Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Bill Cox]

I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:

- SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
- SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.

Is there any chance the speakup guys might want to work on either of
these two features?  I think it would greatly increase the appeal of
speakup to the main distro developers.

Thanks,
Bill

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Bill Cox wrote:

> I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
> default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
> they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:

The problem with application specific key bindings is that it makes your 
basic environment inconsistent.  I think the two programs were written for 
different audiences but I could be wrong.  I find in general most command 
line only power users prefer a consistent environment, ie behavior won't 
be application specific, whereas a user more comfortable with a menu driven 
system who only wants a handful of standard applications to be smoother to 
operate and don't care about generic consistency would prefer something 
like SBL.

>
> - SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
> user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
> - SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
> any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
> it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.
>

To make Speakup not be kernel space would not only require a complete 
rewrite but also again would not let the power user or sys admin hear boot 
time messages.  I think in general because these two software packages 
serve different user types that it is important speakup not change because 
it is the only software package that meets my needs as a sys admin who 
needs a serious full fledged environment that can talk at all times.

Regards,

Pia

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Bill Cox]

Ok, that makes some sense.  SBL is used as you suggest, in a menu
driven environment.  Are the generic keybindings configurable?  I've
heard requests, and I admit I agree, that it would be nice to have
more consistency between speakup and Orca.

Thanks,
Bill

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Pia <pmikeal@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Bill Cox wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
>> default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
>> they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:
>
> The problem with application specific key bindings is that it makes your
> basic environment inconsistent.  I think the two programs were written for
> different audiences but I could be wrong.  I find in general most command
> line only power users prefer a consistent environment, ie behavior won't be
> application specific, whereas a user more comfortable with a menu driven
> system who only wants a handful of standard applications to be smoother to
> operate and don't care about generic consistency would prefer something like
> SBL.
>
>>
>> - SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
>> user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
>> - SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
>> any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
>> it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.
>>
>
> To make Speakup not be kernel space would not only require a complete
> rewrite but also again would not let the power user or sys admin hear boot
> time messages.  I think in general because these two software packages serve
> different user types that it is important speakup not change because it is
> the only software package that meets my needs as a sys admin who needs a
> serious full fledged environment that can talk at all times.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pia
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3415 bytes --]

For those that use the GUI, why not just use the terminal in Gnome with 
Orca and then you have the commandline with Orca keys and you don't have 
to change Speakup key bindings.  For one, I don't like that Orca will 
allow you to interrupt it with any key.  I do think Orca is great for a GUI 
because it is more like other familiar GUI environments blind people are 
used to, but for the commandline only server, I could be annoyed if my 
Speakup acted in a like manner.  I think for the GUI Orca is good though. 
Again, why make them all the same?  I also really like the editable key 
bindings of Yasr and actually would use it a lot if it didn't mess up my 
terminal redraw for some reason.  I like how easy it is to customize Yasr 
but admit I have not tried customization in other screen readers the way I 
have for Yasr.  An easily customizable key binding would make both camps 
happy I would think.  This for Speakup though would involve actually 
changing the keymap as I understand it though.  I mean, I like things the 
way they are but the capability for customization is always good.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Bill Cox wrote:

> Ok, that makes some sense.  SBL is used as you suggest, in a menu
> driven environment.  Are the generic keybindings configurable?  I've
> heard requests, and I admit I agree, that it would be nice to have
> more consistency between speakup and Orca.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Pia <pmikeal@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Bill Cox wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
>>> default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
>>> they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:
>>
>> The problem with application specific key bindings is that it makes your
>> basic environment inconsistent.  I think the two programs were written for
>> different audiences but I could be wrong.  I find in general most command
>> line only power users prefer a consistent environment, ie behavior won't be
>> application specific, whereas a user more comfortable with a menu driven
>> system who only wants a handful of standard applications to be smoother to
>> operate and don't care about generic consistency would prefer something like
>> SBL.
>>
>>>
>>> - SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
>>> user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
>>> - SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
>>> any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
>>> it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.
>>>
>>
>> To make Speakup not be kernel space would not only require a complete
>> rewrite but also again would not let the power user or sys admin hear boot
>> time messages.  I think in general because these two software packages serve
>> different user types that it is important speakup not change because it is
>> the only software package that meets my needs as a sys admin who needs a
>> serious full fledged environment that can talk at all times.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pia
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Michael Whapples]

I think you have had a response which reflects my views fairly well. 
Speakup is aimed at different people to SBL. The only thing I might add 
is that packaging speakup doesn't really seem any more difficult than 
the packaging of those optional drivers, eg. the nvidia GLX stuff, a 
sighted person needs a driver for the video card so they can have useful 
output, I need a way of making my apollo synth to give useful output 
(speakup).

One big difference is that SBL has Braille support although I have to be 
honest and say that when I tried SBL for that feature I wasn't 
impressed, brltty seems to be much more reliable. I didn't really try 
SBL for speech output as speakup really meets my needs for text console 
access (in the speech department, brltty for the Braille).

There does seem to be a dedicated set of users of SBL, so your effort of 
getting SBL on ubuntu is probably of value. Its good to have the choice, 
I choose not to use it because I find features of greater value in other 
software. Let's not duplicate work by having separately developed clones.

Michael Whapples
On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, Bill Cox wrote:
> I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
> default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
> they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:
>
> - SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
> user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
> - SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
> any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
> it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.
>
> Is there any chance the speakup guys might want to work on either of
> these two features?  I think it would greatly increase the appeal of
> speakup to the main distro developers.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>    

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Bill Cox]

I agree.  I do still wish for application specific keybindings in
speakup, and maybe even some scripting capability, but I think speakup
should remain the default console reader in Vinux for the forseable
future.  There's some chance we can get Ubuntu to start building
speakup, which would greatly simplify life.

One other thing I've heard mentioned about speakup.  I haven't looked
at the source code yet, but I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
ports.  Is this true, and if so, are there things we can do to get
speakup cleaned up enough to get included in the mainline kernel?

Bill

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Michael Whapples <mwhapples@aim.com> wrote:
> I think you have had a response which reflects my views fairly well. Speakup
> is aimed at different people to SBL. The only thing I might add is that
> packaging speakup doesn't really seem any more difficult than the packaging
> of those optional drivers, eg. the nvidia GLX stuff, a sighted person needs
> a driver for the video card so they can have useful output, I need a way of
> making my apollo synth to give useful output (speakup).
>
> One big difference is that SBL has Braille support although I have to be
> honest and say that when I tried SBL for that feature I wasn't impressed,
> brltty seems to be much more reliable. I didn't really try SBL for speech
> output as speakup really meets my needs for text console access (in the
> speech department, brltty for the Braille).
>
> There does seem to be a dedicated set of users of SBL, so your effort of
> getting SBL on ubuntu is probably of value. Its good to have the choice, I
> choose not to use it because I find features of greater value in other
> software. Let's not duplicate work by having separately developed clones.
>
> Michael Whapples
> On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, Bill Cox wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
>> default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
>> they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:
>>
>> - SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
>> user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
>> - SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
>> any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
>> it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.
>>
>> Is there any chance the speakup guys might want to work on either of
>> these two features?  I think it would greatly increase the appeal of
>> speakup to the main distro developers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Speak supported Distributions:

[Dawes, Stephen]

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and co-operation.

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Samuel Thibault]

Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
> ports.

Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).

Samuel

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

Does sbl start talking as early in the boot process as speakup? You can get 
speakup to speak very early in the boot process by compiling it into the 
kernel. It seems to me that if sbl does not have kernel mods, it can't do 
that. But maybe I'm just misunderstanding what people have said about sbl.

I think the speakup developers decided long ago that beginning speech as 
early as possible was job one. And I agree with that. I don't know why 
anyone would  write a character mode screen reader for linux at this point 
unless they think they can get it into the kernel code.  That would have 
made sense. Maybe somebody at suse said, "Hmm, it doesn't look like speakup 
is ever going to be included in the kernel. Lets write something that will." 
Not that I'd agree or approve but that would at least make sense.

IMO, if suse has extra developers that they want working on accessibility, 
they should have helped with either speakup or orca.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Whapples" <mwhapples@aim.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


>I think you have had a response which reflects my views fairly well. 
>Speakup is aimed at different people to SBL. The only thing I might add is 
>that packaging speakup doesn't really seem any more difficult than the 
>packaging of those optional drivers, eg. the nvidia GLX stuff, a sighted 
>person needs a driver for the video card so they can have useful output, I 
>need a way of making my apollo synth to give useful output (speakup).
>
> One big difference is that SBL has Braille support although I have to be 
> honest and say that when I tried SBL for that feature I wasn't impressed, 
> brltty seems to be much more reliable. I didn't really try SBL for speech 
> output as speakup really meets my needs for text console access (in the 
> speech department, brltty for the Braille).
>
> There does seem to be a dedicated set of users of SBL, so your effort of 
> getting SBL on ubuntu is probably of value. Its good to have the choice, I 
> choose not to use it because I find features of greater value in other 
> software. Let's not duplicate work by having separately developed clones.
>
> Michael Whapples
> On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, Bill Cox wrote:
>> I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
>> default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
>> they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:
>>
>> - SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
>> user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
>> - SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
>> any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
>> it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.
>>
>> Is there any chance the speakup guys might want to work on either of
>> these two features?  I think it would greatly increase the appeal of
>> speakup to the main distro developers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> 

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Kelly Prescott]

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Trevor Astrope]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1016 bytes --]

Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial 
ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according 
to kernel conventions?

It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup 
would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial 
ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern 
computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial 
ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far 
as I can tell...

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>> ports.
>
> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Dawes, Stephen]

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Samuel Thibault]

Trevor Astrope, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 16:09:06 -0500, a écrit :
> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial 
> ports

There is no kernel convention.

> or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according 
> to kernel conventions?

and thus no speakup support for accessing serial ports, just banging on
the I/O ports :)

Samuel

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Trevor Astrope]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 726 bytes --]

Does this mean that speakup will only ever support software speech on 
motherboards without built-in serial ports?

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Trevor Astrope, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 16:09:06 -0500, a écrit :
>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>> ports
>
> There is no kernel convention.
>
>> or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
>> to kernel conventions?
>
> and thus no speakup support for accessing serial ports, just banging on
> the I/O ports :)
>
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Samuel Thibault]

Trevor Astrope, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 16:43:42 -0500, a écrit :
> Does this mean that speakup will only ever support software speech on 
> motherboards without built-in serial ports?

Not "only ever": as I said, the kernel doesn't _yet_ has such interface.
A recent thread on linux-kernel showed that debugging people are
interested in it too, so it'll eventually happen.

Samuel

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Kelly Prescott]

Yes, but for a regular machine I could not tell a difference.
I would not run a server like that, but for my personal machine which I use
to access server machines, I think it is just fine.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that
are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Dawes, Stephen]

What would you suggest for a server?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>
Management Systems Analyst
Information Technology #8480 | Phone: (403) 268-5527
The City of Calgary | Fax: (403) 268-6423
PO Box 2100 Postal Station M. | Email: Stephen.Dawes@calgary.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 2M5 | Web: http://www.calgary.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 4:57 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Yes, but for a regular machine I could not tell a difference.
I would not run a server like that, but for my personal machine which I use
to access server machines, I think it is just fine.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that
are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Kelly Prescott]

I still use CentOS, but I just use the stock distribution.
I use ssh to administer it.
To install, I write a kickstart disk that makes all the important install
choices for me.
Once it is up and running, ssh from my speakup equipt desktop does the
trick.
I have built and administered hundreds of servers this way.
Everything from mail servers to phone systems to web servers and clustered
virtual servers.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What would you suggest for a server?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>
Management Systems Analyst
Information Technology #8480 | Phone: (403) 268-5527 The City of Calgary |
Fax: (403) 268-6423 PO Box 2100 Postal Station M. | Email:
Stephen.Dawes@calgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 2M5 | Web:
http://www.calgary.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 4:57 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Yes, but for a regular machine I could not tell a difference.
I would not run a server like that, but for my personal machine which I use
to access server machines, I think it is just fine.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that
are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial 
ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact, 
except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a serial 
port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even 
the machine I built myself has a serial port.

It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the 
kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup in 
the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen 
reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine 
is booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
something is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines 
remotely after they boot.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
to kernel conventions?

It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
as I can tell...

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>> ports.
>
> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Dawes, Stephen]

What do you use for a "kick start disk"?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 10 9:15 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

I still use CentOS, but I just use the stock distribution.
I use ssh to administer it.
To install, I write a kickstart disk that makes all the important install
choices for me.
Once it is up and running, ssh from my speakup equipt desktop does the
trick.
I have built and administered hundreds of servers this way.
Everything from mail servers to phone systems to web servers and clustered
virtual servers.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What would you suggest for a server?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>
Management Systems Analyst
Information Technology #8480 | Phone: (403) 268-5527 The City of Calgary |
Fax: (403) 268-6423 PO Box 2100 Postal Station M. | Email:
Stephen.Dawes@calgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 2M5 | Web:
http://www.calgary.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 4:57 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Yes, but for a regular machine I could not tell a difference.
I would not run a server like that, but for my personal machine which I use
to access server machines, I think it is just fine.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that
are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3064 bytes --]

Totally agreed with you about the need for early boot messages to be 
spoken.  Your statement about most boxen having serial ports is incorrect 
though.  At work we mostly order new Workstations with Cor i7 CPUs or 
build them ourselves with similar specs.  None and I mean none of the 
motherboards have serial ports at all.  If your computer does have a 
serial port it is getting pretty old, it has an added serial card in an 
expansion slot, or it is a server.

Kind Regards,

Pia

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial 
> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact, 
> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a serial 
> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even 
> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>
> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the 
> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup in 
> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen 
> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine is 
> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if something 
> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely 
> after they boot.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
> to kernel conventions?
>
> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
> as I can tell...
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>> ports.
>> 
>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>> 
>> Samuel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>> 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Trevor Astrope]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 4328 bytes --]

John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the 
kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.

Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with 
serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were some 
low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but 
they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer 
desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.

Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the 
kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the 
servers.

So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial 
ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup 
as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time unless 
it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion, 
this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more 
people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not a 
speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I can 
only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and 
I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the 
challenge.

In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether I 
continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more 
difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't 
solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give 
me more flexability going forward.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial 
> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact, 
> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a serial 
> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even 
> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>
> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the 
> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup in 
> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen 
> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine is 
> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if something 
> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely 
> after they boot.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
> to kernel conventions?
>
> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
> as I can tell...
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>> ports.
>> 
>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>> 
>> Samuel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>> 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Kelly Prescott]

At various times I have used a boot cdrom I have customized, a USB key that
I have customized, and in the good old days, a boot floppy!
Probably the easiest way is to use a usb key to do it.
Then add a ks.cfg to it and that should get you going.
Another interesting way to do it is to take a good installed image and dump
it onto the drive of the system you want to install and customize it.
Most of this does require some extra effort, but it yields 2 things:
1:  satisfaction
2:  lots of extra knowledge about how the internals of  centOS or any
distribution works.

 
Now, some people neither need or want this, but this is what I like to do.


-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:18 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What do you use for a "kick start disk"?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 10 9:15 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

I still use CentOS, but I just use the stock distribution.
I use ssh to administer it.
To install, I write a kickstart disk that makes all the important install
choices for me.
Once it is up and running, ssh from my speakup equipt desktop does the
trick.
I have built and administered hundreds of servers this way.
Everything from mail servers to phone systems to web servers and clustered
virtual servers.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What would you suggest for a server?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>
Management Systems Analyst
Information Technology #8480 | Phone: (403) 268-5527 The City of Calgary |
Fax: (403) 268-6423 PO Box 2100 Postal Station M. | Email:
Stephen.Dawes@calgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 2M5 | Web:
http://www.calgary.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 4:57 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Yes, but for a regular machine I could not tell a difference.
I would not run a server like that, but for my personal machine which I use
to access server machines, I think it is just fine.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that
are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Kelly Prescott]

I am in the process of moving just now, but I am about to make myself a new
installation cdrom for CentOS 5.x so I can post it somewhere when I am done
with instructions on how I did it if there is any interest.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:18 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What do you use for a "kick start disk"?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 10 9:15 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

I still use CentOS, but I just use the stock distribution.
I use ssh to administer it.
To install, I write a kickstart disk that makes all the important install
choices for me.
Once it is up and running, ssh from my speakup equipt desktop does the
trick.
I have built and administered hundreds of servers this way.
Everything from mail servers to phone systems to web servers and clustered
virtual servers.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What would you suggest for a server?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>
Management Systems Analyst
Information Technology #8480 | Phone: (403) 268-5527 The City of Calgary |
Fax: (403) 268-6423 PO Box 2100 Postal Station M. | Email:
Stephen.Dawes@calgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 2M5 | Web:
http://www.calgary.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 4:57 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Yes, but for a regular machine I could not tell a difference.
I would not run a server like that, but for my personal machine which I use
to access server machines, I think it is just fine.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that
are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

RE: Speak supported Distributions:

[Dawes, Stephen]

I'll stay tuned!

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>
-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca] On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 10 2:15 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

I am in the process of moving just now, but I am about to make myself a new
installation cdrom for CentOS 5.x so I can post it somewhere when I am done
with instructions on how I did it if there is any interest.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:18 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What do you use for a "kick start disk"?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 10 9:15 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

I still use CentOS, but I just use the stock distribution.
I use ssh to administer it.
To install, I write a kickstart disk that makes all the important install
choices for me.
Once it is up and running, ssh from my speakup equipt desktop does the
trick.
I have built and administered hundreds of servers this way.
Everything from mail servers to phone systems to web servers and clustered
virtual servers.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

What would you suggest for a server?

Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>
Management Systems Analyst
Information Technology #8480 | Phone: (403) 268-5527 The City of Calgary |
Fax: (403) 268-6423 PO Box 2100 Postal Station M. | Email:
Stephen.Dawes@calgary.ca Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 2M5 | Web:
http://www.calgary.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 4:57 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Yes, but for a regular machine I could not tell a difference.
I would not run a server like that, but for my personal machine which I use
to access server machines, I think it is just fine.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Kelly,

In creating a custom kernel, did you loose out on the customizations that
are in the centos kernel by default?


Stephen Dawes <B.A., B.Sc.>

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kelly Prescott
Sent: 2010 February 09 1:14 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: RE: Speak supported Distributions:

Steven, I just compile a custom kernel from scratch, and then lock the
kernel rpm so it can't be updated.
You can't patch the centos kernel as there are a lot of mods to it, but they
have not impacted my operation any.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Dawes, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:34 PM
To: 'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'
Subject: Speak supported Distributions:

Does anyone have any experience using speak with centos?
If not, what is involved in adding speakup into the centos kernel?
I know that centos is the open source version of RedHat enterprise Linux, so
I thought there may be someone who has done this on the list.
I am interested in going to centos because I am finding it hard, with time
constraints, to keep up with the latest version(s) of fedora.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.


Stephen Dawes

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person
responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended
recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by telephone and then destroy or delete this communication,
or return it to us by mail if requested by us. The City of Calgary thanks
you for your attention and co-operation.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Kerry Hoath]

Actually there is often a header for the serial port on the board but the 
bracket is not provided or wired up.
Regards, Kerry.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


Totally agreed with you about the need for early boot messages to be
spoken.  Your statement about most boxen having serial ports is incorrect
though.  At work we mostly order new Workstations with Cor i7 CPUs or
build them ourselves with similar specs.  None and I mean none of the
motherboards have serial ports at all.  If your computer does have a
serial port it is getting pretty old, it has an added serial card in an
expansion slot, or it is a server.

Kind Regards,

Pia

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial
> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
> serial
> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even
> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>
> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup 
> in
> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine 
> is
> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
> something
> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
> after they boot.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
> to kernel conventions?
>
> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
> as I can tell...
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>> ports.
>>
>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>
>> Samuel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

Dude, my computer is not old. I work for the University of Wisconsin 
Department of Mathematics and we order 30 to 40 new desktops a year. Every 
one of them has had a serial port. Every single one. True, we order 
exclusively from Dell. So maybe Dell is a cut above wherever you get your 
computers from. But I recently built my own PC from parts I ordered from 
newegg and the mobo I bought has a serial port.

Since you're building your own PCs, you might try double checking the specs 
on the motherboard. It may have a serial port header block but no external 
connection. If so, then you just need an adapter to go from the header block 
to the case. If you're building your own PCs, why don't you just order mobos 
with external serial ports? Or at least make sure it has a serial port 
header block and you can install the adapter just in the machines where you 
need a serial port.

From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


> Totally agreed with you about the need for early boot messages to be
> spoken.  Your statement about most boxen having serial ports is incorrect
> though.  At work we mostly order new Workstations with Cor i7 CPUs or
> build them ourselves with similar specs.  None and I mean none of the
> motherboards have serial ports at all.  If your computer does have a
> serial port it is getting pretty old, it has an added serial card in an
> expansion slot, or it is a server.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Pia
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have 
>> serial
>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
>> serial
>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
>> Even
>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>
>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup 
>> in
>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the 
>> machine is
>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
>> something
>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
>> after they boot.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>
>>
>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
>> to kernel conventions?
>>
>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
>> as I can tell...
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>> ports.
>>>
>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>
>>> Samuel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup developers 
would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was that speakup 
doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just totally untrue.  You 
also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no advantage". Also untrue. 
I don't have a problem with your offereing the suggestion that speakup be 
modified to support USB hardware synths. I just think you shouldn't 
exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the subject line of this thread, 
"Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If we're going to compare sbl and 
speakup, lets be fair about it.

You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not 
true. Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We both 
agree that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is that 
you have a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech right 
away during boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your desktop? In 
fact, I'm unclear as to why it is so important to you that the workstations 
you support have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of the PCs in my 
department have serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but when I have to 
do support, I just use software speech. I'm not going to drag my hardware 
speech synth around with me unless I have to. Its so much easier just to 
grap a USB headset and fire up software speech.

Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you 
could modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is plugged 
into a machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a 
unique serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to start 
speech when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. So its 
possible to sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB headset, 
and login with speech.

---- Original Message ----- 
From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.

Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were some
low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but
they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.

Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
servers.

So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup
as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time unless
it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion,
this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not a
speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I can
only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and
I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
challenge.

In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether I
continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give
me more flexability going forward.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial
> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
> serial
> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even
> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>
> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup 
> in
> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine 
> is
> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
> something
> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
> after they boot.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
> to kernel conventions?
>
> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
> as I can tell...
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>> ports.
>>
>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>
>> Samuel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Trevor Astrope]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 8141 bytes --]

John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the kernel 
if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my 
statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I know 
there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception, 
not the rule and are also much more expensive.

Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports 
and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of 
being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the 
majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in 
the kernel.

Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you will 
find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in 
serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this 
is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup developers 
> would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was that speakup 
> doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just totally untrue.  You 
> also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no advantage". Also untrue. 
> I don't have a problem with your offereing the suggestion that speakup be 
> modified to support USB hardware synths. I just think you shouldn't 
> exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the subject line of this thread, 
> "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If we're going to compare sbl and 
> speakup, lets be fair about it.
>
> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not true. 
> Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We both agree 
> that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is that you have 
> a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech right away during 
> boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your desktop? In fact, I'm 
> unclear as to why it is so important to you that the workstations you support 
> have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of the PCs in my department have 
> serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but when I have to do support, I 
> just use software speech. I'm not going to drag my hardware speech synth 
> around with me unless I have to. Its so much easier just to grap a USB 
> headset and fire up software speech.
>
> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you could 
> modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is plugged into a 
> machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a unique 
> serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to start speech 
> when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. So its possible to 
> sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB headset, and login 
> with speech.
>
> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>
> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were some
> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but
> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>
> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
> servers.
>
> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup
> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time unless
> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion,
> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not a
> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I can
> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and
> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
> challenge.
>
> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether I
> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give
> me more flexability going forward.
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial
>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a serial
>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even
>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>> 
>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup 
>> in
>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine 
>> is
>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if something
>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
>> after they boot.
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>> 
>> 
>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
>> to kernel conventions?
>> 
>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
>> as I can tell...
>> 
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> 
>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>> ports.
>>> 
>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>> 
>>> Samuel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>> 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Butch Bussen]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 8901 bytes --]

A bit off topic, but can you tell me which Dell business machine has a 
serial port? model?  I need a better machine for xp, but I need at least 
one and preferably two serial ports.
Thanks.
73
Butch Bussen
wa0vjr
open Node 3148
Las Vegas


On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Trevor Astrope 
wrote:

> John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the kernel if 
> it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my 
> statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I know 
> there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception, not 
> the rule and are also much more expensive.
>
> Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports and/or 
> usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of being in 
> the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the majority of 
> computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in the kernel.
>
> Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you will 
> find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in 
> serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this is 
> happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>>  I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup
>>  developers would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was
>>  that speakup doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just totally
>>  untrue.  You also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no
>>  advantage". Also untrue. I don't have a problem with your offereing the
>>  suggestion that speakup be modified to support USB hardware synths. I just
>>  think you shouldn't exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the
>>  subject line of this thread, "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If
>>  we're going to compare sbl and speakup, lets be fair about it.
>>
>>  You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not
>>  true. Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We
>>  both agree that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is
>>  that you have a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech
>>  right away during boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your
>>  desktop? In fact, I'm unclear as to why it is so important to you that the
>>  workstations you support have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of the
>>  PCs in my department have serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but
>>  when I have to do support, I just use software speech. I'm not going to
>>  drag my hardware speech synth around with me unless I have to. Its so much
>>  easier just to grap a USB headset and fire up software speech.
>>
>>  Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you
>>  could modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is plugged
>>  into a machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a
>>  unique serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to
>>  start speech when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. So
>>  its possible to sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB
>>  headset, and login with speech.
>>
>>  ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>  <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>  Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
>>  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>> 
>>
>>  John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
>>  kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>>
>>  Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
>>  serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were some
>>  low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but
>>  they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
>>  desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>>
>>  Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
>>  kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
>>  servers.
>>
>>  So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
>>  ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup
>>  as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time unless
>>  it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion,
>>  this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
>>  people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not a
>>  speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I can
>>  only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and
>>  I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
>>  challenge.
>>
>>  In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether I
>>  continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
>>  difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
>>  solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give
>>  me more flexability going forward.
>>
>>  On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 
>> >  Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have 
>> >  serial
>> >  ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>> >  except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
>> >  serial
>> >  port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
>> >  Even
>> >  the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>> > 
>> >  It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>> >  kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having 
>> >  speakup in
>> >  the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>> >  reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the 
>> >  machine is
>> >  booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
>> >  something
>> >  is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines 
>> >  remotely
>> >  after they boot.
>> > 
>> >  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" 
>> >  <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> >  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>> >  <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> >  Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>> >  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>> >  ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports 
>> >  according
>> >  to kernel conventions?
>> > 
>> >  It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>> >  would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>> >  ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on 
>> >  modern
>> >  computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>> >  ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so 
>> >  far
>> >  as I can tell...
>> > 
>> >  On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> > 
>> > >  Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>> > > >  I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>> > > >  programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>> > > >  ports.
>> > > 
>> > >  Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>> > > 
>> > >  Samuel
>> > >  _______________________________________________
>> > >  Speakup mailing list
>> > >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> > >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 
>> > 
>> > >  _______________________________________________
>> > >  Speakup mailing list
>> > >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> > >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > > 
>> > 
>> >  _______________________________________________
>> >  Speakup mailing list
>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>>
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> >  _______________________________________________
>> >  Speakup mailing list
>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> > 
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Speakup mailing list
>>  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>> 
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Bill Cox]

By the way, I didn't mean to start arguments with this thread.  I'm a
big fan of speakup.  It's a great example of the blind taking control
over accessibility, and not waiting for the world to offer a solution.
 I just want to integrate it more cleanly into Vinux, and of course,
I'd like to see it be even better.

Bill

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

Well, you didn't originally say *most* motherboards don't have serial ports 
or that *if* a PC has no serial port there is no advantage to having 
speakup in the kernel. But I guess the symantics of the debate aren't really 
relevant anyway. We should get back to arguing the point.

Maybe its accurate to say that *most* modern motherboards don't have serial 
ports. I question even that. But you didn't address my questions about how 
you determined your priorities. We both agree that most servers have serial 
ports. That seems unlikely to change any time soon. So I don't understand 
why its so important to you to have hardware speech on your desktop. I 
understand it for servers. In fact, that was part of my original point --  
having speakup in the kernel is very important if you need to find out what 
a server won't boot or why it can't get a network connection. But on your 
desktop, why don't you just use software speech? In fact, why don't you just 
get one PC for yourself with a serial port and use software speech on all 
the other desktops that you do support on. That's what I do even though all 
of our PCs have serial ports.

Also, I have a problem with your prediction that speakup will become less 
relevant if it doesn't support USB hardware. I suppose its true as far as it 
goes but its like saying if pigs had wings they could fly. Maybe. But pigs 
don't have wings.  Speakup probably would and probably will support USB 
synths if and when it becomes possible.  But right now, its not possible. 
You will never be able to switch to orca or sbl or any other screen reader 
for boot time speech. If those screen readers tried to find a way to speak 
as early in the boot process as speakup does, they'd run into exactly the 
same problems  that speakup has.

Oorca and sbl are probably never even going to try to speak as early in the 
boot process as speakup does. Honestly, if you think about it, who uses 
hardware speech synths these days anyway? If you want to talk about modern 
solutions, hardware speech synths are definately yesterday's ttechnology. 
People want a GUI and they want software speech. The vast majority of people 
still interested in the CUI are systems administrators. I really doubt that 
not supporting USB synths is a serious threat to speakup's popularity with 
system admins if for no other reason than that if you want speech during 
boot, you have no choice but to use speakup.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the kernel
if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my
statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I know
there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception,
not the rule and are also much more expensive.

Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports
and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of
being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the
majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in
the kernel.

Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you will
find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in
serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this
is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup 
> developers
> would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was that speakup
> doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just totally untrue.  You
> also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no advantage". Also 
> untrue.
> I don't have a problem with your offereing the suggestion that speakup be
> modified to support USB hardware synths. I just think you shouldn't
> exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the subject line of this 
> thread,
> "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If we're going to compare sbl and
> speakup, lets be fair about it.
>
> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not 
> true.
> Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We both 
> agree
> that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is that you 
> have
> a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech right away 
> during
> boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your desktop? In fact, I'm
> unclear as to why it is so important to you that the workstations you 
> support
> have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of the PCs in my department 
> have
> serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but when I have to do support, I
> just use software speech. I'm not going to drag my hardware speech synth
> around with me unless I have to. Its so much easier just to grap a USB
> headset and fire up software speech.
>
> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you 
> could
> modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is plugged into 
> a
> machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a unique
> serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to start 
> speech
> when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. So its possible 
> to
> sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB headset, and login
> with speech.
>
> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>
> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were some
> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but
> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>
> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
> servers.
>
> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup
> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time unless
> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion,
> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not a
> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I can
> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and
> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
> challenge.
>
> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether I
> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give
> me more flexability going forward.
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have 
>> serial
>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
>> serial
>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
>> Even
>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>
>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup
>> in
>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the 
>> machine
>> is
>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
>> something
>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
>> after they boot.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>
>>
>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
>> to kernel conventions?
>>
>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
>> as I can tell...
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>> ports.
>>>
>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>
>>> Samuel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Gregory Nowak]

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

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:00:42AM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> Honestly, if you think about it, who 
> uses hardware speech synths these days anyway?

Well, I still do, and I'm probably not the only one (grin). Does that mean I
don't use software speech at all? No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Greg


- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkt0QZQACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyCCQgCfU5lWcsCj3uIzmFdMuUCbz6+K
wX0AnRw21wxm2//vm9JrtXuU7v/vs4Mw
=cpmG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Trevor Astrope]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 14472 bytes --]

John, I use serial consoles on the servers and blades I manage, so I don't 
need speakup on them. In the case that I do need speech on them, I use a 
rescue disc with speakup.

I need speakup on my desktop and I do prefer hardware speech over software 
speech. I also tend to do experimentation on my desktop or rather a test 
machine I have for this purpose, so I need access to kernel messages for 
when something goes wrong. This is why I need hardware speech on these 
machines.

I guess only time will tell whether serial ports completely disappear from 
desktop machines. My money is on the side that they will. Afterall, it is 
already happening. What is the ratio of desktops that have a serial port 
to those that don't? My guess is around 10 to 1 or maybe even higher. And 
we're not even talking about laptops where it seems everyone is resigned 
to the fact that software speech is the only option. If speakup could 
support usb serial ports, than it doesn't have to be this way. One could 
use a hardware synth when it is docked and software speech when on the 
move if usb synths were supported.

Perhaps rs232 serial ports will never completely disappear. There might 
always be a niche for them. You can still get rs232 serial printers that 
are used in manufacturing, so there might also be a niche for computers 
with serial ports. But we will have to pay a hefty premium for them.

The point here is that we can take a chance and assume that there will 
always be computers with serial ports and can continue using speakup as it 
is now or we can take the lead and acknowledge the fact that serial ports 
are uncommon and that for speakup to be useful as a kernel based screen 
reader that it will need some way of accessing serial ports that are not 
built-in to the motherboard. I am not just talking about usb, as it does 
seem to me the best way to go, but there are also pci express rs232 serial 
cards that can be used as an alternative if speakup is able to access 
them. Since there are few desktops available with built-in serial ports 
and perhaps none in the not-too-distant future that have serial ports 
speakup can use, then speakup isn't very useful as a kernel based screen 
reader.

I think we are at a cross roads where speakup development can focus on 
supporting hardware speech on modern computers without serial ports or it 
can focus on software speech where being a kernel based screen reader is 
of little advantage and it might be better for it to be in userland where 
it would be easier to integrate into distributions.

From William's comments, it does seem that development is focused on 
supporting hardware speech on modern computers, so this is a good thing in 
my opinion, as I do think this is the way to go.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> Well, you didn't originally say *most* motherboards don't have serial ports 
> or that *if* a PC has no serial port there is no advantage to having speakup 
> in the kernel. But I guess the symantics of the debate aren't really relevant 
> anyway. We should get back to arguing the point.
>
> Maybe its accurate to say that *most* modern motherboards don't have serial 
> ports. I question even that. But you didn't address my questions about how 
> you determined your priorities. We both agree that most servers have serial 
> ports. That seems unlikely to change any time soon. So I don't understand why 
> its so important to you to have hardware speech on your desktop. I understand 
> it for servers. In fact, that was part of my original point --  having 
> speakup in the kernel is very important if you need to find out what a server 
> won't boot or why it can't get a network connection. But on your desktop, why 
> don't you just use software speech? In fact, why don't you just get one PC 
> for yourself with a serial port and use software speech on all the other 
> desktops that you do support on. That's what I do even though all of our PCs 
> have serial ports.
>
> Also, I have a problem with your prediction that speakup will become less 
> relevant if it doesn't support USB hardware. I suppose its true as far as it 
> goes but its like saying if pigs had wings they could fly. Maybe. But pigs 
> don't have wings.  Speakup probably would and probably will support USB 
> synths if and when it becomes possible.  But right now, its not possible. You 
> will never be able to switch to orca or sbl or any other screen reader for 
> boot time speech. If those screen readers tried to find a way to speak as 
> early in the boot process as speakup does, they'd run into exactly the same 
> problems  that speakup has.
>
> Oorca and sbl are probably never even going to try to speak as early in the 
> boot process as speakup does. Honestly, if you think about it, who uses 
> hardware speech synths these days anyway? If you want to talk about modern 
> solutions, hardware speech synths are definately yesterday's ttechnology. 
> People want a GUI and they want software speech. The vast majority of people 
> still interested in the CUI are systems administrators. I really doubt that 
> not supporting USB synths is a serious threat to speakup's popularity with 
> system admins if for no other reason than that if you want speech during 
> boot, you have no choice but to use speakup.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the kernel
> if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my
> statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I know
> there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception,
> not the rule and are also much more expensive.
>
> Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports
> and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of
> being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the
> majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in
> the kernel.
>
> Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you will
> find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in
> serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this
> is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup 
>> developers
>> would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was that speakup
>> doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just totally untrue.  You
>> also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no advantage". Also 
>> untrue.
>> I don't have a problem with your offereing the suggestion that speakup be
>> modified to support USB hardware synths. I just think you shouldn't
>> exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the subject line of this 
>> thread,
>> "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If we're going to compare sbl and
>> speakup, lets be fair about it.
>> 
>> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not 
>> true.
>> Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We both agree
>> that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is that you 
>> have
>> a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech right away during
>> boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your desktop? In fact, I'm
>> unclear as to why it is so important to you that the workstations you 
>> support
>> have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of the PCs in my department have
>> serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but when I have to do support, I
>> just use software speech. I'm not going to drag my hardware speech synth
>> around with me unless I have to. Its so much easier just to grap a USB
>> headset and fire up software speech.
>> 
>> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you 
>> could
>> modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is plugged into a
>> machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a unique
>> serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to start speech
>> when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. So its possible 
>> to
>> sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB headset, and login
>> with speech.
>> 
>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>> 
>> 
>> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
>> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>> 
>> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
>> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were some
>> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but
>> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
>> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>> 
>> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
>> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
>> servers.
>> 
>> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
>> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup
>> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time unless
>> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion,
>> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
>> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not a
>> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I can
>> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and
>> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
>> challenge.
>> 
>> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether I
>> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
>> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
>> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give
>> me more flexability going forward.
>> 
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial
>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
>>> serial
>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even
>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>> 
>>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup
>>> in
>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine
>>> is
>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
>>> something
>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
>>> after they boot.
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
>>> to kernel conventions?
>>> 
>>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
>>> as I can tell...
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>>> ports.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>> 
>>>> Samuel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>> 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Trevor Astrope]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 9544 bytes --]

Hi Butch,

Check out the Dell Optiplex line. I'm not sure if all Optiplex models have 
a serial port, but there are some that do. It should be fine for XP, but 
Dell said linux is not supported on the Optiplex line. This doesn't mean 
that Linux won't install or work on these machines, but ymmv. John likely 
has more experience with linux on these  machines and might be able to 
provide more info...

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Butch Bussen wrote:

> A bit off topic, but can you tell me which Dell business machine has a serial 
> port? model?  I need a better machine for xp, but I need at least one and 
> preferably two serial ports.
> Thanks.
> 73
> Butch Bussen
> wa0vjr
> open Node 3148
> Las Vegas
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Trevor Astrope wrote:
>
>> John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the kernel 
>> if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my 
>> statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I know 
>> there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception, 
>> not the rule and are also much more expensive.
>> 
>> Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports 
>> and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of 
>> being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the majority 
>> of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in the kernel.
>> 
>> Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you will 
>> find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in 
>> serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this is 
>> happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.
>> 
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 
>>>  I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup
>>>  developers would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was
>>>  that speakup doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just 
>>> totally
>>>  untrue.  You also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no
>>>  advantage". Also untrue. I don't have a problem with your offereing the
>>>  suggestion that speakup be modified to support USB hardware synths. I 
>>> just
>>>  think you shouldn't exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the
>>>  subject line of this thread, "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If
>>>  we're going to compare sbl and speakup, lets be fair about it.
>>> 
>>>  You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not
>>>  true. Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We
>>>  both agree that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is
>>>  that you have a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech
>>>  right away during boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your
>>>  desktop? In fact, I'm unclear as to why it is so important to you that 
>>> the
>>>  workstations you support have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of 
>>> the
>>>  PCs in my department have serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but
>>>  when I have to do support, I just use software speech. I'm not going to
>>>  drag my hardware speech synth around with me unless I have to. Its so 
>>> much
>>>  easier just to grap a USB headset and fire up software speech.
>>> 
>>>  Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you
>>>  could modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is 
>>> plugged
>>>  into a machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a
>>>  unique serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to
>>>  start speech when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. 
>>> So
>>>  its possible to sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB
>>>  headset, and login with speech.
>>> 
>>>  ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>>  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>>  <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>>  Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
>>>  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
>>>  kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>>> 
>>>  Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
>>>  serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were 
>>> some
>>>  low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but
>>>  they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
>>>  desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>>> 
>>>  Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
>>>  kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
>>>  servers.
>>> 
>>>  So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
>>>  ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup
>>>  as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time 
>>> unless
>>>  it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion,
>>>  this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
>>>  people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not 
>>> a
>>>  speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I 
>>> can
>>>  only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and
>>>  I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
>>>  challenge.
>>> 
>>>  In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether 
>>> I
>>>  continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
>>>  difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
>>>  solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give
>>>  me more flexability going forward.
>>> 
>>>  On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>> 
>>> >  Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have > 
>>> serial
>>> >  ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In 
>>> fact,
>>> >  except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a > 
>>> serial
>>> >  port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. > 
>>> Even
>>> >  the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>> > >  It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in 
>>> the
>>> >  kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having > 
>>> speakup in
>>> >  the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>>> >  reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the > 
>>> machine is
>>> >  booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if > 
>>> something
>>> >  is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines > 
>>> remotely
>>> >  after they boot.
>>> > >  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" > 
>>> <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>> >  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." > 
>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>> >  Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>> >  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>> > > >  Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing 
>>> serial
>>> >  ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports > 
>>> according
>>> >  to kernel conventions?
>>> > >  It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so 
>>> speakup
>>> >  would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>> >  ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on > 
>>> modern
>>> >  computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>> >  ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so > 
>>> far
>>> >  as I can tell...
>>> > >  On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> > > >  Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>> > > >  I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>> > > >  programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the 
>>> COM
>>> > > >  ports.
>>> > > > >  Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>> > > > >  Samuel
>>> > >  _______________________________________________
>>> > >  Speakup mailing list
>>> > >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> > >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> > > > > > > > > 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > >  _______________________________________________
>>> > >  Speakup mailing list
>>> > >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> > >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> > > > >  _______________________________________________
>>> >  Speakup mailing list
>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> > > 
>>> 
>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> >  _______________________________________________
>>> >  Speakup mailing list
>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> > 
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  Speakup mailing list
>>>  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 5853 bytes --]

Hi John,

Does your computer have an i7 CPU or equivalent or is it an earlier 
generation?  Specifically, the newest computer motherboards are being 
manufactured with no serial ports, headers or otherwise.  We order Dells 
too and build our own.  Usually we buy our motherboards from New Egg and 
we are nit picky about each spec and so I guarantee that what I am saying 
is accurate.  I would argue that perhaps since you work for the math 
department, you may not have the same demand for the bleeding edge like we 
do in Structural Biology where we need to look at 3D models of viruses and 
other small things in great detail.  We love your University's job 
distribution system named Condor BTW, thank you! :)  Keep in mind though, 
that the i7 will go from scientific number crunching geek, or gamer 
technology to the norm in about a year or so.  Therefore, motherboards 
lacking a serial port are already here and coming down the pike quickly 
for those who don't already have them.

Regards,

Pia

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> Dude, my computer is not old. I work for the University of Wisconsin 
> Department of Mathematics and we order 30 to 40 new desktops a year. Every 
> one of them has had a serial port. Every single one. True, we order 
> exclusively from Dell. So maybe Dell is a cut above wherever you get your 
> computers from. But I recently built my own PC from parts I ordered from 
> newegg and the mobo I bought has a serial port.
>
> Since you're building your own PCs, you might try double checking the specs 
> on the motherboard. It may have a serial port header block but no external 
> connection. If so, then you just need an adapter to go from the header block 
> to the case. If you're building your own PCs, why don't you just order mobos 
> with external serial ports? Or at least make sure it has a serial port header 
> block and you can install the adapter just in the machines where you need a 
> serial port.
>
> From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
>> Totally agreed with you about the need for early boot messages to be
>> spoken.  Your statement about most boxen having serial ports is incorrect
>> though.  At work we mostly order new Workstations with Cor i7 CPUs or
>> build them ourselves with similar specs.  None and I mean none of the
>> motherboards have serial ports at all.  If your computer does have a
>> serial port it is getting pretty old, it has an added serial card in an
>> expansion slot, or it is a server.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> 
>> Pia
>> 
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial
>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
>>> serial
>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even
>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>> 
>>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup 
>>> in
>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine 
>>> is
>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
>>> something
>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
>>> after they boot.
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
>>> to kernel conventions?
>>> 
>>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
>>> as I can tell...
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>>> ports.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>> 
>>>> Samuel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 12232 bytes --]

There is a wonderful reason to have hardware speech on your desktop.  My 
Dec Talk I have on my desktop at work works way better with speakup than 
my software synth with speakup that I use at home.  I like sitting at the 
commandline all day and so the commandline is my desktop unless I am 
forced to use X Windows from time to time to help a user with a problem. 
It is true that I remote into my servers but my desktop is almost always 
at tty1 because I like it that way.  I get more work done that way.  You 
are just trying to pick a fight with people it seems John.  I really don't 
know what your problem is, but you are making yourself sound ignorant by 
just coming at people like that with your opinions and trying to belittle 
them.  This list is not supposed to be hostile.  So, chill out!

Sincerely,

Pia

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> Well, you didn't originally say *most* motherboards don't have serial ports 
> or that *if* a PC has no serial port there is no advantage to having speakup 
> in the kernel. But I guess the symantics of the debate aren't really relevant 
> anyway. We should get back to arguing the point.
>
> Maybe its accurate to say that *most* modern motherboards don't have serial 
> ports. I question even that. But you didn't address my questions about how 
> you determined your priorities. We both agree that most servers have serial 
> ports. That seems unlikely to change any time soon. So I don't understand why 
> its so important to you to have hardware speech on your desktop. I understand 
> it for servers. In fact, that was part of my original point --  having 
> speakup in the kernel is very important if you need to find out what a server 
> won't boot or why it can't get a network connection. But on your desktop, why 
> don't you just use software speech? In fact, why don't you just get one PC 
> for yourself with a serial port and use software speech on all the other 
> desktops that you do support on. That's what I do even though all of our PCs 
> have serial ports.
>
> Also, I have a problem with your prediction that speakup will become less 
> relevant if it doesn't support USB hardware. I suppose its true as far as it 
> goes but its like saying if pigs had wings they could fly. Maybe. But pigs 
> don't have wings.  Speakup probably would and probably will support USB 
> synths if and when it becomes possible.  But right now, its not possible. You 
> will never be able to switch to orca or sbl or any other screen reader for 
> boot time speech. If those screen readers tried to find a way to speak as 
> early in the boot process as speakup does, they'd run into exactly the same 
> problems  that speakup has.
>
> Oorca and sbl are probably never even going to try to speak as early in the 
> boot process as speakup does. Honestly, if you think about it, who uses 
> hardware speech synths these days anyway? If you want to talk about modern 
> solutions, hardware speech synths are definately yesterday's ttechnology. 
> People want a GUI and they want software speech. The vast majority of people 
> still interested in the CUI are systems administrators. I really doubt that 
> not supporting USB synths is a serious threat to speakup's popularity with 
> system admins if for no other reason than that if you want speech during 
> boot, you have no choice but to use speakup.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
> John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the kernel
> if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my
> statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I know
> there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception,
> not the rule and are also much more expensive.
>
> Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports
> and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of
> being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the
> majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in
> the kernel.
>
> Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you will
> find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in
> serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this
> is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup 
>> developers
>> would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was that speakup
>> doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just totally untrue.  You
>> also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no advantage". Also 
>> untrue.
>> I don't have a problem with your offereing the suggestion that speakup be
>> modified to support USB hardware synths. I just think you shouldn't
>> exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the subject line of this 
>> thread,
>> "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If we're going to compare sbl and
>> speakup, lets be fair about it.
>> 
>> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not 
>> true.
>> Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We both agree
>> that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is that you 
>> have
>> a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech right away during
>> boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your desktop? In fact, I'm
>> unclear as to why it is so important to you that the workstations you 
>> support
>> have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of the PCs in my department have
>> serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but when I have to do support, I
>> just use software speech. I'm not going to drag my hardware speech synth
>> around with me unless I have to. Its so much easier just to grap a USB
>> headset and fire up software speech.
>> 
>> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you 
>> could
>> modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is plugged into a
>> machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a unique
>> serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to start speech
>> when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. So its possible 
>> to
>> sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB headset, and login
>> with speech.
>> 
>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>> 
>> 
>> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
>> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>> 
>> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
>> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were some
>> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, but
>> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
>> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>> 
>> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
>> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
>> servers.
>> 
>> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
>> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that speakup
>> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time unless
>> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my opinion,
>> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
>> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not a
>> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I can
>> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list and
>> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
>> challenge.
>> 
>> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether I
>> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
>> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
>> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may give
>> me more flexability going forward.
>> 
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have serial
>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
>>> serial
>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. Even
>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>> 
>>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having speakup
>>> in
>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the machine
>>> is
>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if 
>>> something
>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines remotely
>>> after they boot.
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports according
>>> to kernel conventions?
>>> 
>>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on modern
>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so far
>>> as I can tell...
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>>> ports.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>> 
>>>> Samuel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>> 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 10428 bytes --]

Linux works on the Optiplex boxen we have at work.  I can't speak for any 
models of Optiplex we do not have though, but we have never ordered a Dell 
that wouldn't support it.  We have ordered computers that had hardware 
that was too new without compiling our own kernels before.  I just read 
today that the new Red Hat is supposed to support the latest Intel 
Hardware / CPUs.  Ubuntu works withe the Core i7 and Xeon equivalent, but 
not, um what are they called? The i9 I think?  They don't work yet.  You 
are probably not going to want to order something that new anyway.  I 
would say that almost all of your Dell boxen should be just fine under 
Linux as we have not had problems with the current offerings and have 
ordered 3 or so of them in the last year that I have put Linux on for 
work.

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Trevor Astrope wrote:

> Hi Butch,
>
> Check out the Dell Optiplex line. I'm not sure if all Optiplex models have a 
> serial port, but there are some that do. It should be fine for XP, but Dell 
> said linux is not supported on the Optiplex line. This doesn't mean that 
> Linux won't install or work on these machines, but ymmv. John likely has more 
> experience with linux on these  machines and might be able to provide more 
> info...
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Butch Bussen wrote:
>
>> A bit off topic, but can you tell me which Dell business machine has a 
>> serial port? model?  I need a better machine for xp, but I need at least 
>> one and preferably two serial ports.
>> Thanks.
>> 73
>> Butch Bussen
>> wa0vjr
>> open Node 3148
>> Las Vegas
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Trevor Astrope wrote:
>> 
>>> John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the kernel 
>>> if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my 
>>> statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I know 
>>> there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception, 
>>> not the rule and are also much more expensive.
>>> 
>>> Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports 
>>> and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of 
>>> being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the 
>>> majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in 
>>> the kernel.
>>> 
>>> Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you will 
>>> find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in 
>>> serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this 
>>> is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup
>>>>  developers would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was
>>>>  that speakup doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just 
>>>> totally
>>>>  untrue.  You also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no
>>>>  advantage". Also untrue. I don't have a problem with your offereing the
>>>>  suggestion that speakup be modified to support USB hardware synths. I 
>>>> just
>>>>  think you shouldn't exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the
>>>>  subject line of this thread, "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If
>>>>  we're going to compare sbl and speakup, lets be fair about it.
>>>>
>>>>  You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not
>>>>  true. Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We
>>>>  both agree that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem 
>>>> is
>>>>  that you have a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech
>>>>  right away during boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your
>>>>  desktop? In fact, I'm unclear as to why it is so important to you that 
>>>> the
>>>>  workstations you support have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of 
>>>> the
>>>>  PCs in my department have serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but
>>>>  when I have to do support, I just use software speech. I'm not going to
>>>>  drag my hardware speech synth around with me unless I have to. Its so 
>>>> much
>>>>  easier just to grap a USB headset and fire up software speech.
>>>>
>>>>  Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you
>>>>  could modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is 
>>>> plugged
>>>>  into a machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a
>>>>  unique serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to
>>>>  start speech when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. 
>>>> So
>>>>  its possible to sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB
>>>>  headset, and login with speech.
>>>>
>>>>  ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>>>  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>>>  <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>>>  Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
>>>>  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>  John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
>>>>  kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>>>>
>>>>  Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
>>>>  serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were 
>>>> some
>>>>  low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, 
>>>> but
>>>>  they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
>>>>  desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>>>>
>>>>  Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
>>>>  kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
>>>>  servers.
>>>>
>>>>  So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
>>>>  ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that 
>>>> speakup
>>>>  as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time 
>>>> unless
>>>>  it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my 
>>>> opinion,
>>>>  this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
>>>>  people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not 
>>>> a
>>>>  speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I 
>>>> can
>>>>  only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list 
>>>> and
>>>>  I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
>>>>  challenge.
>>>>
>>>>  In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether 
>>>> I
>>>>  continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
>>>>  difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
>>>>  solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may 
>>>> give
>>>>  me more flexability going forward.
>>>>
>>>>  On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> >  Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have > 
>>>> serial
>>>> >  ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In 
>>>> fact,
>>>> >  except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a > 
>>>> serial
>>>> >  port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
>>>> > Even
>>>> >  the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>>> > >  It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in 
>>>> the
>>>> >  kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having > 
>>>> speakup in
>>>> >  the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a 
>>>> screen
>>>> >  reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the > 
>>>> machine is
>>>> >  booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if > 
>>>> something
>>>> >  is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines > 
>>>> remotely
>>>> >  after they boot.
>>>> > >  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" > 
>>>> <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>>> >  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." > 
>>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>>> >  Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>>> >  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>> > > >  Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing 
>>>> serial
>>>> >  ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports > 
>>>> according
>>>> >  to kernel conventions?
>>>> > >  It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so 
>>>> speakup
>>>> >  would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>>> >  ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on > 
>>>> modern
>>>> >  computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>>> >  ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so 
>>>> > far
>>>> >  as I can tell...
>>>> > >  On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>> > > >  Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>> > > >  I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>> > > >  programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the 
>>>> COM
>>>> > > >  ports.
>>>> > > > >  Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>> > > > >  Samuel
>>>> > >  _______________________________________________
>>>> > >  Speakup mailing list
>>>> > >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> > >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> > > > > > > > > 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> > > > >  _______________________________________________
>>>> > >  Speakup mailing list
>>>> > >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> > >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> > > > >  _______________________________________________
>>>> >  Speakup mailing list
>>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> > >
>>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> >  _______________________________________________
>>>> >  Speakup mailing list
>>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> >  _______________________________________________
>>>>  Speakup mailing list
>>>>  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>>> 
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Chris Brannon]

Pia <pmikeal@comcast.net> wrote:
> We love your University's job 
> distribution system named Condor BTW, thank you! :)  Keep in mind though, 
> that the i7 will go from scientific number crunching geek, or gamer 
> technology to the norm in about a year or so.  Therefore, motherboards 
> lacking a serial port are already here and coming down the pike quickly 

I applied for a programming job with the Condor team.  They are
in the CS department at UW Madison.  Amazing how small the world really is!
No, I didn't get the job.  Better luck next time, I suppose.

Anyway, the serial port discussion seems to be perennial.
I know that the topic has made several appearances during the last three
years or so.
Regardless of the status of the standard RS-232 port,
I think we can all agree that Speakup should move forward to support the
various sorts of hardware in use on today's PCs, including
USB-to-serial adapters, PCI-based serial cards, USB synthesizers, et cetera.
If we can all agree on that point, then there's no need for argument.

Peace,
-- Chris

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Tony Baechler]

I have a couple comments.  First, last summer we looked extensively at 
newegg.com.  Other than some low-end motherboards, the majority did not 
have serial ports or headers.  They were obviously designed for gamers.  
They had great onboard audio and tons of USB ports, but no serial.  We 
found a grand total of about two.  This was last summer, so I can't help 
but think the situation has only become worse.  Even then, it was 
limited to one or two brands.  We did find one, but it took some 
hunting.  I think it's for servers.

I have two answers why I personally refuse to use software speech on my 
desktop.  First, it's a matter of preference.  I don't like ESpeak.  It 
is free and that is good, but I find it hard to understand.  In the case 
of the Ubuntu live CD, it chops off words, making it almost useless.  
Secondly, not all sound cards are supported or are supported properly.  
Many desktops come with Nvidia chipsets.  HP is definitely one.  Yes, 
there are Nvidia drivers, but they are not free.  Either you have to 
install probably buggy non-free drivers which might or might not work or 
you have no sound, period.  That also applies to the Ubuntu install.  
The sighted person who uses the HP machine complained that the installer 
screws up the font on the monitor until after the installation is 
complete and the non-free drivers are set up.  In my case, Linux 
supports my sound card but at a very low volume.  I've tried everything 
I can think of in amixer but even at full volume, it's only a whisper.  
Windows doesn't have that problem.

On 2/11/2010 9:00 AM, John G. Heim wrote:
> Maybe its accurate to say that *most* modern motherboards don't have 
> serial ports. I question even that. But you didn't address my 
> questions about how you determined your priorities. We both agree that 
> most servers have serial ports. That seems unlikely to change any time 
> soon. So I don't understand why its so important to you to have 
> hardware speech on your desktop. I understand it for servers. In fact, 
> that was part of my original point --  having speakup in the kernel is 
> very important if you need to find out what a server won't boot or why 
> it can't get a network connection. But on your desktop, why don't you 
> just use software speech? In fact, why don't you just get one PC for 
> yourself with a serial port and use software speech on all the other 
> desktops that you do support on. That's what I do even though all of 
> our PCs have serial ports.

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

So you have these bleeding edge computers yet for some reason, you insist 
they're typical? For the record, 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' on my department's new 
Dell PCs says this:
model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad  CPU   Q8200  @ 2.33GHz

Its a quad core Intel machine just a few months old. I would suggest that 
its your experience that is atypical, not mine.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


> Hi John,
>
> Does your computer have an i7 CPU or equivalent or is it an earlier
> generation?  Specifically, the newest computer motherboards are being
> manufactured with no serial ports, headers or otherwise.  We order Dells
> too and build our own.  Usually we buy our motherboards from New Egg and
> we are nit picky about each spec and so I guarantee that what I am saying
> is accurate.  I would argue that perhaps since you work for the math
> department, you may not have the same demand for the bleeding edge like we
> do in Structural Biology where we need to look at 3D models of viruses and
> other small things in great detail.  We love your University's job
> distribution system named Condor BTW, thank you! :)  Keep in mind though,
> that the i7 will go from scientific number crunching geek, or gamer
> technology to the norm in about a year or so.  Therefore, motherboards
> lacking a serial port are already here and coming down the pike quickly
> for those who don't already have them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pia
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> Dude, my computer is not old. I work for the University of Wisconsin
>> Department of Mathematics and we order 30 to 40 new desktops a year. 
>> Every
>> one of them has had a serial port. Every single one. True, we order
>> exclusively from Dell. So maybe Dell is a cut above wherever you get your
>> computers from. But I recently built my own PC from parts I ordered from
>> newegg and the mobo I bought has a serial port.
>>
>> Since you're building your own PCs, you might try double checking the 
>> specs
>> on the motherboard. It may have a serial port header block but no 
>> external
>> connection. If so, then you just need an adapter to go from the header 
>> block
>> to the case. If you're building your own PCs, why don't you just order 
>> mobos
>> with external serial ports? Or at least make sure it has a serial port 
>> header
>> block and you can install the adapter just in the machines where you need 
>> a
>> serial port.
>>
>> From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>
>>
>>> Totally agreed with you about the need for early boot messages to be
>>> spoken.  Your statement about most boxen having serial ports is 
>>> incorrect
>>> though.  At work we mostly order new Workstations with Cor i7 CPUs or
>>> build them ourselves with similar specs.  None and I mean none of the
>>> motherboards have serial ports at all.  If your computer does have a
>>> serial port it is getting pretty old, it has an added serial card in an
>>> expansion slot, or it is a server.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Pia
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have 
>>>> serial
>>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In 
>>>> fact,
>>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a
>>>> serial
>>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
>>>> Even
>>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>>>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having 
>>>> speakup
>>>> in
>>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the 
>>>> machine
>>>> is
>>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if
>>>> something
>>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines 
>>>> remotely
>>>> after they boot.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" 
>>>> <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports 
>>>> according
>>>> to kernel conventions?
>>>>
>>>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on 
>>>> modern
>>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so 
>>>> far
>>>> as I can tell...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>>>> ports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>>>
>>>>> Samuel
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Alex Snow]

What I've found with Dell with regards to linux support is they only 
"support" it on server machines, but in my experience it works fine on 
their desktop/laptop lines, at least the business ones.
On Thu, Feb 11, 
2010 at 01:46:10PM -0500, Trevor Astrope wrote:
> Hi Butch,
> 
> Check out the Dell Optiplex line. I'm not sure if all Optiplex models have 
> a serial port, but there are some that do. It should be fine for XP, but 
> Dell said linux is not supported on the Optiplex line. This doesn't mean 
> that Linux won't install or work on these machines, but ymmv. John likely 
> has more experience with linux on these  machines and might be able to 
> provide more info...
> 
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Butch Bussen wrote:
> 
> >A bit off topic, but can you tell me which Dell business machine has a 
> >serial port? model?  I need a better machine for xp, but I need at least 
> >one and preferably two serial ports.
> >Thanks.
> >73
> >Butch Bussen
> >wa0vjr
> >open Node 3148
> >Las Vegas
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Trevor Astrope wrote:
> >
> >>John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the 
> >>kernel if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand 
> >>by my statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. 
> >>I know there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the 
> >>exception, not the rule and are also much more expensive.
> >>
> >>Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports 
> >>and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of 
> >>being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the 
> >>majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in 
> >>the kernel.
> >>
> >>Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you 
> >>will find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with 
> >>built-in serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports 
> >>and this is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally 
> >>complete.
> >>
> >>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup
> >>> developers would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was
> >>> that speakup doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just 
> >>>totally
> >>> untrue.  You also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no
> >>> advantage". Also untrue. I don't have a problem with your offereing the
> >>> suggestion that speakup be modified to support USB hardware synths. I 
> >>>just
> >>> think you shouldn't exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the
> >>> subject line of this thread, "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If
> >>> we're going to compare sbl and speakup, lets be fair about it.
> >>>
> >>> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not
> >>> true. Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We
> >>> both agree that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem 
> >>> is
> >>> that you have a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech
> >>> right away during boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your
> >>> desktop? In fact, I'm unclear as to why it is so important to you that 
> >>>the
> >>> workstations you support have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of 
> >>>the
> >>> PCs in my department have serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but
> >>> when I have to do support, I just use software speech. I'm not going to
> >>> drag my hardware speech synth around with me unless I have to. Its so 
> >>>much
> >>> easier just to grap a USB headset and fire up software speech.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you
> >>> could modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is 
> >>>plugged
> >>> into a machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a
> >>> unique serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to
> >>> start speech when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. 
> >>>So
> >>> its possible to sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB
> >>> headset, and login with speech.
> >>>
> >>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
> >>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
> >>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
> >>> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
> >>> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were 
> >>>some
> >>> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, 
> >>> but
> >>> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
> >>> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
> >>>
> >>> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
> >>> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
> >>> servers.
> >>>
> >>> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
> >>> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that 
> >>> speakup
> >>> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time 
> >>>unless
> >>> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my 
> >>> opinion,
> >>> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
> >>> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am 
> >>> not a
> >>> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I 
> >>>can
> >>> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list 
> >>> and
> >>> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
> >>> challenge.
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide 
> >>> whether I
> >>> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
> >>> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
> >>> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may 
> >>> give
> >>> me more flexability going forward.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>  Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have > 
> >>>serial
> >>>>  ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In 
> >>>fact,
> >>>>  except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a 
> >>>> serial
> >>>>  port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
> >>>> Even
> >>>>  the machine I built myself has a serial port.
> >>>> >  It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in 
> >>>the
> >>>>  kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having > 
> >>>speakup in
> >>>>  the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a 
> >>>screen
> >>>>  reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the > 
> >>>machine is
> >>>>  booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if > 
> >>>something
> >>>>  is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines > 
> >>>remotely
> >>>>  after they boot.
> >>>> >  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" > 
> >>><astrope@tabbweb.com>
> >>>>  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." > 
> >>><speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> >>>>  Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
> >>>>  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
> >>>> > >  Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing 
> >>>serial
> >>>>  ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports > 
> >>>according
> >>>>  to kernel conventions?
> >>>> >  It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so 
> >>>speakup
> >>>>  would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
> >>>>  ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on > 
> >>>modern
> >>>>  computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
> >>>>  ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so 
> >>>> far
> >>>>  as I can tell...
> >>>> >  On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >>>> > >  Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a ?crit :
> >>>> > >  I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
> >>>> > >  programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the 
> >>>COM
> >>>> > >  ports.
> >>>> > > >  Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
> >>>> > > >  Samuel
> >>>> >  _______________________________________________
> >>>> >  Speakup mailing list
> >>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>>> > > > > > > > 
> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> > > >  _______________________________________________
> >>>> >  Speakup mailing list
> >>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>>> > > >  _______________________________________________
> >>>>  Speakup mailing list
> >>>>  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >>>>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>>> > 
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>  _______________________________________________
> >>>>  Speakup mailing list
> >>>>  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >>>>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Speakup mailing list
> >>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>>
> >>>
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup


-- 
[In 'Doctor' mode], I spent a good ten minutes telling Emacs what I
thought of it.  (The response was, 'Perhaps you could try to be less
abusive.')
	-- Matt Welsh

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

But I'm not hostile.  I haven't said one hostile thing to you. All I've done 
is point out flaws and inconsistancies in your messages.   It seems to me 
that you're the one trying to force his opinions on others, not me.

I am not trying to criticize your personal choices as far as your work 
environment. But you surely must see that its not typical. For you to claim 
that speakup is going to become less relevant based on your very unusual 
needs is truely unfair.  You have this unique situation where you want to be 
bleeding edge (in your own words) while at the same time not.  You insist 
that you have to have this bleeding edge computer for 3D yet you also insist 
that you have to run your workstation in character mode all the time. 
Surely you must see that that's not typical. Most people in your position 
would use orca on their workstation and speakup on their servers.  Or maybe 
they'd use a Windows workstation and still run speakup on their servers.

I don't see how you can fail to see how inconsistent your arguments are.

Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


> There is a wonderful reason to have hardware speech on your desktop.  My
> Dec Talk I have on my desktop at work works way better with speakup than
> my software synth with speakup that I use at home.  I like sitting at the
> commandline all day and so the commandline is my desktop unless I am
> forced to use X Windows from time to time to help a user with a problem.
> It is true that I remote into my servers but my desktop is almost always
> at tty1 because I like it that way.  I get more work done that way.  You
> are just trying to pick a fight with people it seems John.  I really don't
> know what your problem is, but you are making yourself sound ignorant by
> just coming at people like that with your opinions and trying to belittle
> them.  This list is not supposed to be hostile.  So, chill out!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Pia
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> Well, you didn't originally say *most* motherboards don't have serial 
>> ports
>> or that *if* a PC has no serial port there is no advantage to having 
>> speakup
>> in the kernel. But I guess the symantics of the debate aren't really 
>> relevant
>> anyway. We should get back to arguing the point.
>>
>> Maybe its accurate to say that *most* modern motherboards don't have 
>> serial
>> ports. I question even that. But you didn't address my questions about 
>> how
>> you determined your priorities. We both agree that most servers have 
>> serial
>> ports. That seems unlikely to change any time soon. So I don't understand 
>> why
>> its so important to you to have hardware speech on your desktop. I 
>> understand
>> it for servers. In fact, that was part of my original point --  having
>> speakup in the kernel is very important if you need to find out what a 
>> server
>> won't boot or why it can't get a network connection. But on your desktop, 
>> why
>> don't you just use software speech? In fact, why don't you just get one 
>> PC
>> for yourself with a serial port and use software speech on all the other
>> desktops that you do support on. That's what I do even though all of our 
>> PCs
>> have serial ports.
>>
>> Also, I have a problem with your prediction that speakup will become less
>> relevant if it doesn't support USB hardware. I suppose its true as far as 
>> it
>> goes but its like saying if pigs had wings they could fly. Maybe. But 
>> pigs
>> don't have wings.  Speakup probably would and probably will support USB
>> synths if and when it becomes possible.  But right now, its not possible. 
>> You
>> will never be able to switch to orca or sbl or any other screen reader 
>> for
>> boot time speech. If those screen readers tried to find a way to speak as
>> early in the boot process as speakup does, they'd run into exactly the 
>> same
>> problems  that speakup has.
>>
>> Oorca and sbl are probably never even going to try to speak as early in 
>> the
>> boot process as speakup does. Honestly, if you think about it, who uses
>> hardware speech synths these days anyway? If you want to talk about 
>> modern
>> solutions, hardware speech synths are definately yesterday's ttechnology.
>> People want a GUI and they want software speech. The vast majority of 
>> people
>> still interested in the CUI are systems administrators. I really doubt 
>> that
>> not supporting USB synths is a serious threat to speakup's popularity 
>> with
>> system admins if for no other reason than that if you want speech during
>> boot, you have no choice but to use speakup.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>
>>
>> John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the 
>> kernel
>> if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand by my
>> statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. I 
>> know
>> there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the exception,
>> not the rule and are also much more expensive.
>>
>> Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports
>> and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of
>> being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the
>> majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in
>> the kernel.
>>
>> Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you 
>> will
>> find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with built-in
>> serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports and this
>> is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally complete.
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>
>>> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup
>>> developers
>>> would love to support USB.   But your original  comment was that speakup
>>> doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just totally untrue. 
>>> You
>>> also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no advantage". Also
>>> untrue.
>>> I don't have a problem with your offereing the suggestion that speakup 
>>> be
>>> modified to support USB hardware synths. I just think you shouldn't
>>> exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the subject line of this
>>> thread,
>>> "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup."  If we're going to compare sbl 
>>> and
>>> speakup, lets be fair about it.
>>>
>>> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not
>>> true.
>>> Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We both 
>>> agree
>>> that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem is that you
>>> have
>>> a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech right away 
>>> during
>>> boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your desktop? In fact, 
>>> I'm
>>> unclear as to why it is so important to you that the workstations you
>>> support
>>> have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of the PCs in my department 
>>> have
>>> serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but when I have to do support, 
>>> I
>>> just use software speech. I'm not going to drag my hardware speech synth
>>> around with me unless I have to. Its so much easier just to grap a USB
>>> headset and fire up software speech.
>>>
>>> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you
>>> could
>>> modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is plugged 
>>> into a
>>> machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device has a unique
>>> serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to start 
>>> speech
>>> when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. So its 
>>> possible
>>> to
>>> sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB headset, and 
>>> login
>>> with speech.
>>>
>>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>
>>>
>>> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the
>>> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with
>>> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were 
>>> some
>>> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, 
>>> but
>>> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
>>> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>>>
>>> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the
>>> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the
>>> servers.
>>>
>>> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
>>> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that 
>>> speakup
>>> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time 
>>> unless
>>> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my 
>>> opinion,
>>> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
>>> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am not 
>>> a
>>> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I 
>>> can
>>> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list 
>>> and
>>> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
>>> challenge.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide whether 
>>> I
>>> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more
>>> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
>>> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may 
>>> give
>>> me more flexability going forward.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have 
>>>> serial
>>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In 
>>>> fact,
>>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a
>>>> serial
>>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
>>>> Even
>>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>>>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having 
>>>> speakup
>>>> in
>>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the 
>>>> machine
>>>> is
>>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if
>>>> something
>>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines 
>>>> remotely
>>>> after they boot.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" 
>>>> <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports 
>>>> according
>>>> to kernel conventions?
>>>>
>>>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on 
>>>> modern
>>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so 
>>>> far
>>>> as I can tell...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>>>> ports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>>>
>>>>> Samuel
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Chris Brannon]

John G. Heim wrote:
*SNIP*
> For you to claim that speakup is going to become less relevant
> based on your very unusual needs is truely unfair.
*SNIP*

According to grep, the person with whom you are now arguing never claimed
that Speakup would become "less relevant".
You should quit while you are ahead...

Respectfully,
-- Chris

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

We are buying single machines all the time for individual professors. I 
never pay any attention to which model they get. But they've all had a 
serial port. We've ordered dozens of different machines from Dell over the 
past few years of all types, small foot print machines, towers, servers and 
they've all had serial ports. For the record, our most recent departments 
purchases were Dell OptiPlex 760s. And yeah, they have a single serial port. 
So I can't say that all Dells have a serial port but so far, that has been 
my experience.

But one thing I can agree with is that  workstations with two built in 
serial ports are long gone. You'll never find one of those. Although, you 
could probably add a serial card for the second serial port. It wouldn't 
work with speakup but you could run a getty on it.

Even with my educational discount, I prefer to build my own machines. A 
couple of years   ago I built a machine with an Asus m4 mobo. It has a 
serial port header block so I had to buy an adapter seperately. Of course, 
that was nothing for me because I remember back when machines were all like 
that. You'd buy a computer and when you opened it up, it would have a cable 
running from the mobo to the case for the serial port. Then for a long time 
they were built in so that the serial port would line up with a hole in the 
case.  I had a whole bunch of those adapters salvaged from old machines. I 
always strip a machine before trashing it. But I found that'd I'd given all 
those adapters away.  So I had to buy one. Even so, if you find another junk 
collector like me,he might just give it to you.

My most recent purchase is an MSI mobo. It cost over $100 though. I don't 
have the model number handy. I didn't actually even look for a mobo with a 
serial port. I was happy to see that it had one but I picked it for iths 
other features.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Snow" <alex_snow@gmx.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


> What I've found with Dell with regards to linux support is they only
> "support" it on server machines, but in my experience it works fine on
> their desktop/laptop lines, at least the business ones.
> On Thu, Feb 11,
> 2010 at 01:46:10PM -0500, Trevor Astrope wrote:
>> Hi Butch,
>>
>> Check out the Dell Optiplex line. I'm not sure if all Optiplex models 
>> have
>> a serial port, but there are some that do. It should be fine for XP, but
>> Dell said linux is not supported on the Optiplex line. This doesn't mean
>> that Linux won't install or work on these machines, but ymmv. John likely
>> has more experience with linux on these  machines and might be able to
>> provide more info...
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Butch Bussen wrote:
>>
>> >A bit off topic, but can you tell me which Dell business machine has a
>> >serial port? model?  I need a better machine for xp, but I need at least
>> >one and preferably two serial ports.
>> >Thanks.
>> >73
>> >Butch Bussen
>> >wa0vjr
>> >open Node 3148
>> >Las Vegas
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Trevor Astrope wrote:
>> >
>> >>John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the
>> >>kernel if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I 
>> >>stand
>> >>by my statement that most modern computers do not come with serial 
>> >>ports.
>> >>I know there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the
>> >>exception, not the rule and are also much more expensive.
>> >>
>> >>Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports
>> >>and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has 
>> >>of
>> >>being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the
>> >>majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being 
>> >>in
>> >>the kernel.
>> >>
>> >>Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you
>> >>will find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with
>> >>built-in serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial 
>> >>ports
>> >>and this is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally
>> >>complete.
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup
>> >>> developers would love to support USB.   But your original  comment 
>> >>> was
>> >>> that speakup doesn't support modern  motherboards -- which is just
>> >>>totally
>> >>> untrue.  You also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no
>> >>> advantage". Also untrue. I don't have a problem with your offereing 
>> >>> the
>> >>> suggestion that speakup be modified to support USB hardware synths. I
>> >>>just
>> >>> think you shouldn't exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the
>> >>> subject line of this thread, "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup." 
>> >>> If
>> >>> we're going to compare sbl and speakup, lets be fair about it.
>> >>>
>> >>> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just 
>> >>> not
>> >>> true. Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. 
>> >>> We
>> >>> both agree that most servers have serial ports, right? So your 
>> >>> problem
>> >>> is
>> >>> that you have a desktop with no serial port but you have to have 
>> >>> speech
>> >>> right away during boot? Why can't you just use software speech on 
>> >>> your
>> >>> desktop? In fact, I'm unclear as to why it is so important to you 
>> >>> that
>> >>>the
>> >>> workstations you support have hardware synth speech. As I said, all 
>> >>> of
>> >>>the
>> >>> PCs in my department have serial ports (literally 100s of machines) 
>> >>> but
>> >>> when I have to do support, I just use software speech. I'm not going 
>> >>> to
>> >>> drag my hardware speech synth around with me unless I have to. Its so
>> >>>much
>> >>> easier just to grap a USB headset and fire up software speech.
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how 
>> >>> you
>> >>> could modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is
>> >>>plugged
>> >>> into a machine and have it start software speech.  Each USB device 
>> >>> has a
>> >>> unique serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to
>> >>> start speech when a device with a specific serial number is plugged 
>> >>> in.
>> >>>So
>> >>> its possible to sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your 
>> >>> USB
>> >>> headset, and login with speech.
>> >>>
>> >>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" 
>> >>> <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> >>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>> >>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM
>> >>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in 
>> >>> the
>> >>> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth.
>> >>>
>> >>> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops 
>> >>> with
>> >>> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were
>> >>>some
>> >>> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports,
>> >>> but
>> >>> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer
>> >>> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work.
>> >>>
>> >>> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in 
>> >>> the
>> >>> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage 
>> >>> the
>> >>> servers.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial
>> >>> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that
>> >>> speakup
>> >>> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time
>> >>>unless
>> >>> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my
>> >>> opinion,
>> >>> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more
>> >>> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am
>> >>> not a
>> >>> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. 
>> >>> I
>> >>>can
>> >>> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list
>> >>> and
>> >>> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the
>> >>> challenge.
>> >>>
>> >>> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide
>> >>> whether I
>> >>> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job 
>> >>> more
>> >>> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't
>> >>> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may
>> >>> give
>> >>> me more flexability going forward.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>  Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have 
>> >>>>  >
>> >>>serial
>> >>>>  ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In
>> >>>fact,
>> >>>>  except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have 
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> serial
>> >>>>  port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I 
>> >>>> work.
>> >>>> Even
>> >>>>  the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>> >>>> >  It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup 
>> >>>> > in
>> >>>the
>> >>>>  kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having >
>> >>>speakup in
>> >>>>  the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a
>> >>>screen
>> >>>>  reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the 
>> >>>>  >
>> >>>machine is
>> >>>>  booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if >
>> >>>something
>> >>>>  is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines >
>> >>>remotely
>> >>>>  after they boot.
>> >>>> >  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" >
>> >>><astrope@tabbweb.com>
>> >>>>  To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." >
>> >>><speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> >>>>  Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>> >>>>  Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>> >>>> > >  Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing
>> >>>serial
>> >>>>  ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports >
>> >>>according
>> >>>>  to kernel conventions?
>> >>>> >  It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so
>> >>>speakup
>> >>>>  would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in 
>> >>>> serial
>> >>>>  ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on 
>> >>>>  >
>> >>>modern
>> >>>>  computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb 
>> >>>> serial
>> >>>>  ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel 
>> >>>> so
>> >>>> far
>> >>>>  as I can tell...
>> >>>> >  On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> >>>> > >  Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a ?crit :
>> >>>> > >  I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>> >>>> > >  programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to 
>> >>>> > > the
>> >>>COM
>> >>>> > >  ports.
>> >>>> > > >  Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>> >>>> > > >  Samuel
>> >>>> >  _______________________________________________
>> >>>> >  Speakup mailing list
>> >>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >>>> > > > > > > >
>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> > > >  _______________________________________________
>> >>>> >  Speakup mailing list
>> >>>> >  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >>>> >  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >>>> > > >  _______________________________________________
>> >>>>  Speakup mailing list
>> >>>>  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >>>>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >>>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>  _______________________________________________
>> >>>>  Speakup mailing list
>> >>>>  Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >>>>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >>>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Speakup mailing list
>> >>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
> -- 
> [In 'Doctor' mode], I spent a good ten minutes telling Emacs what I
> thought of it.  (The response was, 'Perhaps you could try to be less
> abusive.')
> -- Matt Welsh
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[John G. Heim]

If it's true, I apologize for misquoting Pia. Even so, it is hardly a key 
point.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Brannon" <cmbrannon79@gmail.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup


> John G. Heim wrote:
> *SNIP*
>> For you to claim that speakup is going to become less relevant
>> based on your very unusual needs is truely unfair.
> *SNIP*
>
> According to grep, the person with whom you are now arguing never claimed
> that Speakup would become "less relevant".
> You should quit while you are ahead...
>
> Respectfully,
> -- Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Farhan]

Hello,
I'm really not sure what the big deal is, the bottom line is this.
1. speakup should support usb to serial port adapters in future.
2. most new computers that are built for consumers don't have serial ports.
People are right, most newer mobos that aren't built for servers don't
have serial ports.
Technology is changing and serial ports are on the way out, but I
understand the preference for hardware speech.

On 2/12/2010 10:29, John G. Heim wrote:
> So you have these bleeding edge computers yet for some reason, you
> insist they're typical? For the record, 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' on my
> department's new Dell PCs says this:
> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad  CPU   Q8200  @ 2.33GHz
> 
> Its a quad core Intel machine just a few months old. I would suggest
> that its your experience that is atypical, not mine.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
> 
> 
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Does your computer have an i7 CPU or equivalent or is it an earlier
>> generation?  Specifically, the newest computer motherboards are being
>> manufactured with no serial ports, headers or otherwise.  We order Dells
>> too and build our own.  Usually we buy our motherboards from New Egg and
>> we are nit picky about each spec and so I guarantee that what I am saying
>> is accurate.  I would argue that perhaps since you work for the math
>> department, you may not have the same demand for the bleeding edge
>> like we
>> do in Structural Biology where we need to look at 3D models of viruses
>> and
>> other small things in great detail.  We love your University's job
>> distribution system named Condor BTW, thank you! :)  Keep in mind though,
>> that the i7 will go from scientific number crunching geek, or gamer
>> technology to the norm in about a year or so.  Therefore, motherboards
>> lacking a serial port are already here and coming down the pike quickly
>> for those who don't already have them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pia
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>
>>> Dude, my computer is not old. I work for the University of Wisconsin
>>> Department of Mathematics and we order 30 to 40 new desktops a year.
>>> Every
>>> one of them has had a serial port. Every single one. True, we order
>>> exclusively from Dell. So maybe Dell is a cut above wherever you get
>>> your
>>> computers from. But I recently built my own PC from parts I ordered from
>>> newegg and the mobo I bought has a serial port.
>>>
>>> Since you're building your own PCs, you might try double checking the
>>> specs
>>> on the motherboard. It may have a serial port header block but no
>>> external
>>> connection. If so, then you just need an adapter to go from the
>>> header block
>>> to the case. If you're building your own PCs, why don't you just
>>> order mobos
>>> with external serial ports? Or at least make sure it has a serial
>>> port header
>>> block and you can install the adapter just in the machines where you
>>> need a
>>> serial port.
>>>
>>> From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>
>>>
>>>> Totally agreed with you about the need for early boot messages to be
>>>> spoken.  Your statement about most boxen having serial ports is
>>>> incorrect
>>>> though.  At work we mostly order new Workstations with Cor i7 CPUs or
>>>> build them ourselves with similar specs.  None and I mean none of the
>>>> motherboards have serial ports at all.  If your computer does have a
>>>> serial port it is getting pretty old, it has an added serial card in an
>>>> expansion slot, or it is a server.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pia
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have
>>>>> serial
>>>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In
>>>>> fact,
>>>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a
>>>>> serial
>>>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I
>>>>> work. Even
>>>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in
>>>>> the
>>>>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having
>>>>> speakup
>>>>> in
>>>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a
>>>>> screen
>>>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the
>>>>> machine
>>>>> is
>>>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if
>>>>> something
>>>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines
>>>>> remotely
>>>>> after they boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope"
>>>>> <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>>>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports
>>>>> according
>>>>> to kernel conventions?
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so
>>>>> speakup
>>>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on
>>>>> modern
>>>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel
>>>>> so far
>>>>> as I can tell...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>>>>> ports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Samuel
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Gaijin]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:00:42AM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> I don't understand why its so important to you to
> have hardware speech on your desktop.

	For me, it's because I want a backup synthesizer when software 
speech fails, and if like me, you run Debian "Testing," the software 
synthesizer can fail after any upgrade.  With software TTS, you have 3 
or 7 different things that could easily break, where with a hardware 
synthesizer, you only have one.  Fewer parts and less complexity means 
more stability.  Since I'm surrounded by the computer illidiot, sighted 
assistance isn't an option, and a backup system is a must.

				Michael

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 7691 bytes --]

That is an old box.  We bought ones faster than that 3 years 
ago. I even looked at a consumer grade box that old 2 years ago for my own 
purchase for a home box.  It was really fast then and I didn't want to 
spend the money.  You have to keep in mind that just because something is 
new as in a new purchase from an OEM does not at all mean that it is new 
technology.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:

> So you have these bleeding edge computers yet for some reason, you insist 
> they're typical? For the record, 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' on my department's new 
> Dell PCs says this:
> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad  CPU   Q8200  @ 2.33GHz
>
> Its a quad core Intel machine just a few months old. I would suggest that its 
> your experience that is atypical, not mine.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>
>
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> Does your computer have an i7 CPU or equivalent or is it an earlier
>> generation?  Specifically, the newest computer motherboards are being
>> manufactured with no serial ports, headers or otherwise.  We order Dells
>> too and build our own.  Usually we buy our motherboards from New Egg and
>> we are nit picky about each spec and so I guarantee that what I am saying
>> is accurate.  I would argue that perhaps since you work for the math
>> department, you may not have the same demand for the bleeding edge like we
>> do in Structural Biology where we need to look at 3D models of viruses and
>> other small things in great detail.  We love your University's job
>> distribution system named Condor BTW, thank you! :)  Keep in mind though,
>> that the i7 will go from scientific number crunching geek, or gamer
>> technology to the norm in about a year or so.  Therefore, motherboards
>> lacking a serial port are already here and coming down the pike quickly
>> for those who don't already have them.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Pia
>> 
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 
>>> Dude, my computer is not old. I work for the University of Wisconsin
>>> Department of Mathematics and we order 30 to 40 new desktops a year. Every
>>> one of them has had a serial port. Every single one. True, we order
>>> exclusively from Dell. So maybe Dell is a cut above wherever you get your
>>> computers from. But I recently built my own PC from parts I ordered from
>>> newegg and the mobo I bought has a serial port.
>>> 
>>> Since you're building your own PCs, you might try double checking the 
>>> specs
>>> on the motherboard. It may have a serial port header block but no external
>>> connection. If so, then you just need an adapter to go from the header 
>>> block
>>> to the case. If you're building your own PCs, why don't you just order 
>>> mobos
>>> with external serial ports? Or at least make sure it has a serial port 
>>> header
>>> block and you can install the adapter just in the machines where you need 
>>> a
>>> serial port.
>>> 
>>> From: "Pia" <pmikeal@comcast.net>
>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." 
>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Totally agreed with you about the need for early boot messages to be
>>>> spoken.  Your statement about most boxen having serial ports is incorrect
>>>> though.  At work we mostly order new Workstations with Cor i7 CPUs or
>>>> build them ourselves with similar specs.  None and I mean none of the
>>>> motherboards have serial ports at all.  If your computer does have a
>>>> serial port it is getting pretty old, it has an added serial card in an
>>>> expansion slot, or it is a server.
>>>> 
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Pia
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have 
>>>>> serial
>>>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In fact,
>>>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a
>>>>> serial
>>>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. 
>>>>> Even
>>>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in the
>>>>> kernel  has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having 
>>>>> speakup
>>>>> in
>>>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a screen
>>>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the 
>>>>> machine
>>>>> is
>>>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if
>>>>> something
>>>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines 
>>>>> remotely
>>>>> after they boot.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" 
>>>>> <astrope@tabbweb.com>
>>>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux."
>>>>> <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing serial
>>>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports 
>>>>> according
>>>>> to kernel conventions?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so speakup
>>>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial
>>>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on 
>>>>> modern
>>>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial
>>>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so 
>>>>> far
>>>>> as I can tell...
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a écrit :
>>>>>>> I hear that it doesn't follow kernel
>>>>>>> programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the COM
>>>>>>> ports.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, because no such thing exists (yet).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Samuel
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Pia]

Sorry, I forgot to delete past comments and so the message I sent was too 
big and so am re sending it now.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Pia wrote:

> Actually, most of the 3D stuff if you are good at config files can be 
> adminned from the commandline.  It is the users that need the 3D workstations 
> and of course the HTC clusters are commandline only.  My workstation needs 
> the GUI for the rare time and I do mean rare that I have to have a GUI in 
> order to troubleshoot a user's problem because of the graphical nature of 
> their work, but other than that, any admin worth their salt in Unix can make 
> most changes behind the scenes via the commandline and in a good text editor 
> in console mode.  That isn't that strange at all.  I for the record did not 
> say that speakup would become irrelevant whatsoever.  You have me mixed up 
> with someone else on the list.  I merely pointed out that serial ports are 
> starting to go away and that that is a concern.  I apologize if I took your 
> comments as if they were hostile, but I suppose I get irritated at people 
> arrogantly supposing that they know what environment is best for everybody 
> and then telling someone who does not choose their way of doing things that 
> that person's way is irrelevant. I am glad that the speakup developers are a 
> lot better than that in that they actually listen to their users instead of 
> telling them how it should be.  Screen reader, speech synth, and overall 
> environment is a matter of personal choice and what works and so I think it 
> is lame to assume that the way you do things is the only relevant way to do 
> it.  As blind people, we are all fringe cases and so we should learn some 
> sensitivity from being on the short end of the stick so many times anyway 
> when deciding whose environment matters or not.
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> But I'm not hostile.  I haven't said one hostile thing to you. All I've 
>> done is point out flaws and inconsistancies in your messages.   It seems to 
>> me that you're the one trying to force his opinions on others, not me.
>> 
>> I am not trying to criticize your personal choices as far as your work 
>> environment. But you surely must see that its not typical. For you to claim 
>> that speakup is going to become less relevant based on your very unusual 
>> needs is truely unfair.  You have this unique situation where you want to 
>> be bleeding edge (in your own words) while at the same time not.  You 
>> insist that you have to have this bleeding edge computer for 3D yet you 
>> also insist that you have to run your workstation in character mode all the 
>> time. Surely you must see that that's not typical. Most people in your 
>> position would use orca on their workstation and speakup on their servers. 
>> Or maybe they'd use a Windows workstation and still run speakup on their 
>> servers.
>> 
>> I don't see how you can fail to see how inconsistent your arguments are.

Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Janina Sajka]

Pia writes:
> For those that use the GUI, why not just use the terminal in Gnome


Good question. Here are a few of my answers:

1.)	Sometimes I can't, or don't want to run the gui just to do
something.

2.)	Orca isn't nearly as verbal as S0peakup in a terminal. Makes me
wonder whether you ask this from a theoretical viewpoint rather than
from experience.

3.)	Orca doesn't provide an analog to Speakup's Insert plus
Keypad-Enter silence mode. This is a serious deficiency in the gui, but
especially so in the terminal.

4.)	I tend to have up to 24 consoles open, each focused on a
different task. Only one of these is for the gui, but the point is that
I can quickly and unerringly switch among these. On the other, with
Orca I'd need to Alt TAB my way around. That would give neither the
speed of access, nor the accuracy of landing where I mean to go so
reliably.

Janina

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Chris Brannon]

Janina Sajka wrote:
*SNIP*
> 4.)	I tend to have up to 24 consoles open, each focused on a
> different task. Only one of these is for the gui, but the point is that
> I can quickly and unerringly switch among these.

Do you have 24 function keys?  I'm wondering how you manage to switch
so easily among all of those consoles.

Is it difficult to remember the purpose of each console?
I've been known to confuse myself with just six or seven, and that
isn't really a big surprise, given Miller's Law.

-- Chris

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 09:10:30AM -0600, Chris Brannon wrote:
> Is it difficult to remember the purpose of each console?
> I've been known to confuse myself with just six or seven, and that
> isn't really a big surprise, given Miller's Law.

I guess you mean George Miller. His law is why we have seven digit
phone numbers, not counting area codes.

Chuck



-- 
The Moon is Waxing Crescent (2% of Full)
          www.mhcable.com/~chuckh, or www.hallenbeck.ftml.net
                Audio editor weblog: edway.wordpress.com
                                --------
Linux: the operating system with a CLUE, (Command Line User Environment)

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Samuel Thibault]

Chris Brannon, le Mon 15 Feb 2010 09:10:30 -0600, a écrit :
> > 4.)	I tend to have up to 24 consoles open, each focused on a
> > different task. Only one of these is for the gui, but the point is that
> > I can quickly and unerringly switch among these.
> 
> Do you have 24 function keys?

Right alt F1 gives you VT13 and so on.

Samuel

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Kristoffer Gustafsson]

Hello!
A quick but maybe of topic question.
How do you get more than 6 consoles? I'm running debian, and I only have 
that many, I think that's by default
/Kristoffer
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Brannon" <cmbrannon79@gmail.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over 
Speakup]


> Janina Sajka wrote:
> *SNIP*
>> 4.) I tend to have up to 24 consoles open, each focused on a
>> different task. Only one of these is for the gui, but the point is that
>> I can quickly and unerringly switch among these.
>
> Do you have 24 function keys?  I'm wondering how you manage to switch
> so easily among all of those consoles.
>
> Is it difficult to remember the purpose of each console?
> I've been known to confuse myself with just six or seven, and that
> isn't really a big surprise, given Miller's Law.
>
> -- Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup 

RE: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL overSpeakup]

[Tom Moore]

Take a look at /etc/inittab.
You can add as many as you want.
This will give you up to 12 I believe with the way the Speakup keymap works
now I think.
Another option you may want to look into for doing this is a program called
screen.
This will allow you to resume all your processes from remote locations with
out having to leave your place in different applications.
 
 
Thanks,
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca [mailto:speakup-bounces@braille.uwo.ca]
On Behalf Of Kristoffer Gustafsson
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 10:37 AM
To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
Subject: Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL
overSpeakup]

Hello!
A quick but maybe of topic question.
How do you get more than 6 consoles? I'm running debian, and I only have 
that many, I think that's by default
/Kristoffer
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Brannon" <cmbrannon79@gmail.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over 
Speakup]


> Janina Sajka wrote:
> *SNIP*
>> 4.) I tend to have up to 24 consoles open, each focused on a
>> different task. Only one of these is for the gui, but the point is that
>> I can quickly and unerringly switch among these.
>
> Do you have 24 function keys?  I'm wondering how you manage to switch
> so easily among all of those consoles.
>
> Is it difficult to remember the purpose of each console?
> I've been known to confuse myself with just six or seven, and that
> isn't really a big surprise, given Miller's Law.
>
> -- Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup 

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Samuel Thibault]

Kristoffer Gustafsson, le Mon 15 Feb 2010 16:36:56 +0100, a écrit :
> A quick but maybe of topic question.
> How do you get more than 6 consoles? I'm running debian, and I only have 
> that many, I think that's by default

Add new getty lines in /etc/inittab

Samuel

orca verses Speakup terminal

[Hart Larry]

In addition I really enjoy having 48lines by 125columns, sure makes reading 
long subject-lines in usenet groups much better
Hart

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Gaijin]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 09:10:30AM -0600, Chris Brannon wrote:
> Do you have 24 function keys?  I'm wondering how you manage to switch
> so easily among all of those consoles.
	
	Ctrl+Z, jobs, fg, bg, and chvt.

				Michael

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Gaijin]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 04:36:56PM +0100, Kristoffer Gustafsson wrote:
> How do you get more than 6 consoles?

	Edit your /etc/inittab file.  'man inittab' for more info, but 
you'll find the inittab file fairly well commented.

				Michael

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Kristoffer Gustafsson]

Hello!
Ok, I've looked on this, but getty seems to have to do with serial stuff.
The thing I want is more consoles that I can use for my programs, that ones 
you can change with alt and left and right arrow keys.
/Kristoffer
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samuel Thibault" <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over 
Speakup]


Kristoffer Gustafsson, le Mon 15 Feb 2010 16:36:56 +0100, a écrit :
> A quick but maybe of topic question.
> How do you get more than 6 consoles? I'm running debian, and I only have
> that many, I think that's by default

Add new getty lines in /etc/inittab

Samuel
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup 

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Chris Brannon]

Kristoffer Gustafsson wrote:
> Hello!
> Ok, I've looked on this, but getty seems to have to do with serial stuff.
> The thing I want is more consoles that I can use for my programs, that ones =

No, getty isn't just for serial terminals.  It handles virtual consoles
as well.  For example, here's the line corresponding to virtual console 1
in my inittab:
c1:2345:respawn:/sbin/fgetty tty1
If I wanted a virtual console 7, I'd do something like:
c7:2345:respawn:/sbin/fgetty tty7
Yours probably looks different than mine, because I don't run the
version of getty that most of the rest of the Linux world uses.

HTH,
-- Chris

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Raul A. Gallegos]

I'm coming in late on this thre3ad and I confess I have not read all the 
messages, but what about using screen? With it, you can get many screens 
under the same terminal and switch between them and not only that, you 
can leave your various screens open, detach them, and reattach them if 
you remote in via ssh from elsewhere. To me this seems like a good solution.

Again, I have not read the entire thread, but this is what I do, so this 
is what I offer.

-- 
Raul A. Gallegos
Home page: http://www.RaulGallegos.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ragallegos

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Gaijin]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 02:57:28PM -0500, Raul A. Gallegos wrote:
> what about using screen?

	I always forget to run it, and just don't feel like sticking it 
in .bashrc.  The stock UNIX commands for fore and backgrounding programs 
is always there, ready and waiting, and isn't taking up any more memory 
than things started with.  Me, I want to ditch most of the junk Debian 
is automating and exercise more manual control over my computer, not 
less.  Screen just seems like more bloatware to me.

				Michael

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Georgina Joyce]

Hi

For a standard debian install.  Paste into /etc/inittab near the bottom
under the statements for the first 6.:

#
8:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty8
9:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty9
10:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty10
11:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty11
12:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty12
 #

On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 20:34 +0100, Kristoffer Gustafsson wrote:
> Hello!
> Ok, I've looked on this, but getty seems to have to do with serial stuff.
> The thing I want is more consoles that I can use for my programs, that ones 
> you can change with alt and left and right arrow keys.
> /Kristoffer
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Samuel Thibault" <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over 
> Speakup]
> 
> 
> Kristoffer Gustafsson, le Mon 15 Feb 2010 16:36:56 +0100, a écrit :
> > A quick but maybe of topic question.
> > How do you get more than 6 consoles? I'm running debian, and I only have
> > that many, I think that's by default
> 
> Add new getty lines in /etc/inittab
> 
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
-- 
Gena


four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.

Richard Matthew Stallman

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Gaijin]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:49:10PM +0000, Georgina Joyce wrote:
> For a standard debian install.  Paste into /etc/inittab near the bottom
> under the statements for the first 6.:

	Yeah, but won't that mess things up?  I know I tried that once, 
leaving the 1-6 consoles as is, and then adding 8-12, leaving F7 for the 
GUI, and my system never did work right.  I think you have to modify 
alot more than /etc/inittab to make Debian fully compliant with more 
than 6 virtual consoles, because lots of weird things started happening, 
and things from one console would bleed over to another.  I haven't 
really looked around at all of what Debian's done, but I think they've 
pretty much coded things for only 6 consoles.  I might be wrong and it 
was just a buggy upgrade at the time.  I dunno.  udev, of course, is 
skimpy on how to keep hardware named the way it's needed for CLI apps, 
and leaving the symlink for /dev/cdrom alone, so I'll mess with it 
later.

				Michael

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Pia]

Ah, but screen gives you so much more control over your controlling 
terminal, not just individual processes by freeing processes from its 
inherent limitations.  It really is a powerful tool if you learn to use it 
well.  Native process control can only go so far.

Kind Regards,

Pia

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Gaijin wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 02:57:28PM -0500, Raul A. Gallegos wrote:
>> what about using screen?
>
> 	I always forget to run it, and just don't feel like sticking it
> in .bashrc.  The stock UNIX commands for fore and backgrounding programs
> is always there, ready and waiting, and isn't taking up any more memory
> than things started with.  Me, I want to ditch most of the junk Debian
> is automating and exercise more manual control over my computer, not
> less.  Screen just seems like more bloatware to me.
>
> 				Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Gregory Nowak]

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

No, it shouldn't screw things up. Modifying /etc/inittab is pretty
much all you need to do to get more consoles as far as I recall. If
you want to be able to login as root on the extra consoles, you'll
want to make sure their listed in /etc/securetty, but that's about
it. When I was running consoles on tty8 and higher, I don't recall
ever seeing the behavior you describe on debian systems.

Greg


On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:10:43AM -0800, Gaijin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:49:10PM +0000, Georgina Joyce wrote:
> > For a standard debian install.  Paste into /etc/inittab near the bottom
> > under the statements for the first 6.:
> 
> 	Yeah, but won't that mess things up?  I know I tried that once, 
> leaving the 1-6 consoles as is, and then adding 8-12, leaving F7 for the 
> GUI, and my system never did work right.  I think you have to modify 
> alot more than /etc/inittab to make Debian fully compliant with more 
> than 6 virtual consoles, because lots of weird things started happening, 
> and things from one console would bleed over to another.  I haven't 
> really looked around at all of what Debian's done, but I think they've 
> pretty much coded things for only 6 consoles.  I might be wrong and it 
> was just a buggy upgrade at the time.  I dunno.  udev, of course, is 
> skimpy on how to keep hardware named the way it's needed for CLI apps, 
> and leaving the symlink for /dev/cdrom alone, so I'll mess with it 
> later.
> 
> 				Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkt66dAACgkQ7s9z/XlyUyDHUACgueinz+TFMomh+Rj9PN1zk6vq
JWsAnR7V9V1V05ZMPUAAP3xg/nnkIXd/
=jy00
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Orca Terminal vs. Speakup [Was Main advantages of SBL over Speakup]

[Gaijin]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:19:25PM -0500, Pia wrote:
> Ah, but screen gives you so much more control over your controlling
> terminal,

	I still have little use for screen.  I rarely need to multitask 
things.

				Michael