My Views Regarding Kernel Vs. Userspace

My Views Regarding Kernel Vs. Userspace

[ace]

Hello all,

I have some opinions and a question.  First, I agree with Greg that we don't 
absolutely need to hear every single boot message.  I also agree that some 
of us do, however.  For instance, John (I believe it was) would be someone 
who these messages would benefit as he is a Linux administrator.  I agree 
that there are ways around the problem of not hearing boot messages but if I 
am administering something I like to know that I have access to the boot 
process.  So, in a way, it's kind of a security thing.  Also, it's just the 
idea of it.  Sighted people have been able to see boot messages forever  and 
now that we as blind people can, it is not easy to give up this ability.  I 
suppose, however, for the typical user, missing a few boot messages wouldn't 
hurt.

Now, to my question.  If Speakup were to run in userspace, would it be able 
to start before the init program?  The reason I ask is because, on my LFS 
system, I totally stripped the SystemV scripts that came with it and wrote 
my own.  Well, I forgot to make rc.sysinit (all of the mount commands, etc) 
executable.  This rendered my system unbootable; however, Speakup was to the 
rescue.  It told me that it could not run rc.sysinit because it was not 
executable and it gave me a few other errors.  So, after a few boots into 
the GRML CD, editing the file, and restarting, I got it fixed.  This is 
because Speakup was able to read to me the boot messages.  So, again, if 
Speakup were in userspace, what would I have done?  Would I not be left in 
the cold?

Thanks,
Robby 

Re: My Views Regarding Kernel Vs. Userspace

[Kenny Hitt]

Hi.

Your problem is a good argument for keeping speakup in kernel space.
If you had been running a user space screen reader, you wouldn't have known about your problem since the screen 
reader would never have been started.

          Kenny

Re: My Views Regarding Kernel Vs. Userspace

[Gene Collins]

Hi Ace!  No Speakup in user space wouldn't have been able to help you
solve your problem.  In my not so humble opinion, those who are whining
about speakup not needing to be in user space are just full of it and
don't have the technical knowledge to express such an opinion.  Most of
them still think from a Windows mind set where they are used to being
told, "no, we can't give you access to that."  I defy a windows user to
do a full Windows install from scratch without sighted assistence. 
Sure, if someone puts together a kick start script, you can do an
unattended install, but it ain't simple.  With Speakup built into the
kernel, and a good hardware synth, I can sit down at any computer and do
an out of the box install, with no sighted assistence at all.

In fact, just yesterday, I had a situation where I was testing a new
kernel, and the system wasn't finding the drive to mount.  If speakup
hadn't have been in the kernel, there wouldn't have been any way for me
to know what was going on without sighted assistance.  It's a bit like
asking a sighted person to use a computer with no monitor attached,
a really stupid idea.  The problem with user space programs is that
everything has to go well during the boot process before the user space
screen reader can start.  And no matter how soon you get it to start
during the boot  process, if the drive isn't mounted, then the screen
reader can't start.  And yes, I know about ram disks and initrd and all
that stuff.  The trouble is, you have to know you are going to need that
stuff in advance.  If the screen reader is in the kernel, and you want
to skip all the boot messages, no problem.  But if it's in user space,
and you can't get to user space to start it, you've got a problem, and a
most irritating one at that.  In my opinion, nontechnical users should
just shut up about whether sspeakup belongs in the kernel, because they
neither have the knowledge, nor the technical understanding to express a
useful opinion.  Unknowledgeable speculation is just that, and not
helpful at all.  Fortunately the uninformed don't get a vote on this. 
Kirk has no plans to move Speakup to user space, so that should be the
end of the discussion.  If I've offended some folks here, sorry, but
they've offended me by remaining uninformed, and showing their ignorance
by expressing an opinion which in my view, they are not qualified to
express.  I sincerely hope this stupid topic will go away.  Those who
need boot up info can get it with speakup, and those who don't can just
ignore it, and quit bitching because those of us who do need access
insist on having it.

Gene

Re: My Views Regarding Kernel Vs. Userspace

[John Heim]

From: "Gene Collins" <collins@gene3.ait.iastate.edu>
> Hi Ace!  No Speakup in user space wouldn't have been able to help you
> solve your problem.  In my not so humble opinion, those who are whining
> about speakup not needing to be in user space are just full of it and
> don't have the technical knowledge to express such an opinion.  Most of
> them still think from a Windows mind set where they are used to being
> told, "no, we can't give you access to that."

That is not true. If anything, the opposite is closer to the truth. Most of 
the people who think speakup could reside entirely in user space are so 
knowledgable that they don't need to see boot messages. There are other ways 
of figuring things out like examining the logs.

My opinion is that while it may be theoretically possible to get along 
without access to boot messages, it's not practical. Blind people already 
have enough trouble competing for jobs and  not having access to boot 
messages would be a significant  new hurdle to over come.


Also, to be fair, I don't think  anybody on this list argued that blind 
people don't really need access to boot messages except in terms of 
suggesting alternatives.   At least this is what I think the intention was. 
And, after all, that is useful information to have.