Luke, The only problem I can see right off is the fact that data is buffered. I for one want all output immediately and not soem stuff queued and only available once a service comes online. This is where Speakup truly shines and I can't say I've ever had a problem with Speakup causing problems for any kernels I compiled. Matter of fact and this is for Kirk, I no longer have any problems stopping speech when booting my dual processor box. Kirk you may recall some time back I was haivng problems with this, but that has gone away. Now only if I could get my Linux box back from the dead, I'd be sooo much happier. I hate using my wife's winblows box. Well hopefully this weekend I can borrow some parts from a friend of mine and see what's wrong with the old box. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luke Davis" <ldavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> Sent: 16 April, 2003 22:24 Subject: Kernel/user space (Was: Re: redhat problems) > Okay, since we're going to have this discussion, let's have it, under a > better subject... > > Long before I started using Speakup, I was apposed to having it in the > kernel, for all manner of reasons. > > However, after using it a bit, and learning more about how it worked, I > became less attached to that idea, and started looking at it as more of a > driver, of the display type, and thus as something that needed to be in > the kernel. At least, my arguments against it, lost some major weight. > > As it stands, I am happy with Speakup as it is--in the kernel. I still > maintain, however, that there may be a better way. > > What I am looking at (unless Kirc, et al already did), is whether a hybrid > solution is possible--part in the kernel, and part in user
