From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3CBDF1EF7BC; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu (mta1.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.23]) by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033D21EF7AF for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:32:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713E549CECD for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:32:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta1.math.wisc.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xYW3_lhhHiOi for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:32:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339FE49CE6B for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:32:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mta1.math.wisc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.0 required=6.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from mailhost.math.wisc.edu (erdos.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.25]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:32:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [144.92.166.19] (vv507j.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 310A242072A for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:32:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5436B890.9000803@math.wisc.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:32:16 -0500 From: "John G. Heim" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." Subject: Re: the push to get rid of CONFIG_VT in the kernel and the future of Speakup References: <87zjd64c16.fsf@mushroom.PK5001Z> <543593E4.5040400@gmail.com> <54359B9E.10203@verizon.net> <21407.1412799969@ccs.covici.com> <20141009021859.GA27091@gregn.net> <543696F6.7090109@math.wisc.edu> <87h9zd2u16.fsf@mushroom.PK5001Z> In-Reply-To: <87h9zd2u16.fsf@mushroom.PK5001Z> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 X-BeenThere: speakup@linux-speakup.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:32:28 -0000 On 10/09/14 09:32, Chris Brannon wrote: > "John G. Heim" writes: > >> Here at the University of Wisconsin, there >> are a lot of linux systems admin jobs. And for the majority of them, >> it would be a big problem if you couldn't access the boot messages. > > Is the serial console support not appropriate / acceptable? Well, I brought this up myself in another message. I would indeed consider it adequate ifa blind sys admin could get access to the boot messages via the serial console. But I'd like to know with absolute certainty that the proposed change to the linux kernel wouldn't also effect a serial console. I am not a kernel developer but it doesn't make sense to me that something that would force speakup out of kernel space wouldln't also force a serial console out of kernel space. In which case, how is it going to get boot messages? As a technical issue, what's the difference between speakup and a serial console? Why is one so bad and the other one okay? This is another example of some questions I asked on the kernel developers list and didn't get satisfactory answers. But I suspect that the answer is that the serial console was once in common use in the linux/unix community and speakup is not. Serial consoles are familiar and speakup is not.