a little sysadmin story

a little sysadmin story

[Deedra Waters]

 i was working at oregon state's open source lab and network admin
thing for a year and a half. Here's one situation.  i came across. Not
trying to antagonize anyone at all but here's what happened and this is
one reason why i dislike speakup in the kernel even though it's got a
lot of benifits.....Anyway......

I was working at the lab. Debian was having a problem with one of their
my machines. The machine had crashed so i went to the dmz to kick it and
try and help them figure out their problem. We were happily working on
the box an hour or so later when i hit a speakup bug. The kernel
panicked, and the box crashed. $debiandeveloper lost their changes to
some config files. The end result was the lab lost their access to the
debian machine. I had a similar problem on another client's box. end
result, they flipped had speakup pulled from their kernels and i wasn't
allowed to work on their boxes.

This is an extreme case, but it's also an important point in my concern.
-- 
Website: http://deedra.the-brannons.com
blog: http://deedra.the-brannons.com/blog

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Brian Buhrow]

	hello.  that's a powerful story and I certainly understand Oregon
State's position about not wanting Speakup in the kernels of their
production servers.  I can't tell from your story, but I hope you were able
to come to a compromise where they were willing to have you do sysadmin
work on their servers, but you agreed to be willing to work on machines
without Speakup in the kernel.  As a Unix admin who is blind, I can tell
you I've never worked with Linux kernels with Speakup on them in a
production environment, and I wouldn't want to, however, I feel perfectly
competent to build Linux machines and get them working reliably without
having to have Speakup in the final production version of the system.  Most
servers are accessed through the network and Speakup on them directly
affords, in my view, very little benefit but carries a lot of risk.  However,
as I said earlier, I hope for your sake, you were able to roll with their
position and continue providing valuable service, as well as gaining
valuable experience, despite the absence of Speakup.
-thanks
-Brian

On Oct 8,  4:16pm, Deedra Waters wrote:
} Subject: a little sysadmin story
} IGkgd2FzIHdvcmtpbmcgYXQgb3JlZ29uIHN0YXRlJ3Mgb3BlbiBzb3VyY2UgbGFiIGFuZCBuZXR3
} b3JrIGFkbWluCnRoaW5nIGZvciBhIHllYXIgYW5kIGEgaGFsZi4gSGVyZSdzIG9uZSBzaXR1YXRp
} b24uICBpIGNhbWUgYWNyb3NzLiBOb3QKdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGFudGFnb25pemUgYW55b25lIGF0IGFs
} bCBidXQgaGVyZSdzIHdoYXQgaGFwcGVuZWQgYW5kIHRoaXMgaXMKb25lIHJlYXNvbiB3aHkgaSBk
} aXNsaWtlIHNwZWFrdXAgaW4gdGhlIGtlcm5lbCBldmVuIHRob3VnaCBpdCdzIGdvdCBhCmxvdCBv
} ZiBiZW5pZml0cy4uLi4uQW55d2F5Li4uLi4uCgpJIHdhcyB3b3JraW5nIGF0IHRoZSBsYWIuIERl
} YmlhbiB3YXMgaGF2aW5nIGEgcHJvYmxlbSB3aXRoIG9uZSBvZiB0aGVpcgpteSBtYWNoaW5lcy4g
} VGhlIG1hY2hpbmUgaGFkIGNyYXNoZWQgc28gaSB3ZW50IHRvIHRoZSBkbXogdG8ga2ljayBpdCBh
} bmQKdHJ5IGFuZCBoZWxwIHRoZW0gZmlndXJlIG91dCB0aGVpciBwcm9ibGVtLiBXZSB3ZXJlIGhh
} cHBpbHkgd29ya2luZyBvbgp0aGUgYm94IGFuIGhvdXIgb3Igc28gbGF0ZXIgd2hlbiBpIGhpdCBh
} IHNwZWFrdXAgYnVnLiBUaGUga2VybmVsCnBhbmlja2VkLCBhbmQgdGhlIGJveCBjcmFzaGVkLiAk
} ZGViaWFuZGV2ZWxvcGVyIGxvc3QgdGhlaXIgY2hhbmdlcyB0bwpzb21lIGNvbmZpZyBmaWxlcy4g
} VGhlIGVuZCByZXN1bHQgd2FzIHRoZSBsYWIgbG9zdCB0aGVpciBhY2Nlc3MgdG8gdGhlCmRlYmlh
} biBtYWNoaW5lLiBJIGhhZCBhIHNpbWlsYXIgcHJvYmxlbSBvbiBhbm90aGVyIGNsaWVudCdzIGJv
} eC4gZW5kCnJlc3VsdCwgdGhleSBmbGlwcGVkIGhhZCBzcGVha3VwIHB1bGxlZCBmcm9tIHRoZWly
} IGtlcm5lbHMgYW5kIGkgd2Fzbid0CmFsbG93ZWQgdG8gd29yayBvbiB0aGVpciBib3hlcy4KClRo
} aXMgaXMgYW4gZXh0cmVtZSBjYXNlLCBidXQgaXQncyBhbHNvIGFuIGltcG9ydGFudCBwb2ludCBp
} biBteSBjb25jZXJuLgotLSAKV2Vic2l0ZTogaHR0cDovL2RlZWRyYS50aGUtYnJhbm5vbnMuY29t
} CmJsb2c6IGh0dHA6Ly9kZWVkcmEudGhlLWJyYW5ub25zLmNvbS9ibG9nCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19f
} X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpTcGVha3VwIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApT
} cGVha3VwQGxpbnV4LXNwZWFrdXAub3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9saW51eC1zcGVha3VwLm9yZy9jZ2ktYmlu
} L21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc3BlYWt1cAo=
>-- End of excerpt from Deedra Waters

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Deedra Waters]

Actually, i had left a couple months later to take a different job so it
did work out. it was rare that i actually needed speakup in that
environment as we'd started moving our machines to let clients admin
them through things like serial consoles and so on. i believe in one
case we had a couple machines hooked into one using a serial console
clients or  we would ssh into said machine and from there telnet into
$machinethatneedsmaintenence and it all worked out.
-- 
Website: http://deedra.the-brannons.com
blog: http://deedra.the-brannons.com/blog

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Janina Sajka]

Deedra,

How come they didn't blame their failure to back up their work? Is
Speakup the only possible kernel patch that can crash? Or cause mayhem?
No one else's tech could possibly do that?

I'm tired of blaming accessibility first.

Janina

Deedra Waters writes:
>  i was working at oregon state's open source lab and network admin
> thing for a year and a half. Here's one situation.  i came across. Not
> trying to antagonize anyone at all but here's what happened and this is
> one reason why i dislike speakup in the kernel even though it's got a
> lot of benifits.....Anyway......
> 
> I was working at the lab. Debian was having a problem with one of their
> my machines. The machine had crashed so i went to the dmz to kick it and
> try and help them figure out their problem. We were happily working on
> the box an hour or so later when i hit a speakup bug. The kernel
> panicked, and the box crashed. $debiandeveloper lost their changes to
> some config files. The end result was the lab lost their access to the
> debian machine. I had a similar problem on another client's box. end
> result, they flipped had speakup pulled from their kernels and i wasn't
> allowed to work on their boxes.
> 
> This is an extreme case, but it's also an important point in my concern.
> -- 
> Website: http://deedra.the-brannons.com
> blog: http://deedra.the-brannons.com/blog
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Deedra Waters]

Janina,

speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.

As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.

Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
begin with.

I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
down the whole box.


-- 
Website: http://deedra.the-brannons.com
blog: http://deedra.the-brannons.com/blog

Re: a little sysadmin story

[John G. Heim]

How do you know that the kernel panicked because of a speakup bug? I 
know that I've often thought that but upon closer inspection, it turned 
out that speakup generated error messages but they were really caused by 
something else.




On 10/08/14 18:16, Deedra Waters wrote:
>   i was working at oregon state's open source lab and network admin
> thing for a year and a half. Here's one situation.  i came across. Not
> trying to antagonize anyone at all but here's what happened and this is
> one reason why i dislike speakup in the kernel even though it's got a
> lot of benifits.....Anyway......
>
> I was working at the lab. Debian was having a problem with one of their
> my machines. The machine had crashed so i went to the dmz to kick it and
> try and help them figure out their problem. We were happily working on
> the box an hour or so later when i hit a speakup bug. The kernel
> panicked, and the box crashed. $debiandeveloper lost their changes to
> some config files. The end result was the lab lost their access to the
> debian machine. I had a similar problem on another client's box. end
> result, they flipped had speakup pulled from their kernels and i wasn't
> allowed to work on their boxes.
>
> This is an extreme case, but it's also an important point in my concern.
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Littlefield, Tyler]

This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make it 
all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues, but 
apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all the 
time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should also 
backup their work.
On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> Janina,
>
> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>
> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>
> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> begin with.
>
> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> down the whole box.
>
>


-- 
Take care,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Littlefield, Tyler]

I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a 
bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the 
kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which 
they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most 
people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better. 
There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get 
better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story 
from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make 
> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues, 
> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all 
> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should 
> also backup their work.
> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>> Janina,
>>
>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>
>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>
>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>> begin with.
>>
>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>> down the whole box.
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Take care,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Al Sten-Clanton]

First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could. 
(I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)

Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we 
boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the 
same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?

Al

On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>> also backup their work.
>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>> Janina,
>>>
>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>
>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>
>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>> begin with.
>>>
>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>> down the whole box.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Glenn]

What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video 
port.
It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given what 
we have these days.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
<speakup@linux-speakup.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story


First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
(I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)

Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?

Al

On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>> also backup their work.
>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>> Janina,
>>>
>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>
>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>
>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>> begin with.
>>>
>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>> down the whole box.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@linux-speakup.org
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Mike Ray]

Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p



On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video 
> port.
> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given what 
> we have these days.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> 
> 
> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
> 
> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
> 
> Al
> 
> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>> also backup their work.
>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>> Janina,
>>>>
>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>>
>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>
>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>> begin with.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 


-- 
Michael A. Ray
Analyst/Programmer
Witley, Surrey, South-east UK

The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux

Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Glenn]

I do a little of that.
I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story



Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p



On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
> port.
> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given 
> what
> we have these days.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>
>
> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>
> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>
> Al
>
> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>> also backup their work.
>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>> Janina,
>>>>
>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>>
>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>
>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>> begin with.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>


-- 
Michael A. Ray
Analyst/Programmer
Witley, Surrey, South-east UK

The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux

Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@linux-speakup.org
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Littlefield, Tyler]

Could probably be done with an arduino board. OCR is no easy deal 
though. There's a reason why companies invest millions. You could hack 
something together, however. This only really works on console screens 
and console screens that don't use ncurses or something similar. 
Otherwise there would have to be some kind of driver or something to 
help parse out text that needs to be handled. e.g: do you just OCR an 
entire screen taskbar and all on gnome?

On 10/9/2014 11:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
> I do a little of that.
> I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
> I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
> To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>
>
>
> Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>
>
>
> On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
>> port.
>> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given
>> what
>> we have these days.
>> Glenn
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>
>>
>> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>>
>> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>>> also backup their work.
>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>
>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>


-- 
Take care,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Glenn]

As long as you have a buffer, the data can be grabbed as it is done for a 
display, and chunks like that can be processed and buffered while another is 
being taken, and fed to a TTS engine as needed.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Littlefield, Tyler" <tyler@tysdomain.com>
To: "Glenn" <glennervin@gmail.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for 
Linux." <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story


Could probably be done with an arduino board. OCR is no easy deal
though. There's a reason why companies invest millions. You could hack
something together, however. This only really works on console screens
and console screens that don't use ncurses or something similar.
Otherwise there would have to be some kind of driver or something to
help parse out text that needs to be handled. e.g: do you just OCR an
entire screen taskbar and all on gnome?

On 10/9/2014 11:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
> I do a little of that.
> I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
> I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
> To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>
>
>
> Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>
>
>
> On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
>> port.
>> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given
>> what
>> we have these days.
>> Glenn
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>
>>
>> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>>
>> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>>> also backup their work.
>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>
>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with 
>>>>> speakup.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i 
>>>>> was
>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to 
>>>>> begin
>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>


-- 
Take care,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that 
dares not reason is a slave.

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@linux-speakup.org
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: a little sysadmin story

[John G. Heim]

Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've 
never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have 
witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a kernel 
panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has 
problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more likely 
that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in turn, caused 
problems for speakup? I run some development servers here at the UW math 
department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes an OOM (out of 
memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.

I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's wrong 
with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course, speakup 
writes directly to the serial port. But all the other criticisms were 
things like not following naming conventions, poor indentation, etc. 
Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to answer my question. But 
there wasn't anything in there that would tend to indicate that speakup 
is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any software package can have a 
bug. But I have no reason to believe that speakup is particularly 
unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.

And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic, 
that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for abandoning 
it entirely.



On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
> Janina,
>
> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>
> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>
> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> begin with.
>
> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> down the whole box.
>
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Mike Ray]

The Windows screen-reader NVDA has OCR built in.  It uses Tesseract to
OCR the screen.




On 09/10/2014 16:53, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> Could probably be done with an arduino board. OCR is no easy deal
> though. There's a reason why companies invest millions. You could hack
> something together, however. This only really works on console screens
> and console screens that don't use ncurses or something similar.
> Otherwise there would have to be some kind of driver or something to
> help parse out text that needs to be handled. e.g: do you just OCR an
> entire screen taskbar and all on gnome?
> 
> On 10/9/2014 11:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
>> I do a little of that.
>> I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
>> I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
>> Glenn
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
>> To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>
>>
>>
>> Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>>> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the
>>> video
>>> port.
>>> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given
>>> what
>>> we have these days.
>>> Glenn
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>>> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for
>>> Linux."
>>> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>>
>>>
>>> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>>> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>>>
>>> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>>> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>>> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>>>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>>>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>>>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>>>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>>>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>>>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>>>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>>>> also backup their work.
>>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with
>>>>>> speakup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their
>>>>>> fuck-up to
>>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when
>>>>>> i was
>>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to
>>>>>> begin
>>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program
>>>>>> crashes
>>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it
>>>>>> takes
>>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Michael A. Ray
Analyst/Programmer
Witley, Surrey, South-east UK

The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux

Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Glenn]

I have used TextDetective on my iPhone to OCR a computer monitor a number of 
times.
Not as good of results as it would be from paper, but often enough to know 
what screen is displayed.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story



The Windows screen-reader NVDA has OCR built in.  It uses Tesseract to
OCR the screen.




On 09/10/2014 16:53, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> Could probably be done with an arduino board. OCR is no easy deal
> though. There's a reason why companies invest millions. You could hack
> something together, however. This only really works on console screens
> and console screens that don't use ncurses or something similar.
> Otherwise there would have to be some kind of driver or something to
> help parse out text that needs to be handled. e.g: do you just OCR an
> entire screen taskbar and all on gnome?
>
> On 10/9/2014 11:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
>> I do a little of that.
>> I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
>> I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
>> Glenn
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
>> To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>
>>
>>
>> Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>>> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the
>>> video
>>> port.
>>> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given
>>> what
>>> we have these days.
>>> Glenn
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>>> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for
>>> Linux."
>>> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>>
>>>
>>> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>>> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>>>
>>> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>>> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>>> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>>>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>>>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>>>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>>>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>>>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>>>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>>>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>>>> also backup their work.
>>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with
>>>>>> speakup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their
>>>>>> fuck-up to
>>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when
>>>>>> i was
>>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to
>>>>>> begin
>>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program
>>>>>> crashes
>>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it
>>>>>> takes
>>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Michael A. Ray
Analyst/Programmer
Witley, Surrey, South-east UK

The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux

Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@linux-speakup.org
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: a little sysadmin story

[covici]

I can make speakup crash the kernel every time, by doing speakup-r from
a blank line.

John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:

> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've
> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have
> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a
> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has
> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more
> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in
> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here
> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes
> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
> 
> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's
> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course,
> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other
> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor
> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to
> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend
> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any
> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that
> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
> 
> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic,
> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for
> abandoning it entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > Janina,
> >
> > speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> > monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >
> > As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> > begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> > helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >
> > Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> > with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> > begin with.
> >
> > I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> > wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> > it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> > down the whole box.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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: a little sysadmin story

[Littlefield, Tyler]

Re: writing directly to the serial port, Is there another layer that the 
kernel provides that we could go through to avoid that issue entirely? 
How do other devices work, or is there not any other such modules in the 
kernel that do use the serial port like speakup does for synths?
On 10/9/2014 12:08 PM, John G. Heim wrote:
> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've 
> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have 
> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a 
> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has 
> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more 
> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in 
> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here 
> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes 
> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
>
> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's 
> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course, 
> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other 
> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor 
> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to 
> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend 
> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any 
> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that 
> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
>
> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic, 
> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for 
> abandoning it entirely.
>
>
>
> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
>> Janina,
>>
>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>
>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>
>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>> begin with.
>>
>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>> down the whole box.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup


-- 
Take care,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Deedra Waters]

"John G. Heim" <jheim@math.wisc.edu> writes:

> How do you know that the kernel panicked because of a speakup bug? I
> know that I've often thought that but upon closer inspection, it
> turned out that speakup generated error messages but they were really
> caused by something else.


Because my boss who had a hell of a lot more experience then i do dug
into it and found out it was a speakup bug.

I know you're convinced that speakup is perfect never has a bug and
crashes the kernel so i wont even try and convince you other wise but
there were people at that lab with a lot more experience then i and
they were access friendly. They took a chance with speakup, i had at
least  2 ocations where it crashed and it was a bug that was caused by
speakup. This was in 2004 now speakup is a lot more stable, but yes it
can and does cause the kernel to panick if you hit major bugs.

>
>
>
>
> On 10/08/14 18:16, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>   i was working at oregon state's open source lab and network admin
>> thing for a year and a half. Here's one situation.  i came across. Not
>> trying to antagonize anyone at all but here's what happened and this is
>> one reason why i dislike speakup in the kernel even though it's got a
>> lot of benifits.....Anyway......
>>
>> I was working at the lab. Debian was having a problem with one of their
>> my machines. The machine had crashed so i went to the dmz to kick it and
>> try and help them figure out their problem. We were happily working on
>> the box an hour or so later when i hit a speakup bug. The kernel
>> panicked, and the box crashed. $debiandeveloper lost their changes to
>> some config files. The end result was the lab lost their access to the
>> debian machine. I had a similar problem on another client's box. end
>> result, they flipped had speakup pulled from their kernels and i wasn't
>> allowed to work on their boxes.
>>
>> This is an extreme case, but it's also an important point in my concern.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
Website: http://deedra.the-brannons.com
blog: http://deedra.the-brannons.com/blog

Re: a little sysadmin story

[John G. Heim]

I don't have a speakup-r command on my system. What is that?


On 10/09/14 11:21, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> I can make speakup crash the kernel every time, by doing speakup-r from
> a blank line.
>
> John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've
>> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have
>> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a
>> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has
>> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more
>> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in
>> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here
>> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes
>> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
>>
>> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's
>> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course,
>> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other
>> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor
>> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to
>> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend
>> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any
>> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that
>> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
>>
>> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic,
>> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for
>> abandoning it entirely.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>> Janina,
>>>
>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>
>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>
>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>> begin with.
>>>
>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>> down the whole box.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[John G. Heim]

I once spent an afternoon poking around in the serial console code 
trying to see how it wrote to the serial port. I never did figure it out 
though. Even so,  it seems to me that what speakup does is pretty 
similar to the serial console.



On 10/09/14 11:23, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> Re: writing directly to the serial port, Is there another layer that the
> kernel provides that we could go through to avoid that issue entirely?
> How do other devices work, or is there not any other such modules in the
> kernel that do use the serial port like speakup does for synths?
> On 10/9/2014 12:08 PM, John G. Heim wrote:
>> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've
>> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have
>> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a
>> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has
>> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more
>> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in
>> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here
>> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes
>> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
>>
>> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's
>> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course,
>> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other
>> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor
>> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to
>> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend
>> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any
>> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that
>> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
>>
>> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic,
>> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for
>> abandoning it entirely.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>> Janina,
>>>
>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>
>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>
>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>> begin with.
>>>
>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>> down the whole box.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[John G. Heim]

>
> Because my boss who had a hell of a lot more experience then i do dug
> into it and found out it was a speakup bug.
>
> I know you're convinced that speakup is perfect never has a bug and
> crashes the kernel so i wont even try and convince you other wise but
[...]

No need to be insulting,   Deedra.

Besides, you're wrong about me being unable to see your side of the 
story. In fact, I am convinced you are right. I realized John C. was 
suggesting I try pressing speakup+r on a blank line and that sure did 
crash my system. And that's something you might very well have done 
while using the console on a development machine.

On the other hand, I still say that's no reason to take speakup out of 
the kernel. It's a reason to fix that bug. If we need speakup in the 
kernel, the bugs should be fixed. But that doesn't mean we don't need 
speakup in the kernel.

Re: a little sysadmin story

[covici]

The first serial driver I wrote for speakup was like that, I copied
stuff from the serial console, but it had to be changed to conform to
the kernel specs, so you didn't have to patch the actual kernel.

John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:

> I once spent an afternoon poking around in the serial console code
> trying to see how it wrote to the serial port. I never did figure it
> out though. Even so,  it seems to me that what speakup does is pretty
> similar to the serial console.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/09/14 11:23, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> > Re: writing directly to the serial port, Is there another layer that the
> > kernel provides that we could go through to avoid that issue entirely?
> > How do other devices work, or is there not any other such modules in the
> > kernel that do use the serial port like speakup does for synths?
> > On 10/9/2014 12:08 PM, John G. Heim wrote:
> >> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've
> >> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have
> >> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a
> >> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has
> >> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more
> >> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in
> >> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here
> >> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes
> >> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
> >>
> >> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's
> >> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course,
> >> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other
> >> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor
> >> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to
> >> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend
> >> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any
> >> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that
> >> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
> >>
> >> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic,
> >> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for
> >> abandoning it entirely.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >>> Janina,
> >>>
> >>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >>>
> >>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> >>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >>>
> >>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> >>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >>> begin with.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >>> down the whole box.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Speakup mailing list
> >> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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

speakup in the kernel

[John G. Heim]

John, didn't you once try to form a team to get started on a rewrite of 
speakup.  What ever happened with that?  I'm not sure who said it but I 
agree with whomever said the first thing we should do is try to get a 
concensus on what we need in a screen reader.

But I am a bit confused by something you said below. Isn't the serial 
console code in the kernel up to kernel coding standards? The reason I 
ask is that I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right 
way to access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that 
implies there is a right way, what is that?   I didn't really get a good 
answer. That's when I started poking around in the serial console code.

I wish there was a good way to get explanations of this stuff from the 
kernel developers.




On 10/09/14 14:23, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> The first serial driver I wrote for speakup was like that, I copied
> stuff from the serial console, but it had to be changed to conform to
> the kernel specs, so you didn't have to patch the actual kernel.
>
> John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>> I once spent an afternoon poking around in the serial console code
>> trying to see how it wrote to the serial port. I never did figure it
>> out though. Even so,  it seems to me that what speakup does is pretty
>> similar to the serial console.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/14 11:23, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>> Re: writing directly to the serial port, Is there another layer that the
>>> kernel provides that we could go through to avoid that issue entirely?
>>> How do other devices work, or is there not any other such modules in the
>>> kernel that do use the serial port like speakup does for synths?
>>> On 10/9/2014 12:08 PM, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've
>>>> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have
>>>> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a
>>>> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has
>>>> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more
>>>> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in
>>>> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here
>>>> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes
>>>> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
>>>>
>>>> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's
>>>> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course,
>>>> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other
>>>> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor
>>>> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to
>>>> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend
>>>> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any
>>>> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that
>>>> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
>>>>
>>>> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic,
>>>> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for
>>>> abandoning it entirely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>
>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Janina Sajka]

Oh, I understand that Speakup was the problem in the situation you've
been telling us about. I get that.

My point is that it could just as easily been something else. Happens
all the time. To categorically ban application X because you had a bad
experience with it in one situation is not very smart, imo. To turn
around and say that disabled thing was the problem, and we just won't
have that is downright insulting when they didn't have running backups
and some other componant could have been the culpirt just as easily.

Janina

Deedra Waters writes:
> Janina,
> 
> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> 
> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> 
> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> begin with.
> 
> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> down the whole box.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://deedra.the-brannons.com
> blog: http://deedra.the-brannons.com/blog
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Janina Sajka]

I've seen Speakup hang the boot.

I've seen kernel panics around Speakup.

I've never seen Speakup trash the file system, which I think is what's
being said here.

Janina

Littlefield, Tyler writes:
> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make it all
> interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues, but apart from
> known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all the time. Speakup
> caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should also backup their work.
> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >Janina,
> >
> >speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >
> >As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> >helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >
> >Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> >with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >begin with.
> >
> >I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >down the whole box.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Take care,
> Ty
> http://tds-solutions.net
> He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Janina Sajka]

Glenn, are you talking about the Opticon? Didn't someone start
remanufacturing that relatively recently?


Glenn writes:
> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video 
> port.
> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given what 
> we have these days.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> 
> 
> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
> 
> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
> 
> Al
> 
> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> > I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> > bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> > kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> > they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> > people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> > There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> > better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> > from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> > On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> >> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
> >> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
> >> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
> >> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
> >> also backup their work.
> >> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >>> Janina,
> >>>
> >>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >>>
> >>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> >>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >>>
> >>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> >>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >>> begin with.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >>> down the whole box.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Janina Sajka]

I should probably add I haven't seen Speakup hangs recently.

I do believe you can easily create one, though, by calling Speakup to
talk to one of the four ttyS? devices and then not hooking something up
at that address. I believe this would hang the boot still, but this si
much NOT a big deal.


John G. Heim writes:
> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've never
> seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have witnessed the
> false cause effect. Something happens that causes a kernel panic and since
> speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has problems. You were on a
> development server, right? Isn't it more likely that one of the developers
> crashed the server amd that, in turn, caused problems for speakup? I run
> some development servers here at the UW math department and it happens all
> the time. Somebody causes an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that
> crashes speakup.
> 
> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's wrong with
> the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course, speakup writes
> directly to the serial port. But all the other criticisms were things like
> not following naming conventions, poor indentation, etc. Maybe the people
> who mattered didn't bother to answer my question. But there wasn't anything
> in there that would tend to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel
> panics. Now, any software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to
> believe that speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
> 
> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic, that's
> an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for abandoning it
> entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >Janina,
> >
> >speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >
> >As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> >helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >
> >Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> >with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >begin with.
> >
> >I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >down the whole box.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Re: speakup in the kernel

[covici]

I could not get anyone to talk about the serial parts of speakup, I
wanted to set up a conference call, but I could not get anyone to
participate.  

As for the serial console, the point was that it was not up to kernel
coding standards to patch the kernel directly, what the kernel guys want
us to do is to write a driver, as though speakup were a strange piece of
hardware which would register in the appropriate way and then it could
do any reasonable thing.  I was looking at how to do this by looking at
the serial driver so I could look for any serial port, but I got
involved in some other projects, so I had to postpone that work.

John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:

> John, didn't you once try to form a team to get started on a rewrite
> of speakup.  What ever happened with that?  I'm not sure who said it
> but I agree with whomever said the first thing we should do is try to
> get a concensus on what we need in a screen reader.
> 
> But I am a bit confused by something you said below. Isn't the serial
> console code in the kernel up to kernel coding standards? The reason I
> ask is that I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right
> way to access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that
> implies there is a right way, what is that?   I didn't really get a
> good answer. That's when I started poking around in the serial console
> code.
> 
> I wish there was a good way to get explanations of this stuff from the
> kernel developers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/09/14 14:23, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> > The first serial driver I wrote for speakup was like that, I copied
> > stuff from the serial console, but it had to be changed to conform to
> > the kernel specs, so you didn't have to patch the actual kernel.
> >
> > John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I once spent an afternoon poking around in the serial console code
> >> trying to see how it wrote to the serial port. I never did figure it
> >> out though. Even so,  it seems to me that what speakup does is pretty
> >> similar to the serial console.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/09/14 11:23, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> >>> Re: writing directly to the serial port, Is there another layer that the
> >>> kernel provides that we could go through to avoid that issue entirely?
> >>> How do other devices work, or is there not any other such modules in the
> >>> kernel that do use the serial port like speakup does for synths?
> >>> On 10/9/2014 12:08 PM, John G. Heim wrote:
> >>>> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've
> >>>> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have
> >>>> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a
> >>>> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has
> >>>> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more
> >>>> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in
> >>>> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here
> >>>> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes
> >>>> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
> >>>>
> >>>> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's
> >>>> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course,
> >>>> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other
> >>>> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor
> >>>> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to
> >>>> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend
> >>>> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any
> >>>> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that
> >>>> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
> >>>>
> >>>> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic,
> >>>> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for
> >>>> abandoning it entirely.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >>>>> Janina,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> >>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> >>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >>>>> begin with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >>>>> down the whole box.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Speakup mailing list
> >>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Speakup mailing list
> >> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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: a little sysadmin story

[Glenn]

I think that the optican was different in that it used a video camera.
My thought here is to capture the video signal as it would be going to a 
monitor, and send it directly to be processed OCR,, and then it could either 
go to a Braille display, or TTS.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
To: "Glenn" <glennervin@gmail.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for 
Linux." <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story


Glenn, are you talking about the Opticon? Didn't someone start
remanufacturing that relatively recently?


Glenn writes:
> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
> port.
> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given 
> what
> we have these days.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>
>
> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>
> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>
> Al
>
> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> > I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> > bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> > kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> > they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> > people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> > There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> > better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> > from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> > On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> >> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
> >> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
> >> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
> >> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
> >> also backup their work.
> >> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >>> Janina,
> >>>
> >>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with 
> >>> speakup.
> >>>
> >>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i 
> >>> was
> >>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >>>
> >>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to 
> >>> begin
> >>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >>> begin with.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >>> down the whole box.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200
sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
Email: janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org

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

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@linux-speakup.org
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: speakup in the kernel

[John G. Heim]

Well, lets try again. I think I didn't participate last time because I 
don't know anything about coding to talk to the serial port. Maybe if we 
broaden the scope a little it will garner more interest. As I said, I 
agree with the assertion someone made (Janina?) that the first thing we 
should do is write up some specs.

I am willing to manage the project if you'd like. Or you can take 
charge. I'm fine either way.

And for what it's worth, I can offer the resources of the International 
Association of Visually Impaired Technologists. We have a web server and 
some money. I could probably pull together a couple hundred bucks if it 
would help.



On 10/09/14 15:45, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> I could not get anyone to talk about the serial parts of speakup, I
> wanted to set up a conference call, but I could not get anyone to
> participate.
>
> As for the serial console, the point was that it was not up to kernel
> coding standards to patch the kernel directly, what the kernel guys want
> us to do is to write a driver, as though speakup were a strange piece of
> hardware which would register in the appropriate way and then it could
> do any reasonable thing.  I was looking at how to do this by looking at
> the serial driver so I could look for any serial port, but I got
> involved in some other projects, so I had to postpone that work.
>
> John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>> John, didn't you once try to form a team to get started on a rewrite
>> of speakup.  What ever happened with that?  I'm not sure who said it
>> but I agree with whomever said the first thing we should do is try to
>> get a concensus on what we need in a screen reader.
>>
>> But I am a bit confused by something you said below. Isn't the serial
>> console code in the kernel up to kernel coding standards? The reason I
>> ask is that I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right
>> way to access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that
>> implies there is a right way, what is that?   I didn't really get a
>> good answer. That's when I started poking around in the serial console
>> code.
>>
>> I wish there was a good way to get explanations of this stuff from the
>> kernel developers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/14 14:23, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
>>> The first serial driver I wrote for speakup was like that, I copied
>>> stuff from the serial console, but it had to be changed to conform to
>>> the kernel specs, so you didn't have to patch the actual kernel.
>>>
>>> John G. Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I once spent an afternoon poking around in the serial console code
>>>> trying to see how it wrote to the serial port. I never did figure it
>>>> out though. Even so,  it seems to me that what speakup does is pretty
>>>> similar to the serial console.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/09/14 11:23, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>>> Re: writing directly to the serial port, Is there another layer that the
>>>>> kernel provides that we could go through to avoid that issue entirely?
>>>>> How do other devices work, or is there not any other such modules in the
>>>>> kernel that do use the serial port like speakup does for synths?
>>>>> On 10/9/2014 12:08 PM, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>>>> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've
>>>>>> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have
>>>>>> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a
>>>>>> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has
>>>>>> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more
>>>>>> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in
>>>>>> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here
>>>>>> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes
>>>>>> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's
>>>>>> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course,
>>>>>> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other
>>>>>> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor
>>>>>> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to
>>>>>> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend
>>>>>> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any
>>>>>> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that
>>>>>> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic,
>>>>>> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for
>>>>>> abandoning it entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>>>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[John G. Heim]

Poking around amazon seems to show that a vga to usb frame grabber can 
be had for $270.  Add a raspberry pi or similar object. The software is 
the big thing though.

I once had a system to program my VCR similar to your concept.  I had 
the video out from the VCR fed into a video capture board in my PC. I'd 
capture a frame, run tesseract on it, and redirect the text output to 
the screen so speakup would read it. In other words, I could press a key 
and it would re-read the entire VCR screen to me. I always wanted to 
write something that read just the text that had changed or maybe even 
recognized the cursor and intelligently read the adjacent text.  But I 
never wrote it.

It would be like writing a screen reader without having all the hints 
from the structure of the document or the window you're working with.

I think it could be done though.




On 10/09/14 15:59, Glenn wrote:
> I think that the optican was different in that it used a video camera.
> My thought here is to capture the video signal as it would be going to a
> monitor, and send it directly to be processed OCR,, and then it could either
> go to a Braille display, or TTS.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
> To: "Glenn" <glennervin@gmail.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for
> Linux." <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 3:29 PM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>
>
> Glenn, are you talking about the Opticon? Didn't someone start
> remanufacturing that relatively recently?
>
>
> Glenn writes:
>> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
>> port.
>> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given
>> what
>> we have these days.
>> Glenn
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>
>>
>> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>>
>> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>>> also backup their work.
>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>
>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with
>>>>> speakup.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i
>>>>> was
>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to
>>>>> begin
>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Tom Fowle]

The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
intreaguing and has
been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
ago.
I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
but
finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
headache.

I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
second
to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
have
the "MIPS" for the ocr task.

BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
had
as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
operation <SAD>

For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
far as i know none ever came to reality.

  Tom Fowle
  wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm


On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
> I do a little of that.
> I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
> I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
> Glenn
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
> To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> 
> 
> 
> Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
> > What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
> > port.
> > It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given 
> > what
> > we have these days.
> > Glenn
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> > To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> > <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> >
> >
> > First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> > (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
> >
> > Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> > boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> > same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
> >
> > Al
> >
> > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> >> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> >> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> >> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> >> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> >> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> >> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> >> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> >> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> >> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> >>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
> >>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
> >>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
> >>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
> >>> also backup their work.
> >>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >>>> Janina,
> >>>>
> >>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> >>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >>>>
> >>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> >>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >>>> begin with.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >>>> down the whole box.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael A. Ray
> Analyst/Programmer
> Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
> 
> The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux
> 
> Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
> Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
> From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: a little sysadmin story

[covici]

I have heard (never tried this myself) that the knfb reader on the
iphone was actually able to read the monitor text on a screen, if so
this would be great, no substitute for a real screen reader, but
interesting nonetheless.

Tom Fowle <wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
> intreaguing and has
> been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
> ago.
> I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
> but
> finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
> headache.
> 
> I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
> second
> to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
> have
> the "MIPS" for the ocr task.
> 
> BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
> read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
> had
> as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
> operation <SAD>
> 
> For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
> far as i know none ever came to reality.
> 
>   Tom Fowle
>   wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > I do a little of that.
> > I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
> > I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
> > Glenn
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
> > To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
> > > What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
> > > port.
> > > It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given 
> > > what
> > > we have these days.
> > > Glenn
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> > > To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> > > <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> > >
> > >
> > > First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> > > (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
> > >
> > > Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> > > boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> > > same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> > > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> > >> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> > >> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> > >> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> > >> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> > >> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> > >> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> > >> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> > >> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> > >> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> > >>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
> > >>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
> > >>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
> > >>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
> > >>> also backup their work.
> > >>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > >>>> Janina,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> > >>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> > >>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> > >>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> > >>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> > >>>> begin with.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> > >>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> > >>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> > >>>> down the whole box.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Michael A. Ray
> > Analyst/Programmer
> > Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
> > 
> > The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux
> > 
> > Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
> > Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
> > From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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: a little sysadmin story

[Blake Hardin]

Really? I wonder if this would open up a door to make computer repair
easier for someone who can't see?

On 10/10/14, covici@ccs.covici.com <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> I have heard (never tried this myself) that the knfb reader on the
> iphone was actually able to read the monitor text on a screen, if so
> this would be great, no substitute for a real screen reader, but
> interesting nonetheless.
>
> Tom Fowle <wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
>> intreaguing and has
>> been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
>> ago.
>> I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
>> but
>> finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
>> headache.
>>
>> I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
>> second
>> to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
>> have
>> the "MIPS" for the ocr task.
>>
>> BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
>> read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
>> had
>> as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
>> operation <SAD>
>>
>> For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
>> far as i know none ever came to reality.
>>
>>   Tom Fowle
>>   wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
>> > I do a little of that.
>> > I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
>> > I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
>> > Glenn
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
>> > To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
>> > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>> > > What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the
>> > > video
>> > > port.
>> > > It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given
>> > >
>> > > what
>> > > we have these days.
>> > > Glenn
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>> > > To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for
>> > > Linux."
>> > > <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>> > > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>> > > (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different
>> > > angles.)
>> > >
>> > > Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when
>> > > we
>> > > boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>> > > same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>> > >
>> > > Al
>> > >
>> > > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> > >> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are
>> > >> a
>> > >> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>> > >> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>> > >> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers
>> > >> most
>> > >> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>> > >> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>> > >> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad
>> > >> story
>> > >> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>> > >> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> > >>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to
>> > >>> make
>> > >>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>> > >>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel
>> > >>> all
>> > >>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>> > >>> also backup their work.
>> > >>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>> > >>>> Janina,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>> > >>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with
>> > >>>> speakup.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up
>> > >>>> to
>> > >>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i
>> > >>>> was
>> > >>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to
>> > >>>> begin
>> > >>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel
>> > >>>> to
>> > >>>> begin with.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app,
>> > >>>> it
>> > >>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program
>> > >>>> crashes
>> > >>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it
>> > >>>> takes
>> > >>>> down the whole box.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Speakup mailing list
>> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Speakup mailing list
>> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Michael A. Ray
>> > Analyst/Programmer
>> > Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
>> >
>> > The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux
>> >
>> > Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
>> > Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>> > From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi
>> > hackers
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Speakup mailing list
>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Speakup mailing list
>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>


-- 
Looking to take your guitar playing to the next level? Go to
http://onlineleadguitarlessons.com
for tips and lessons!

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Janina Sajka]

The more we talk about this, the more I remember things long forgotten
...

Appropos a stand alone box for Speakup ...

APH once sold a device called a Speakqualizer. It was a PCI card that
grabbed VGA and, if memory serves, ran OCR on it---all on a PCI card.

Janina

Tom Fowle writes:
> The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
> intreaguing and has
> been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
> ago.
> I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
> but
> finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
> headache.
> 
> I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
> second
> to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
> have
> the "MIPS" for the ocr task.
> 
> BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
> read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
> had
> as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
> operation <SAD>
> 
> For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
> far as i know none ever came to reality.
> 
>   Tom Fowle
>   wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > I do a little of that.
> > I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
> > I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
> > Glenn
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
> > To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
> > > What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
> > > port.
> > > It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given 
> > > what
> > > we have these days.
> > > Glenn
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> > > To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> > > <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> > >
> > >
> > > First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> > > (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
> > >
> > > Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> > > boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> > > same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> > > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> > >> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> > >> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> > >> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> > >> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> > >> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> > >> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> > >> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> > >> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> > >> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> > >>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
> > >>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
> > >>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
> > >>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
> > >>> also backup their work.
> > >>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > >>>> Janina,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> > >>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> > >>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> > >>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> > >>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> > >>>> begin with.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> > >>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> > >>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> > >>>> down the whole box.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Michael A. Ray
> > Analyst/Programmer
> > Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
> > 
> > The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux
> > 
> > Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
> > Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
> > From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Kyle]

I've used Google Goggles on Android to read a computer screen. It's
clunky and takes lots of work, but it's definitely doable. I'm not sure
I'm in favor of a dedicated box for this however, unless it can be made
inexpensively using off-the-shelf parts and free/open source software,
as my phone already does this well enough in a relatively inexpensive
way. One advantage to a dedicated box is the fact that the data would be
coming directly from the graphics adaptor rather than from a camera that
could be out of focus or too close/too far away, but again, price of
manufacture/design and software/hardware freedom would be extremely
important.
~kyle
http://kyle.tk/
-- 
"Kyle? ... She calls her cake, Kyle?"
Out of This World, season 2 episode 21 - "The Amazing Evie"

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Kelly Prescott]

Janina,  the Speaqualizer I owned was a old ISA card and it actually just 
read the ordinary text stream.
There was not OCR on it so far as I know, it just intercepted the 
character output system.
So, it worked well for old dos stuff, but thats all.

Now, with that being said, It should be possible to now build a better 
system, but the problem I see is who would pay for development.
The Cubox might be a good computer to start with, it should have the 
processing power, and is certainly flexable enough.




On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Janina Sajka wrote:

> The more we talk about this, the more I remember things long forgotten
> ...
>
> Appropos a stand alone box for Speakup ...
>
> APH once sold a device called a Speakqualizer. It was a PCI card that
> grabbed VGA and, if memory serves, ran OCR on it---all on a PCI card.
>
> Janina
>
> Tom Fowle writes:
>> The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
>> intreaguing and has
>> been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
>> ago.
>> I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
>> but
>> finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
>> headache.
>> 
>> I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
>> second
>> to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
>> have
>> the "MIPS" for the ocr task.
>> 
>> BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
>> read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
>> had
>> as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
>> operation <SAD>
>> 
>> For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
>> far as i know none ever came to reality.
>>
>>   Tom Fowle
>>   wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
>> > I do a little of that.
>> > I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
>> > I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
>> > Glenn
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
>> > To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
>> > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>> > > What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
>> > > port.
>> > > It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given 
>> > > what
>> > > we have these days.
>> > > Glenn
>> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > > From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>> > > To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>> > > <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>> > > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>> > > (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>> > >
>> > > Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>> > > boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>> > > same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>> > >
>> > > Al
>> > >
>> > > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> > >> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>> > >> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>> > >> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>> > >> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>> > >> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>> > >> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>> > >> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>> > >> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>> > >> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> > >>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>> > >>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>> > >>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>> > >>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>> > >>> also backup their work.
>> > >>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>> > >>>> Janina,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>> > >>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>> > >>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>> > >>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>> > >>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>> > >>>> begin with.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>> > >>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>> > >>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>> > >>>> down the whole box.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Speakup mailing list
>> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Speakup mailing list
>> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > >
>> > 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > Michael A. Ray
>> > Analyst/Programmer
>> > Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
>> > 
>> > The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux
>> > 
>> > Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
>> > Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>> > From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Speakup mailing list
>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Speakup mailing list
>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> -- 
>
> Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
> 			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 		Email:	janina@rednote.net
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> 	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Kelly Prescott]

I have used the KNFB reader to read a boot screen to get an idea of why 
something wasn't booting.
I have been successful about half the time.


On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:

> I have heard (never tried this myself) that the knfb reader on the
> iphone was actually able to read the monitor text on a screen, if so
> this would be great, no substitute for a real screen reader, but
> interesting nonetheless.
>
> Tom Fowle <wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
>> intreaguing and has
>> been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
>> ago.
>> I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
>> but
>> finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
>> headache.
>> 
>> I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
>> second
>> to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
>> have
>> the "MIPS" for the ocr task.
>> 
>> BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
>> read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
>> had
>> as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
>> operation <SAD>
>> 
>> For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
>> far as i know none ever came to reality.
>>
>>   Tom Fowle
>>   wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
>> > I do a little of that.
>> > I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
>> > I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
>> > Glenn
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
>> > To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
>> > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>> > > What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
>> > > port.
>> > > It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given 
>> > > what
>> > > we have these days.
>> > > Glenn
>> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > > From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>> > > To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>> > > <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>> > > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>> > > (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>> > >
>> > > Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>> > > boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>> > > same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>> > >
>> > > Al
>> > >
>> > > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> > >> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>> > >> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>> > >> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>> > >> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>> > >> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>> > >> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>> > >> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>> > >> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>> > >> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> > >>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>> > >>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>> > >>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>> > >>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>> > >>> also backup their work.
>> > >>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>> > >>>> Janina,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>> > >>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>> > >>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>> > >>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>> > >>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>> > >>>> begin with.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>> > >>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>> > >>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>> > >>>> down the whole box.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Speakup mailing list
>> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Speakup mailing list
>> > > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > >
>> > 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > Michael A. Ray
>> > Analyst/Programmer
>> > Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
>> > 
>> > The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux
>> > 
>> > Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
>> > Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>> > From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Speakup mailing list
>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Speakup mailing list
>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: a little sysadmin story

[John G. Heim]

It depends on the response time you'd demand. For something like a 
system rescue, an RP might be adequate. Tesseract takes a long time on 
high res images but on something like a 80-25 screen capture, it might 
be acceptable. As I said, I actually had a system that used this concept 
years ago and it was probably less powerful than a RP is today. It was 
painfully slow though.

Plus, computers like the RP are just going to get faster. By the time 
you get the software together, the hardware will probably be there.

No kidding, back in 1986, I tried to convince my boss that on-line 
catalog sales via the internet was the wave of the future. She was like, 
"What, you're going to sell stuff to people with a 300 baud modem?" I 
said, "Well, they have 300 baud modems now. We'll have to fudge it for a 
while. But just wait." At the time, AOL was sending out diskettes to 
connect to AOL and lots of people were sending out their catalogs on 
diskette. All I wanted to do was to smush the two ideas together. I 
could have been the creator of Amazon if she'd listened to me.

On 10/09/14 22:21, Tom Fowle wrote:
> The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
> intreaguing and has
> been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
> ago.
> I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
> but
> finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
> headache.
>
> I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
> second
> to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
> have
> the "MIPS" for the ocr task.
>
> BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
> read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
> had
> as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
> operation <SAD>
>
> For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
> far as i know none ever came to reality.
>
>    Tom Fowle
>    wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
>> I do a little of that.
>> I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
>> I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
>> Glenn
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
>> To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>
>>
>>
>> Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
>>> What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
>>> port.
>>> It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce, given
>>> what
>>> we have these days.
>>> Glenn
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Al Sten-Clanton" <albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
>>> To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>> <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
>>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
>>>
>>>
>>> First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
>>> (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
>>>
>>> Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
>>> boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
>>> same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
>>>> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
>>>> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
>>>> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
>>>> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
>>>> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
>>>> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
>>>> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>>>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
>>>>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
>>>>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
>>>>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
>>>>> also backup their work.
>>>>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
>>>>>> Janina,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
>>>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
>>>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
>>>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
>>>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
>>>>>> begin with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
>>>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
>>>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
>>>>>> down the whole box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael A. Ray
>> Analyst/Programmer
>> Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
>>
>> The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed Linux
>>
>> Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
>> Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
>>  From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Janina Sajka]

You're quite correct, Kelly. However, I believe it was able to grab the
on screen chars during boot, which was an issue in those days. The only
other approach I know of was frequently tapping PrintScreen if you had a
parallel port synth like the Microtalk Litetalk, which had both serial
and parallel ports.

By the way, I found the Able Data record for the Speaqualizer is still
on line:

http://www.abledata.com/abledata.cfm?pageid=113583&top=0&productid=94031

Kelly Prescott writes:
> Janina,  the Speaqualizer I owned was a old ISA card and it actually just
> read the ordinary text stream.
> There was not OCR on it so far as I know, it just intercepted the character
> output system.
> So, it worked well for old dos stuff, but thats all.
> 
> Now, with that being said, It should be possible to now build a better
> system, but the problem I see is who would pay for development.
> The Cubox might be a good computer to start with, it should have the
> processing power, and is certainly flexable enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Janina Sajka wrote:
> 
> >The more we talk about this, the more I remember things long forgotten
> >...
> >
> >Appropos a stand alone box for Speakup ...
> >
> >APH once sold a device called a Speakqualizer. It was a PCI card that
> >grabbed VGA and, if memory serves, ran OCR on it---all on a PCI card.
> >
> >Janina
> >
> >Tom Fowle writes:
> >>The idea of a stand alone screen reader hardware box with video input is
> >>intreaguing and has
> >>been tried by several folks including Dean Blazie.  but that was years
> >>ago.
> >>I suspect actual screen text would be no problem, if perhaps a bit slow,
> >>but
> >>finding focus and defining/dealing with actual graphics could be a real
> >>headache.
> >>
> >>I think you'd need at least two processors, one to do the OCR and the
> >>second
> >>to run the screen reader and speech. Don't guess the Raspbery pi  would
> >>have
> >>the "MIPS" for the ocr task.
> >>
> >>BTW, the optacon actually connected to a mac's serial port and you could
> >>read the screen directly with some kind of reader that Berkeley systems
> >>had
> >>as a prototype.  the company died before it could be brought to full
> >>operation <SAD>
> >>
> >>For many years I kept seeing brags about optacon being restarted, but so
> >>far as i know none ever came to reality.
> >>
> >>  Tom Fowle
> >>  wa6ivgtf@fastmail.fm
> >>
> >>
> >>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014, at 08:49 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> I do a little of that.
> >>> I do know a little, enough to know what is possible.
> >>> I studied and got a HAM license a long time ago.
> >>> Glenn
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Ray" <mike@raspberryvi.org>
> >>> To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:32 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> >>> > > > Get your soldering iron out then Glenn :-p
> >>> > > > On 09/10/2014 16:28, Glenn wrote:
> >>> > What we need is a piece of hardware that does OCR directly from the video
> >>> > port.
> >>> > It seems like that would be a relatively easy device to produce,
> >>given > > what
> >>> > we have these days.
> >>> > Glenn
> >>> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Al Sten-Clanton"
> >><albert.e.sten_clanton@verizon.net>
> >>> > To: <tyler@tysdomain.com>; "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> >>> > <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> >>> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:52 AM
> >>> > Subject: Re: a little sysadmin story
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > First, I thank Janina for raising certain issues better than I could.
> >>> > (I also thank others who've made valuable points from different angles.)
> >>> >
> >>> > Second, where is the equivalent code for kicking in the monitor when we
> >>> > boot up?  Shouldn't the aim be to treat our access technology in the
> >>> > same or an equivalent way, to the degree possible?
> >>> >
> >>> > Al
> >>> >
> >>> > On 10/09/2014 09:55 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> >>> >> I also wanted to point out that most companies and organizations are a
> >>> >> bit weird about installing anything. The fact that Speakup is in the
> >>> >> kernel, but the entire idea of installing a special program which
> >>> >> they're not sure of, be it screen reader or magnification bothers most
> >>> >> people, so this isn't just an issue of Speakup possibly being better.
> >>> >> There are reasons and there obviously is a need for speakup to get
> >>> >> better, perhaps that means coming out of kernel space. But a sad story
> >>> >> from once upon a time with a moral unrelated is not quite the point.
> >>> >> On 10/9/2014 9:46 AM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> >>> >>> This whole story sounds like it needs another couple of bears to make
> >>> >>> it all interesting. So speakup crashed the kernel. I've had issues,
> >>> >>> but apart from known bugs I've never seen speakup panic the kernel all
> >>> >>> the time. Speakup caused a system to crash? Perhaps. People should
> >>> >>> also backup their work.
> >>> >>> On 10/9/2014 9:34 AM, Deedra Waters wrote:
> >>> >>>> Janina,
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a
> >>> >>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to
> >>> >>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was
> >>> >>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin
> >>> >>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to
> >>> >>>> begin with.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it
> >>> >>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes
> >>> >>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes
> >>> >>>> down the whole box.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > Speakup mailing list
> >>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > Speakup mailing list
> >>> > Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >>> > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>> >
> >>> > > -- > Michael A. Ray
> >>> Analyst/Programmer
> >>> Witley, Surrey, South-east UK
> >>> > The box said: 'install Windows XP, 7 or better'. So I installed
> >>Linux
> >>> > Interested in accessibility on the Raspberry Pi?
> >>> Visit: http://www.raspberryvi.org/
> >>> From where you can join our mailing list for visually-impaired Pi hackers
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Speakup mailing list
> >>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> Speakup mailing list
> >>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Speakup mailing list
> >>Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >>http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >-- 
> >
> >Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
> >			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> >		Email:	janina@rednote.net
> >
> >Linux Foundation Fellow
> >Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
> >
> >The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> >Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> >	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> >http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Re: speakup in the kernel

[Samuel Thibault]

John G. Heim, le Thu 09 Oct 2014 15:04:06 -0500, a écrit :
> I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right way to
> access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that implies there is
> a right way, what is that?

"Doing it wrong" doesn't mean that the "right way" is already available.
The difficulty here is that the right way doesn't exist yet, even if the
kernel developers have an idea of how it would look like.  It's a matter
of getting the time to do it.

Samuel

Re: a little sysadmin story

[Samuel Thibault]

Janina Sajka, le Thu 09 Oct 2014 16:28:04 -0400, a écrit :
> I've never seen Speakup trash the file system, which I think is what's
> being said here.

No, here it was rather somebody curing some computer, and the computer
getting down in the middle of it, leaving it half-configured, and thus
broken.

Samuel

Re: speakup in the kernel

[covici]

One of those people once told me that you could write a driver, pretend
speakup is a new device or something like that and find the serial port
the same way the current 8250 drivers do.  Is this nonsense, or is it
something we could do and this would make speakup much more robust than
it is now.

Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:

> John G. Heim, le Thu 09 Oct 2014 15:04:06 -0500, a écrit :
> > I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right way to
> > access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that implies there is
> > a right way, what is that?
> 
> "Doing it wrong" doesn't mean that the "right way" is already available.
> The difficulty here is that the right way doesn't exist yet, even if the
> kernel developers have an idea of how it would look like.  It's a matter
> of getting the time to do it.
> 
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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: speakup in the kernel

[Samuel Thibault]

covici@ccs.covici.com, le Sat 11 Oct 2014 05:55:38 -0400, a écrit :
> One of those people once told me that you could write a driver, pretend
> speakup is a new device or something like that and find the serial port
> the same way the current 8250 drivers do.  Is this nonsense, or is it
> something we could do and this would make speakup much more robust than
> it is now.

It makes sense, but I think it is going backwards in terms of USB
support, for instance.

Samuel

Re: speakup in the kernel

[covici]

But if you could do that, then you could do a USB driver along the same
lines -- at least then speakup would support a pci serial card.  Or
would it be easier to write a USB driver first -- not sure.  I still
think an actual discussion on my conference bridge or somewhere with
you, me, chris and anyone else who wants to participate would be very
helpful.


Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:

> covici@ccs.covici.com, le Sat 11 Oct 2014 05:55:38 -0400, a écrit :
> > One of those people once told me that you could write a driver, pretend
> > speakup is a new device or something like that and find the serial port
> > the same way the current 8250 drivers do.  Is this nonsense, or is it
> > something we could do and this would make speakup much more robust than
> > it is now.
> 
> It makes sense, but I think it is going backwards in terms of USB
> support, for instance.
> 
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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: speakup in the kernel

[John G. Heim]

On 10/11/14 02:46, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> John G. Heim, le Thu 09 Oct 2014 15:04:06 -0500, a écrit :
>> I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right way to
>> access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that implies there is
>> a right way, what is that?
>
> "Doing it wrong" doesn't mean that the "right way" is already available.
> The difficulty here is that the right way doesn't exist yet, even if the
> kernel developers have an idea of how it would look like.  It's a matter
> of getting the time to do it.

Well, I've come to understand during the course of this discussion that 
speakup isn't as stable as I thought. It looks like getting answers to 
questions about speakup is pretty difficult under any circumstances 
unless you press the right buttons.  In a way I have to take back my 
comments about the disrespect toward speakup that I saw expressed on the 
kernel developers list.

However, I think the kernel developers still don't get that 
accessibility isn't like other features. A developer has no ethical 
obligation to support some cranky old piece of hardware or to support 
software features no matter how popular they are.  For example, I don't 
think the cdrecord developer had any ethical obligation to  resolve the 
licensing issues that lead debian to fork cdrecord to wodim. I mean, I 
think that was crazy but not unethical.

On the other hand, it is unethical for someone, even a volunteer, to 
exclude a portion of the population who have no option in the matter. I 
only wish I could see a computer monitor and use linux like everyone 
else. I understand that as a practical matter, sometimes a developer has 
to say, "I can't do accessibility here. It's just too hard." But that 
should be an absolute last resort. I don't sense that from the linux 
kernel developers or from the open source community as a whole. I think 
most open source developers think of accessibilit like we're asking them 
to support our old 486 hardware or  complaining that our favorite hot 
key has gone away. I know every change they make probably creates a 
deluge of that kind of complaint. But accessibility just isn't the same 
as those complaints.

I think most developers would say, "I'm just a volunteer. How could I 
possibly be doing anything unethical?" But if you're volunteering at a 
Klu Klux Klan rally, you're doing something unethical. If you're writing 
software, even for free, that precludes it's use by  blind people, 
you're doing something unethical. A developer needs to do what is often 
referred to as "best effort" with respect to accessibility or it's 
wrong. And I don't think the kernel developers have given their best 
effort with respect to getting speakup into the kernel.

Re: speakup in the kernel

[Samuel Thibault]

John G. Heim, le Mon 13 Oct 2014 10:53:38 -0500, a écrit :
> And I don't think the kernel developers have given their best effort
> with respect to getting speakup into the kernel.

One thing people here have to understand is that the barrier to get into
working on speakup is not very low: one has to learn how to use it to
actually be able to test it.  I for myself never found the time to do
it.

Samuel

Re: speakup in the kernel

[covici]

So, I would love to help, but I am not sure how things work now, if
anyone is interested, I would like to have a discussion with them by
voice to catch me up to speed, so I can figure out what is going on.

Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:

> John G. Heim, le Mon 13 Oct 2014 10:53:38 -0500, a écrit :
> > And I don't think the kernel developers have given their best effort
> > with respect to getting speakup into the kernel.
> 
> One thing people here have to understand is that the barrier to get into
> working on speakup is not very low: one has to learn how to use it to
> actually be able to test it.  I for myself never found the time to do
> it.
> 
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/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