I would aagree that a default "don't speak" configuration option would be helpful. That would obviate the need to press the numeric enter key to shut the synth up during boot, but preserve the parallel effect of pressing Escape. I think the reason that "speaks from boot" is given in support Speakup is that it's the easiest to give and defend. It happens Speakup is also extremely useful aat the shell prompt, less so in document editing, where it's lack of good cursor tracking puts it well behind emacspeak. Thing is, there's really nothing else in speech that's any better. Another extremely strong point is that Speakup is very eaasy to learn. Extremely easy. There's a lot of paayback there for new users. And, this even benefits the user starting to learn emacs, because it's possible to have both speakup and emacspeak active at the same time. I do this, and use Insert+Enter on the numeric to silence Speakup in my emacs session. I don't know emacspeak well enough to trust that I'll hear, or be able to hear again, what happened on screen. Luke Davis writes: > From: Luke Davis <ldavis@shellworld.net> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Janina Sajka wrote: > > > Because it doesn't support the internal DEC Talk? Give me a break. > > Is that the *only* internal card it doesn't support? > > > Recognize that your argument is that speech at the onset of boot isn't > > important. Fine. Have it that way. Go get other people to do your > > installs, do them over serial port, etc., etc. I don't have a problem > > with that, and I don't consider those alternatives which don't support > > speech from the onset of boot flawed on that basis. It's just another > > w;ay to go. > > See his messages about initrds. > > I'm just thinking of why it should be necessary to clutter the kernel with > software which doesn't need to be there. > >From the discussion at hand, the only reason I have seen the proponents > give, is the fact that it will talk from boot. > > "Same advantage the sighted have". > > If you look at Windows, the entire startup process, is hidden by a Windows > logo screen. They don't see the boot up information either, unless they > care enough to hit escape while it's happening. > > I, and most others whos' systems I have worked on, place their speech > startup routine, at the *end* of the booting process, so they do not have > to be bothered hearing the routine, and usually irrelevant, starting of > device managers, drivers, maintenance programs, etc.. > That's not something you want to waste your time doing, unless there is > something wrong. > In these cases, a kernel with speech built in, would be reasonable, but > only for diagnostic purposes. You wouldn't normally want that during > every day use. > When you do need the startup data, dmesg is usually good enough, and gives > you time and the ability to review missed information. > > There may be a place for speech in the kernel, but I don't think every day > use is it. > > Now, the power of my convictions being vast, I will go download speakup > installation disks, and happily start using it. > > All IMO, of course. > > Luke -- Janina Sajka, Director Technology Research and Development Governmental Relations Group American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175