text editing with speakup

text editing with speakup

[Joseph C. Lininger]

Hi all,
Does anyone know of a way that I can do efficient text editing under Linux? I'm now using pico with cursoring mode turned on in speakup. Unfortunately, this has some major problems. Lines sometimes get reread, and backspacing is a nightmare! Any suggestions?

-- 
Joseph C. Lininger
jbahm@pcdesk.net

Re: text editing with speakup

[Alex Snow]

Hi. give nano a try.  it's cursoring is better then with pico.
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/nano.
hth

--
A message from the system administrator: "I've upped my priority, now up yours!"
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Joseph C. Lininger wrote:

> Hi all,
> Does anyone know of a way that I can do efficient text editing under Linux? I'm now using pico with cursoring mode turned on in speakup. Unfortunately, this has some major problems. Lines sometimes get reread, and backspacing is a nightmare! Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Joseph C. Lininger
> jbahm@pcdesk.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: text editing with speakup

[Thomas Stivers]

On 06/16/03  6:37 PM -0600, Joseph C. Lininger wrote:
> Hi all,
> Does anyone know of a way that I can do efficient text editing under
> Linux? I'm now using pico with cursoring mode turned on in speakup.
> Unfortunately, this has some major problems. Lines sometimes get
> reread, and backspacing is a nightmare! Any suggestions?

If you are up to it you might try speakup from cvs, its not quite ready
for production, but the cursor tracking is much improved. If you try it
make sure to keep a backup entry in lilo and your old kernel in case it
goes south.

The editor I like is vim, but it takes a bit of getting used to. Both
nano and pico are very similar, with nano having more features. Many
people like emacs, but imho its learning curve is even higher than the
one for vim. You can check all of these out at the following.
vim: http://vim.sourceforge.net
nano: http://www.nano-editor.org
emacs: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html

P.S. Your mailer didn't seem to wrap lines properly at about 72 chars.
-- 
Unix is a user friendly operating system. It just picks its friends more
carefully than others.
Thomas Stivers	e-mail: stivers_t@tomass.dyndns.org	gpg: 45CBBABD

Re: text editing with speakup

[Charles Crawford]

	We have not been successful in getting WordPerfect for Unix or Linux 
released to the public domain, but would be cool if we could.

-- charlie Crawford.
  

Re: text editing with speakup

[Alex Snow]

Yeah that'd be pretty sweet. I havent used wp since I ran dos 5.00 on a
386.

--
A message from the system administrator: "I've upped my priority, now up yours!"
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Charles Crawford wrote:

> 	We have not been successful in getting WordPerfect for Unix or Linux
> released to the public domain, but would be cool if we could.
>
> -- charlie Crawford.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: text editing with speakup

[jude dashiell]

Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and would
need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it.  It's for that reason
I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk space here.

Re: text editing with speakup

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would
have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it
uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word
Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you
can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if
you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of
Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a
proprietary file format?

Or am I missing something?


On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote:

> Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and would
> need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it.  It's for that reason
> I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk space here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

-- 
The Moon is Waning Gibbous (84% of Full)
So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
My public encryption key is posted on that site

Re: text editing with speakup

[White, Matt]

You are not missing anything here.  Furthermore, WordPerfect uses a
non-textual interface even though it is not a X application rendering it
completely useless.

<quote who="Chuck Hallenbeck">
> Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would
> have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it
> uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word
> Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you
> can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if
> you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of
> Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a
> proprietary file format?
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote:
>
>> Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and
>> would need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it.  It's for
>> that reason I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk
>> space here.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>
> --
> The Moon is Waning Gibbous (84% of Full)
> So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> My public encryption key is posted on that site
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup


-- 
Matt B. White
Tel: 508.969.2836

Re: text editing with speakup

[Charles Crawford]

Well, if that is the case then you are absolutely right.  Back to the 
drawing boards.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, White, Matt wrote:

> You are not missing anything here.  Furthermore, WordPerfect uses a
> non-textual interface even though it is not a X application rendering it
> completely useless.
> 
> <quote who="Chuck Hallenbeck">
> > Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would
> > have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it
> > uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word
> > Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you
> > can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if
> > you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of
> > Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a
> > proprietary file format?
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote:
> >
> >> Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and
> >> would need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it.  It's for
> >> that reason I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk
> >> space here.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Speakup mailing list
> >> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >>
> >
> > --
> > The Moon is Waning Gibbous (84% of Full)
> > So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> > My public encryption key is posted on that site
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 
> 
> 

-- 
-- Charlie Crawford

Re: text editing with speakup

[Janina Sajka]

Correction, please.

The graphical WordPerfect for Linux was, and always will be
inaccessible. 

The much older, WordPerfect 5.1 for Unix was fully text based, server
based, and is probably very accessible.

Except that we'll need a Speakup equivalent of all those lovely asap and
gw macros we used to use on DOS. Remember, folks, there was a lot of
extra functionality provided by screen readers to make some of those
funky WP screens (like spell check) work.


Charles Crawford writes:
> From: Charles Crawford <ccrawford@acb.org>
> 
> Well, if that is the case then you are absolutely right.  Back to the 
> drawing boards.
> 
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, White, Matt wrote:
> 
> > You are not missing anything here.  Furthermore, WordPerfect uses a
> > non-textual interface even though it is not a X application rendering it
> > completely useless.
> > 
> > <quote who="Chuck Hallenbeck">
> > > Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would
> > > have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it
> > > uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word
> > > Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you
> > > can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if
> > > you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of
> > > Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a
> > > proprietary file format?
> > >
> > > Or am I missing something?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote:
> > >
> > >> Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and
> > >> would need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it.  It's for
> > >> that reason I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk
> > >> space here.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Speakup mailing list
> > >> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Moon is Waning Gibbous (84% of Full)
> > > So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> > > My public encryption key is posted on that site
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> -- Charlie Crawford
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina@afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Re: text editing with speakup

[jude dashiell]

wordperfect for linux uses an xterm window in which to run.  If some way
exists to pipe keystrokes into an xterm window and pipe screen output out
of an xterm window to stdout and stderr when necessary possibly
wordperfect might work for speech under linux.

Re: text editing with speakup

[Charles Crawford]

Seems to me the problem is that the Linux text editors all use silly 
commands while WordPerfect has a well thought out and easy system of 
navigation and commands.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:

> Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would
> have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it
> uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word
> Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you
> can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if
> you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of
> Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a
> proprietary file format?
> 
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote:
> 
> > Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and would
> > need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it.  It's for that reason
> > I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk space here.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> 
> 

-- 
-- Charlie Crawford

Re: text editing with speakup

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

I am not sure I buy that, Charlie. I think it is 99% habit, what
you are used to seems logical and anything else seems silly. On
the other hand, choice is the name of the game, so I have no
problem with folks using WP for Linux, as long as they do not
send WP attachments.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Charles Crawford wrote:

> Seems to me the problem is that the Linux text editors all use silly
> commands while WordPerfect has a well thought out and easy system of
> navigation and commands.
>

-- 
The Moon is Waning Gibbous (72% of Full)
So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
My public encryption key is posted on that site

Re: text editing with speakup

[White, Matt]

The main problem with Wordperfect for Linux is that it will not work with
speech; it has a graphical interface.

<quote who="Chuck Hallenbeck">
>
> I am not sure I buy that, Charlie. I think it is 99% habit, what
> you are used to seems logical and anything else seems silly. On
> the other hand, choice is the name of the game, so I have no
> problem with folks using WP for Linux, as long as they do not
> send WP attachments.
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Charles Crawford wrote:
>
>> Seems to me the problem is that the Linux text editors all use silly
>> commands while WordPerfect has a well thought out and easy system of
>> navigation and commands.
>>
>
> --
> The Moon is Waning Gibbous (72% of Full)
> So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
> My public encryption key is posted on that site
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup


-- 
Matt B. White
Tel: 508.969.2836

Re: text editing with speakup

[Charles Crawford]

You are right that we all relate to what we use I suppose.

-- Charlie
At 06:15 AM 06/19/2003 -0400, you wrote:

>I am not sure I buy that, Charlie. I think it is 99% habit, what
>you are used to seems logical and anything else seems silly. On
>the other hand, choice is the name of the game, so I have no
>problem with folks using WP for Linux, as long as they do not
>send WP attachments.
>On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Charles Crawford wrote:
>
> > Seems to me the problem is that the Linux text editors all use silly
> > commands while WordPerfect has a well thought out and easy system of
> > navigation and commands.
> >
>
>--
>The Moon is Waning Gibbous (72% of Full)
>So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh
>My public encryption key is posted on that site
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: text editing with speakup

[Luke Davis]

This is very much a matter of opinion.  To many if not most of us, unix
text editor commands (for the full screen editors, that is), make quite a
bit of sense.  Further, commands do not relate to cursor tracking and the
like.


On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Charles Crawford wrote:

> Seems to me the problem is that the Linux text editors all use silly
> commands while WordPerfect has a well thought out and easy system of
> navigation and commands.
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would
> > have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it
> > uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word
> > Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you
> > can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if
> > you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of
> > Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a
> > proprietary file format?
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote:
> >
> > > Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and would
> > > need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it.  It's for that reason
> > > I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk space here.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: text editing with speakup

[Janina Sajka]

Charles Crawford writes:
> 
> Seems to me the problem is that the Linux text editors all use silly 
> commands while WordPerfect has a well thought out and easy system of 
> navigation and commands.

You don't say!

I rather think it's the other way around.

Re: text editing with speakup

[jude dashiell]

Whenever possible, I use the line-oriented editors available in Linux.

Re: text editing with speakup

[White, Matt]

My preferred editor is VI; I know that I am asking to start a Emacs/VI
flame war but...

It is a very fast,powerful, and quirky editor but once you learn the basic
commands (man vi) helps here, it is easy to use.

Matt

<quote who="Joseph C. Lininger">
> Hi all,
> Does anyone know of a way that I can do efficient text editing under
> Linux? I'm now using pico with cursoring mode turned on in speakup.
> Unfortunately, this has some major problems. Lines sometimes get reread,
> and backspacing is a nightmare! Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Joseph C. Lininger
> jbahm@pcdesk.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup


-- 
Matt B. White
Tel: 508.969.2836

Re: text editing with speakup

[Steve Holmes]

No editor war here but I messed with, and actually got fairly used to
vi (vim) but then came back around to emacs and that is now my
prefered editor of choice.  Along with current CVS versions of
speakup, cursoring is great and I personally find text editing to be
quite a breeze now under linux.

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 12:12:27PM -0500, White, Matt wrote:
> My preferred editor is VI; I know that I am asking to start a Emacs/VI
> flame war but...
> 
> It is a very fast,powerful, and quirky editor but once you learn the basic
> commands (man vi) helps here, it is easy to use.
> 
> Matt
> 

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
   See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Re: text editing with speakup

[Alex Snow]

took a look at vi. hated it. I use either nano or emacs for editing stuff.
both good editors.

--
A message from the system administrator: "I've upped my priority, now up yours!"
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Steve Holmes wrote:

> No editor war here but I messed with, and actually got fairly used to
> vi (vim) but then came back around to emacs and that is now my
> prefered editor of choice.  Along with current CVS versions of
> speakup, cursoring is great and I personally find text editing to be
> quite a breeze now under linux.
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 12:12:27PM -0500, White, Matt wrote:
> > My preferred editor is VI; I know that I am asking to start a Emacs/VI
> > flame war but...
> >
> > It is a very fast,powerful, and quirky editor but once you learn the basic
> > commands (man vi) helps here, it is easy to use.
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> --
> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
>    See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>