Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gaijin]

	So, which synthesizer works with speakup these days.  It sounds
like my LiteTalk serial and Mike's Apollo are no longer viable, and the 
DecTalk still requires special software to work.  Which model out there
still works without a hitch, or which synthesizer is Kirk using?  I
figure if something crops up with Kirk's synthesizer, I figure it'll be
the first one to get the "Oops!  Better not do that," treatment.  Anyone
know which squeaky wheels are getting the grease, or is speakup
gradually losing it's "from power-up to shutdown" capability with the
software synth?  I have enough set aside to get another synthesizer, and
would rather drop the LiteTalk.  Maybe then I can work with the newer
kernels.  How about it, Kirk?  Which hardware synthesizer do you use?

			Michael

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Nick Stockton]

If you want a new hardware synth, your choices are: the DoubleTalk LT for 
$200, the TrippleTalk USB for $500 or the DecTalk USB for $700.
The DoubleTalk and TrippleTalk both use the same RC8650 chipset and they 
should sound like your LiteTalk.
Since speakup doesn't support USB connections to the synth, if you get a 
TrippleTalk USB or DecTalk USB you will need to run the synth in serial mode 
and connect it to the computer using a serial cable.
I wouldn't go with the DecTalk USB unless you really like DecTalk speech. 
The DecTalk is very pricy and the DoubleTalk and TrippleTalk synths are more 
responsive and tend to be better supported by speakup.
Kerk will have to comment here but I think I remember him saying he was 
using a TrippleTalk.

Nick Stockton
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gaijin" <gaijin@clearwire.net>
To: "SpeakUP Mailing List" <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?


> So, which synthesizer works with speakup these days.  It sounds
> like my LiteTalk serial and Mike's Apollo are no longer viable, and the
> DecTalk still requires special software to work.  Which model out there
> still works without a hitch, or which synthesizer is Kirk using?  I
> figure if something crops up with Kirk's synthesizer, I figure it'll be
> the first one to get the "Oops!  Better not do that," treatment.  Anyone
> know which squeaky wheels are getting the grease, or is speakup
> gradually losing it's "from power-up to shutdown" capability with the
> software synth?  I have enough set aside to get another synthesizer, and
> would rather drop the LiteTalk.  Maybe then I can work with the newer
> kernels.  How about it, Kirk?  Which hardware synthesizer do you use?
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature database 3994 (20090407) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> 

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gaijin]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:46:35PM -0700, Nick Stockton wrote:
> Since speakup doesn't support USB connections to the synth, if you get a  

Yeah, I was thinking about a USB model that might get support in the
future  Thank you.  The information is a lot of help.

			Michael

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Kirk Reiser]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Gaijin wrote:

> 	So, which synthesizer works with speakup these days.  It sounds
> like my LiteTalk serial and Mike's Apollo are no longer viable, and the
> DecTalk still requires special software to work.  Which model out there
> still works without a hitch, or which synthesizer is Kirk using?  I
> figure if something crops up with Kirk's synthesizer, I figure it'll be
> the first one to get the "Oops!  Better not do that," treatment.  Anyone
> know which squeaky wheels are getting the grease, or is speakup
> gradually losing it's "from power-up to shutdown" capability with the
> software synth?  I have enough set aside to get another synthesizer, and
> would rather drop the LiteTalk.  Maybe then I can work with the newer
> kernels.  How about it, Kirk?  Which hardware synthesizer do you use?

Well, the fact seems to be that I am using espeakup almost a hundred
percent of the time.  When I do use a hardware synth I have an old
LiteTalk and a serial TripleTalk.  However since William and I got
the espeakup working reliably I use it almost exclusively.

Even with a hardware synth we have nowhere near a power-up to shutdown
solution like we used to have.  From that perspective speakup is a
very sad distant relation to it's earlier self.  If we were to go back
and include that capability we would probably lose the in-roads we've
made into being made available on many distributions and tolerance to
the linux kernel community.

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

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[John covici]

Well, for my money, I wish you would do something like that -- sure
its nice to have the whole thing as modules, but when its built-in
there ought to be some finegling we can do.

on Monday 04/13/2009 Kirk Reiser(kirk@braille.uwo.ca) wrote
 > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Gaijin wrote:
 > 
 > > 	So, which synthesizer works with speakup these days.  It sounds
 > > like my LiteTalk serial and Mike's Apollo are no longer viable, and the
 > > DecTalk still requires special software to work.  Which model out there
 > > still works without a hitch, or which synthesizer is Kirk using?  I
 > > figure if something crops up with Kirk's synthesizer, I figure it'll be
 > > the first one to get the "Oops!  Better not do that," treatment.  Anyone
 > > know which squeaky wheels are getting the grease, or is speakup
 > > gradually losing it's "from power-up to shutdown" capability with the
 > > software synth?  I have enough set aside to get another synthesizer, and
 > > would rather drop the LiteTalk.  Maybe then I can work with the newer
 > > kernels.  How about it, Kirk?  Which hardware synthesizer do you use?
 > 
 > Well, the fact seems to be that I am using espeakup almost a hundred
 > percent of the time.  When I do use a hardware synth I have an old
 > LiteTalk and a serial TripleTalk.  However since William and I got
 > the espeakup working reliably I use it almost exclusively.
 > 
 > Even with a hardware synth we have nowhere near a power-up to shutdown
 > solution like we used to have.  From that perspective speakup is a
 > very sad distant relation to it's earlier self.  If we were to go back
 > and include that capability we would probably lose the in-roads we've
 > made into being made available on many distributions and tolerance to
 > the linux kernel community.
 > 
 >    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

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

RE: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[al Sten-Clanton]

"Even with a hardware synth we have nowhere near a power-up to shutdown
solution like we used to have.  From that perspective speakup is a very sad
distant relation to it's earlier self.  If we were to go back and include
that capability we would probably lose the in-roads we've made into being
made available on many distributions and tolerance to the linux kernel
community."

What's with these kernel geeks?  Is there some legitimate technical reason
why this is true, or is this entirely or mostly a case of inflexible but
largely arbitrary design standards?  Most people here know that there have
been several speakup-modified versions of Fedora, though, sadly, not created
by the Fedora folks in the ordinary course of their work.  GRML had speakup
available early in the boot process for some time, and apparently will
again.  Slackware's had a speakup-modified kernel for a while, it seems.  I
gather that Ubuntu once had speakup, and that Gentoo had it and may have it
now.  Does anybody here know what the *real* deal is with not making it a
regular part of the kernel, as visual access and a great many things are?  

Yes, I know these issues have been raised here before, but I don't think
anybody from anywhere has made a technical case that speakup is somehow
fundamentally different from the great number of things that the kernel has
come to include one way or another.  So far, it seems to me that the real
argument is "We don't want to.  You blinks don't count that much."

Is this all or mostly wrong?  If so, is there something I can read that will
explain why, something in plain enough English that a person who knows
little about the kernel can understand?  

I want it clear that I appreciate greatly the work some people are doing to
make speakup more available, like the Debian folks and Chris Brannon.  Of
course, I've long been grateful for Bill Acker's and Janina Sajka's work,
which gave me my path into Linux.  I understand Kirk's comment quoted above
to suggest that the speakup that is being made more available has
limitations that earlier version didn't have, though, and that the fault
lies where the kernel buck stops.  If I'm wrong, please correct my
information; if I'm right, then the next turkey we cook in this house will
be named Kernel Bummer or something.

Al

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 08:47:51AM -0400, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> Even with a hardware synth we have nowhere near a power-up to shutdown
> solution like we used to have.

I must say I was surprised when I read that. I've been using speakup
since the 0.09 days, and haven't noticed any less bootup, or shutdown
messages than before. I will admit though that I don't follow bootup
and shutdown messages from start to finish, unless I have a specific
reason to do so. As far as I know, having speakup and my synth driver
built into the kernel, still gives me speech from what sounds like
early on in the boot process, until the machine powers off, just like
it always used to, or so it has seemed to me up until now. So, what
have I overlooked, and am not aware of?

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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknjgv8ACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyDF9wCggqoHzNhKsyiwFx4E4TS2wZ+t
AOIAn295ophWbUCIRmiuqXqUfPsOI86k
=Yo3v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[William Hubbs]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:22:56AM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 08:47:51AM -0400, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> > Even with a hardware synth we have nowhere near a power-up to shutdown
> > solution like we used to have.
> 
> I must say I was surprised when I read that. I've been using speakup
> since the 0.09 days, and haven't noticed any less bootup, or shutdown
> messages than before. I will admit though that I don't follow bootup
> and shutdown messages from start to finish, unless I have a specific
> reason to do so. As far as I know, having speakup and my synth driver
> built into the kernel, still gives me speech from what sounds like
> early on in the boot process, until the machine powers off, just like
> it always used to, or so it has seemed to me up until now. So, what
> have I overlooked, and am not aware of?

Greg,

you are correct about having speakup and the synth driver built in
giving you speech early in the boot process.  However, it is not as
early as it was with the older kernels, and I personally do not know of
a way that we will be able to come up that early at this point.

We made this change because of a bug that would cause the serial ports
that speakup was not using to be numbered incorrectly, for example, if
your synthesizer was on ttyS0 and you started speakup built in, ttyS1
would be renumbered to ttyS0, but it would not be renumbered if you did
not start speakup or if it was not built in.  This was caused because
speakup was being started before the kernel's serial driver.

For newer kernels (I believe 2.6.26 or later when the accessibility
drivers first appeared), we are installing as an accessibility driver if
you build speakup into the kernel, and we are starting late enough that
this is not an issue.

Let me know if that makes sense.

William

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[John covici]

Could not you have an option to accept that change of numbering, and
let the user decide whether he wants that sort of thing?  I thought
there were other issues involved.  Since I always built the kernels
the same I got used to the numbering and let it go -- or what I was
thinging of was to have theearly boot work as before and do a
switcheru once the serial driver came up so the speakup port would get
its number again.  Does that make any sense?


on Monday 04/13/2009 William Hubbs(w.d.hubbs@gmail.com) wrote
 > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:22:56AM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote:
 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 > > Hash: SHA1
 > > 
 > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 08:47:51AM -0400, Kirk Reiser wrote:
 > > > Even with a hardware synth we have nowhere near a power-up to shutdown
 > > > solution like we used to have.
 > > 
 > > I must say I was surprised when I read that. I've been using speakup
 > > since the 0.09 days, and haven't noticed any less bootup, or shutdown
 > > messages than before. I will admit though that I don't follow bootup
 > > and shutdown messages from start to finish, unless I have a specific
 > > reason to do so. As far as I know, having speakup and my synth driver
 > > built into the kernel, still gives me speech from what sounds like
 > > early on in the boot process, until the machine powers off, just like
 > > it always used to, or so it has seemed to me up until now. So, what
 > > have I overlooked, and am not aware of?
 > 
 > Greg,
 > 
 > you are correct about having speakup and the synth driver built in
 > giving you speech early in the boot process.  However, it is not as
 > early as it was with the older kernels, and I personally do not know of
 > a way that we will be able to come up that early at this point.
 > 
 > We made this change because of a bug that would cause the serial ports
 > that speakup was not using to be numbered incorrectly, for example, if
 > your synthesizer was on ttyS0 and you started speakup built in, ttyS1
 > would be renumbered to ttyS0, but it would not be renumbered if you did
 > not start speakup or if it was not built in.  This was caused because
 > speakup was being started before the kernel's serial driver.
 > 
 > For newer kernels (I believe 2.6.26 or later when the accessibility
 > drivers first appeared), we are installing as an accessibility driver if
 > you build speakup into the kernel, and we are starting late enough that
 > this is not an issue.
 > 
 > Let me know if that makes sense.
 > 
 > William
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Speakup mailing list
 > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

William,

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 04:13:09PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Let me know if that makes sense.

Yes, it does, thanks. This makes me wonder something else though. How
much later is speakup coming up than it used to in the old days? What
I mean is how much of the boot messages aren't we getting now, as
opposed to what we got in the old days? This question is purely
academic, since we still get speakup early enough to troubleshoot
kernel panics and so on, but I'm curious nevertheless. Looking at
dmesg, I see speakup being initialized somewhere after the
keyboard/mouse controller, and right before the root fs is mounted. If
memory serves, I seem to remember speakup coming up in the old days
well before the ide controller, or whatever controller one has. Is
that about right? If so, then it seems like we are missing quite a
bit, which I guess means that among other things, speakup couldn't be
used for kernel hacking as it now stands. Thanks.

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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknjs6wACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyDeAwCdFr0G9WjRXp00BM7eoTFD0Y2b
nrkAn2MQ9gcTXcE66BApn6nE8QU1/qEL
=Q6Wp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[William Hubbs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi John,

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:44:17PM -0400, John covici wrote:
> Could not you have an option to accept that change of numbering, and
> let the user decide whether he wants that sort of thing?  I thought
> there were other issues involved.  Since I always built the kernels
> the same I got used to the numbering and let it go -- or what I was
> thinging of was to have theearly boot work as before and do a
> switcheru once the serial driver came up so the speakup port would get
> its number again.  Does that make any sense?

Yes, it does make sense, but the issue is not just that the number is
different.  If speakup grabs the first port first, the kernel serial driver
does not see the port at all; that is why the second port gets numbered
ttyS0.  So, the kernel only sees one port until you reboot and do not
start speakup, even if you disable the synth in speakup.

William

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknjxnoACgkQblQW9DDEZThu7ACeLZE3Vupdk1mYwT3fHN8kIo/t
14UAnjUjTcydWRdLh3lKjo4g5l67NKMn
=lBYv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[John covici]

What I was thinking was do the speakup grab to get the early boot, and
then release the port and grab it in the way you do now once the
serial driver is initialized.

on Monday 04/13/2009 William Hubbs(w.d.hubbs@gmail.com) wrote
 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 > Hash: SHA1
 > 
 > Hi John,
 > 
 > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:44:17PM -0400, John covici wrote:
 > > Could not you have an option to accept that change of numbering, and
 > > let the user decide whether he wants that sort of thing?  I thought
 > > there were other issues involved.  Since I always built the kernels
 > > the same I got used to the numbering and let it go -- or what I was
 > > thinging of was to have theearly boot work as before and do a
 > > switcheru once the serial driver came up so the speakup port would get
 > > its number again.  Does that make any sense?
 > 
 > Yes, it does make sense, but the issue is not just that the number is
 > different.  If speakup grabs the first port first, the kernel serial driver
 > does not see the port at all; that is why the second port gets numbered
 > ttyS0.  So, the kernel only sees one port until you reboot and do not
 > start speakup, even if you disable the synth in speakup.
 > 
 > William
 > 
 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 > Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
 > 
 > iEYEARECAAYFAknjxnoACgkQblQW9DDEZThu7ACeLZE3Vupdk1mYwT3fHN8kIo/t
 > 14UAnjUjTcydWRdLh3lKjo4g5l67NKMn
 > =lBYv
 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 > _______________________________________________
 > Speakup mailing list
 > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gaijin]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 04:13:09PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> you are correct about having speakup and the synth driver built in
> giving you speech early in the boot process.  However, it is not as
> early as it was with the older kernels, and I personally do not know of
> a way that we will be able to come up that early at this point.

	As long as it comes up speaking before where the drives are
fsck'ed, so if there is something wrong detected, it can be heard.
That's always been my own main worry.

			Michael

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[William Hubbs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:50:37PM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> Yes, it does, thanks. This makes me wonder something else though. How
> much later is speakup coming up than it used to in the old days? What
> I mean is how much of the boot messages aren't we getting now, as
> opposed to what we got in the old days? This question is purely
> academic, since we still get speakup early enough to troubleshoot
> kernel panics and so on, but I'm curious nevertheless. Looking at
> dmesg, I see speakup being initialized somewhere after the
> keyboard/mouse controller, and right before the root fs is mounted. If
> memory serves, I seem to remember speakup coming up in the old days
> well before the ide controller, or whatever controller one has. Is
> that about right? If so, then it seems like we are missing quite a
> bit, which I guess means that among other things, speakup couldn't be
> used for kernel hacking as it now stands. Thanks.

Honestly, I don't really remember how early it came up back then.

The question about whether we could do kernel hacking with speakup is an
interesting question.  There are things like qemu or user-mode linux,
but I haven't worked with them so  I can't really comment about them.
Could we use something like that?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknmYGQACgkQblQW9DDEZTitwACgo5ZOxNFYQp2dJbnfJBs14whn
7/0AoKIeWtYk3Eruw5QXTuoM940j3bHb
=29W6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Chris Brannon]

William Hubbs wrote:
> The question about whether we could do kernel hacking with speakup is an
> interesting question.  There are things like qemu or user-mode linux,
> but I haven't worked with them so  I can't really comment about them.
> Could we use something like that?

I haven't had any luck with qemu or virtual box.
I don't run any sort of X environment over here, and they want it.
I do use the bochs emulator.  It has a "term" output mode,
which works well with a text console.
Bochs can run Linux, but it takes a long time to boot with the average live CD.
This emulator is a good fit for people who are experimenting with small
operating systems.  Want to hack on your very own toy kernel?  Bochs is
definitely the ticket.

User-mode Linux works beautifully.  Grab a kernel source tree, and go through
the usual compilation process, remembering to specify ARCH=um
for all of the invocations of the make command.
You'll need a filesystem to use with it.  I have one that contains a 
minimal ArchLinux installation.  User-mode Linux can use the virtual consoles
of the host, so it is well-suited to Speakup.

Another possibility for kernel hacking is that old stand-by, the serial
console.

-- Chris

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 05:32:04PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> The question about whether we could do kernel hacking with speakup is an
> interesting question.  There are things like qemu or user-mode linux,
> but I haven't worked with them so  I can't really comment about them.
> Could we use something like that?

I was thinking in terms of doing kernel hacking on native hardware,
however you're right that there are other alternatives here, including
a serial console on native hardware perhaps. I'm not
sure about qemu, it would depend on whether qemu can run using
a text interface, where speakup on the host system could read
screen output, as is the case with bochs, and dosemu. Kernel hacking could
definitely be done using user-mode linux, with speakup reading the
screen on the host system, however, user-mode linux isn't strictly the
same as a regular linux kernel, so it would depend on what kind of
hacking one wants to do.

I wasn't asking because I want to hack the kernel, not right now
anyway, but as a matter of clarification. Thanks.

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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknmZ4YACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyASZQCg3733tWxbDyca0kgMcTKByDPM
5o0An3ia3mp5g2WCgiiOh5jN4yT4lMis
=Kp6W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 06:00:04PM -0500, Chris Brannon wrote:
> I haven't had any luck with qemu or virtual box.
> I don't run any sort of X environment over here, and they want it.

Virtualbox doesn't strictly require X, since it can be used using the
vboxheadless interface. There was a bug report a while back in the
virtualbox bug tracking system, and the dependency for X when building
from source was removed as far as I know. I do see that debian's
virtualbox-ose package depends on X, and my guess is that it strictly
shouldn't, though I could see why it does, since most people probably
don't want to run using vboxheadless, in which case you do need X. If
you find that your distribution's virtualbox package depends on X, try
grabbing the tarball from virtualbox.org, and building from
source. Note though that I haven't yet used virtualbox on a GNU/Linux
host as of now, so this is based only on what I read on the vbox-users
list, and I do stand to be corrected.

> Bochs can run Linux, but it takes a long time to boot with the average live CD.
> This emulator is a good fit for people who are experimenting with small
> operating systems.  Want to hack on your very own toy kernel?  Bochs is
> definitely the ticket.

It's also good for people who want to run x86 software, (including M$
windows), on a non-x86 architecture, such as the old M68K macs
(assuming they're powerful enough to run bochs), or a Sun spark
machine, to name a couple, since bochs is a true emulator, and not a hypervisor.

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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknmbDgACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyArHQCbBb4a39xkLofOmi4Ui5as4G4e
zOIAn2ifYlT0sIhw0Bdfmajy/bieOkQG
=rgum
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Chris Brannon]

Gregory Nowak wrote:
> Virtualbox doesn't strictly require X, since it can be used using the
> vboxheadless interface.

True, but isn't the headless interface only useful for controlling
Virtual Box?  As far as I can tell, you need X if you want output from
the console of the emulated system.
A serial console is probably still an option.
Bochs can direct serial I/O to a pseudo-terminal, and I've used the socat
utility to service the host end of the emulated serial line.
In other words, I don't need serial hardware in order to use the serial
console of a virtual system.
I bet Virtual Box will allow something similar.

Regarding User-Mode Linux, there are definitely kernel projects for which it
isn't suitable.

-- Chris

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:26:04PM -0500, Chris Brannon wrote:
> True, but isn't the headless interface only useful for controlling
> Virtual Box?  As far as I can tell, you need X if you want output from
> the console of the emulated system.

No, what you're thinking of is vboxmanage, which is used to control
virtualbox. Vboxheadless is just that, a headless interface to the
virtual machine, which lets you connect to the first physical console
inside the system via vrdp on tcp 3389, or you can disable the vrdp
option when running vboxheadless, and connect to the guest via ssh, if
the guest has a configured ssh server. Also, note that the vrdp server
I'm talking about here is provided by vboxheadless, and not a vrdp
server which might be running on a windows guest, though you could use
that too, if you wanted.

> A serial console is probably still an option.
> Bochs can direct serial I/O to a pseudo-terminal, and I've used the socat
> utility to service the host end of the emulated serial line.
> In other words, I don't need serial hardware in order to use the serial
> console of a virtual system.
> I bet Virtual Box will allow something similar.

Yes, it does.

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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknmm4AACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyAnPgCdGlnzQe9dnvQt2AEai59uOAz/
rKEAn0BCvj8JpUipZjLpiE5XFqdekkKm
=4ZII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Alex Snow]

The issue with vboxheadless is to interact at all with your OS (unless you're doing it 
over ssh or something) you need to connect with an rdp client, which raises its own 
accessibility issues.  I've successfully ran virtualbox started from a gnome session, 
and it worked well from what I remember, other then all the GUI stuff being inaccessible 
which really isn't a big deal.  Qemu with the curses patch is another option, and would 
most likely outperform bochs.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:22:32PM -0700, Gregory Nowak 
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 06:00:04PM -0500, Chris Brannon wrote:
> > I haven't had any luck with qemu or virtual box.
> > I don't run any sort of X environment over here, and they want it.
> 
> Virtualbox doesn't strictly require X, since it can be used using the
> vboxheadless interface. There was a bug report a while back in the
> virtualbox bug tracking system, and the dependency for X when building
> from source was removed as far as I know. I do see that debian's
> virtualbox-ose package depends on X, and my guess is that it strictly
> shouldn't, though I could see why it does, since most people probably
> don't want to run using vboxheadless, in which case you do need X. If
> you find that your distribution's virtualbox package depends on X, try
> grabbing the tarball from virtualbox.org, and building from
> source. Note though that I haven't yet used virtualbox on a GNU/Linux
> host as of now, so this is based only on what I read on the vbox-users
> list, and I do stand to be corrected.
> 
> > Bochs can run Linux, but it takes a long time to boot with the average live CD.
> > This emulator is a good fit for people who are experimenting with small
> > operating systems.  Want to hack on your very own toy kernel?  Bochs is
> > definitely the ticket.
> 
> It's also good for people who want to run x86 software, (including M$
> windows), on a non-x86 architecture, such as the old M68K macs
> (assuming they're powerful enough to run bochs), or a Sun spark
> machine, to name a couple, since bochs is a true emulator, and not a hypervisor.
> 
> 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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAknmbDgACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyArHQCbBb4a39xkLofOmi4Ui5as4G4e
> zOIAn2ifYlT0sIhw0Bdfmajy/bieOkQG
> =rgum
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
lp1 on fire
	-- One of the more obfuscated kernel messages

virtualization, was: Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:54:28PM -0400, Alex Snow wrote:
> The issue with vboxheadless is to interact at all with your OS (unless you're doing it 
> over ssh or something) you need to connect with an rdp client, which raises its own 
> accessibility issues.

What kind of issues are you thinking of? I'll admit that in the case
of windows guests, I only used wineyes over rdp, but it worked very
well. In the case of gnu/linux guests, in the days before espeakup,
using speech-dispatcher/speechd-up/espeak over rdp did very nicely
too. It was actually kind of funny in a way to be sitting in front of
a windows machine, and hearing espeak, while using speakup's
navigation commands to read the screen. I can't speak for GNU/Linux
rdp clients, since I never tried any.

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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknmurAACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyB4iwCfYe56IJEvm0knZiBEiUmIwX23
KmkAnjquhQdCFKNjDDlvidtY3UMV9vs0
=xiYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: virtualization, was: Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Alex Snow]

Ah, I hadn't realised that speech software could be used over RDP...had forgotten that 
it also carries audio.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:57:20PM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:54:28PM -0400, Alex Snow wrote:
> > The issue with vboxheadless is to interact at all with your OS (unless you're doing it 
> > over ssh or something) you need to connect with an rdp client, which raises its own 
> > accessibility issues.
> 
> What kind of issues are you thinking of? I'll admit that in the case
> of windows guests, I only used wineyes over rdp, but it worked very
> well. In the case of gnu/linux guests, in the days before espeakup,
> using speech-dispatcher/speechd-up/espeak over rdp did very nicely
> too. It was actually kind of funny in a way to be sitting in front of
> a windows machine, and hearing espeak, while using speakup's
> navigation commands to read the screen. I can't speak for GNU/Linux
> rdp clients, since I never tried any.
> 
> 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 v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAknmurAACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyB4iwCfYe56IJEvm0knZiBEiUmIwX23
> KmkAnjquhQdCFKNjDDlvidtY3UMV9vs0
> =xiYO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Intel engineering seem to have misheard Intel marketing strategy.  The
phrase was "Divide and conquer" not "Divide and cock up"
	-- Alan Cox, iialan@www.linux.org.uk

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Garrett Klein]

Get a DoubleTalk LT, available brand new online for $199.

Garrett

Gaijin wrote:
> 	So, which synthesizer works with speakup these days.  It sounds
> like my LiteTalk serial and Mike's Apollo are no longer viable, and the 
> DecTalk still requires special software to work.  Which model out there
> still works without a hitch, or which synthesizer is Kirk using?  I
> figure if something crops up with Kirk's synthesizer, I figure it'll be
> the first one to get the "Oops!  Better not do that," treatment.  Anyone
> know which squeaky wheels are getting the grease, or is speakup
> gradually losing it's "from power-up to shutdown" capability with the
> software synth?  I have enough set aside to get another synthesizer, and
> would rather drop the LiteTalk.  Maybe then I can work with the newer
> kernels.  How about it, Kirk?  Which hardware synthesizer do you use?
> 
> 			Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Janina Sajka]

This is an old thread, sorry. I'm just now catching up on some lists ...

I have both Doubletalk and Tripletalk synths here. Both used to work as
serial synths with Speakup, but that is no longer the case. I don't
recall when my Tripletalk stopped working, but it no longer does. I can
echo strings to it just fine, but it doesn't respond to Speakup. Swap in
the Doubletalk and everything works as expected.

So, definitely get the Doubletalk.

Janina

Garrett Klein writes:
> Get a DoubleTalk LT, available brand new online for $199.
> 
> Garrett
> 
> Gaijin wrote:
> > 	So, which synthesizer works with speakup these days.  It sounds
> > like my LiteTalk serial and Mike's Apollo are no longer viable, and the 
> > DecTalk still requires special software to work.  Which model out there
> > still works without a hitch, or which synthesizer is Kirk using?  I
> > figure if something crops up with Kirk's synthesizer, I figure it'll be
> > the first one to get the "Oops!  Better not do that," treatment.  Anyone
> > know which squeaky wheels are getting the grease, or is speakup
> > gradually losing it's "from power-up to shutdown" capability with the
> > software synth?  I have enough set aside to get another synthesizer, and
> > would rather drop the LiteTalk.  Maybe then I can work with the newer
> > kernels.  How about it, Kirk?  Which hardware synthesizer do you use?
> > 
> > 			Michael
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:	+1.202.595.7777;
		sip:janina@CapitalAccessibility.Com
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC	http://CapitalAccessibility.Com

Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada
Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Gaijin]

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:22:06AM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> I have both Doubletalk and Tripletalk synths here. Both used to work as
> serial synths with Speakup, but that is no longer the case. 

	Don't toss it out.  The Jupiter screen reader  can fire text to
it in plaintext, so it may still work as a backup using the Jupiter
patch and module.

			Michael

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[William Hubbs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:22:06AM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> This is an old thread, sorry. I'm just now catching up on some lists ...
> 
> I have both Doubletalk and Tripletalk synths here. Both used to work as
> serial synths with Speakup, but that is no longer the case. I don't
> recall when my Tripletalk stopped working, but it no longer does. I can
> echo strings to it just fine, but it doesn't respond to Speakup. Swap in
> the Doubletalk and everything works as expected.
 
 That's really strange, I have a trippletalk, and it works fine.

 Yours doesn't respond at all to the latest speakup?

 William

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkodxtwACgkQblQW9DDEZTgIHgCgu1W1NTPqIJUuEzNVOBOJEtoT
uT0An0URvbnYJ81BLp3sTWJIMsX6DCc3
=EQwD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Which hardware synthesizer to buy?

[Tony Baechler]

I'm sorry to be dense here, but what's the problem with the Trippletalk? 
I'm using both a Doubletalk LT and Trippletalk also on different 
machines and both work great. I recently upgraded to the latest Speakup 
from git on the machine running the Trippletalk and it kept on talking 
just fine. I've actually had more problems with the machine running the 
Doubletalk because the Speakup is older and still tries to probe for the 
synthesizer. Maybe I'm lucky and the breakage happened after the git 
version that I'm running, but it's within the last couple months. I can 
get the exact date if it matters. I'm running 64-bit Debian Lenny with a 
few packages from testing if that makes any difference. I'm going to try 
grml 2008.11 today and see what happens, but I'm not anticipating a 
problem. The only other thing I can add is that my Trippletalk is 
somewhat old, so perhaps it has older ROM firmware. I think Speakup says 
it's version 2.8. The Doubletalk LT is 5.20.

Janina Sajka wrote:
> I have both Doubletalk and Tripletalk synths here. Both used to work as
> serial synths with Speakup, but that is no longer the case. I don't
> recall when my Tripletalk stopped working, but it no longer does. I can
> echo strings to it just fine, but it doesn't respond to Speakup. Swap in
> the Doubletalk and everything works as expected.
>
> So, definitely get the Doubletalk.
>