: gregn1 (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first) - -- Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQChA7s9z/XlyUyARAlerAKC3g169ihiQ6gvZMxYtzY8dKZXdjACeMPUr 5UYqwQCpojXSeZ7bZuPPj1Y= =GirF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@braille.uwo.ca http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~ UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
Speakup in user space, why or why not? Sina Bahram
` Gregory Nowak
` Garrett Klein
` Sina Bahram
` Janina Sajka
` Sina Bahram
` Janina Sajka
` Kenny Hitt
` Sina Bahram
` Lorenzo Taylor
` Sina Bahram
` Gene Collins
` Sina Bahram
` Gene Collins
` Sina Bahram
` Scott Howell
` Charles Hallenbeck
` Sina Bahram
` ace
` Sina Bahram
` Sina Bahram
` Lorenzo Taylor
` Sina Bahram
` Luke Yelavich
` Jim Grimsby
` Sina Bahram
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).