My answers are below You wrote: Hi Sina and all. Me thinks you have asked a loaded question, to which you allready know the answer. See my previous email on this remark You seem to want to dismiss the reasons that Speakup was designed as part of the kernel, and that's fine. I am not dismissing them as unimportant or not sometimes crucial. I wanted to avoid having them be the only reasons brought up, because I was sincerely interested to see if there were any engineering constraints rather than preferences, dictating the decision to have speakup in the kernel. The real issue is who is going to write or port Speakup to user space. No, it's not. That may be an issue later on, but right now I am asking a question to gleme some knowledge. It's called discovery. If it proves to be possible, doable, wanted, and so forth. Then a different discussion about who, what, how, and so forth can occur. Cross platform compatibility is not an obstical, other apps do it. Accessibility across all text consoles is not an issue, again, other apps do it. Good to know, as we have discussed. So why isn't there a Speakup user space program? You know the answer. If I did, I wouldn't be asking. It's possible, but Kirk doesn't have the time, or perhaps even the interest. Witness his lack of response to this thread. That's fine ... I wouldn't mind having him chime in from an engineering point of view, but I completely understand time constraints. Oh, and by the way, I think Kirk is quite capable of telling us his own reasons ... If you wish to offer suggestions, I will appreciate them with open ears, but let's try to avoid talking for others. Yes, it's possible, so when are you going to have it done. This is quite illustrative of a very immature attitude towards answering questions, towards software design discussion, and frankly towards basic manners. I never offered to do it. I am quite familiar with the proverb of teaching someone to fish rather than handing them one. I am also aware that the entire population is not able to design their own fishing rod, maybe because of lack of meterials, maybe because of a lack of skill, or maybe because of a lack of resources with respect to time. Sorry for stretching the analogy, but I find it quite annoying to hear a response of "yes, it's possible, so do so". We all know that this is linux, and if you want something, you can feel free to do so yourself, but being able to, and having to do so for absolutely every possible question is quite a stupid suggestion. You know it's possible, but you insist on wasting bandwidth on the list, trying to bate Kirk or someone else into doing something you want. I'll give you one thing. You're exceptionally good at making assumptions, then making accusations based on those false assumptions, and then insulting someone in the same sentence. I was not trying to bate anyone. I was asking a question, and until I hear otherwise, I will continue to do so on this list ... In fact, maybe you can save bandwidth by not responding to my emails. That way, I don't have to hear all of your insulting and false accusations, and you don't have to hear me respond to them. Your time and everyone elses would have been better spent if you had just asked if anyone is willing to port Speakup to user space. No, I don't think so. I wish to understand the problem, and have an educated discussion: something you apparently seem unable to do. I understand some of your frustration. You like Speakup and would like to have it generally available anywhere. Unfortunately, it isn't, and is not likely to be, because the author doesn't have the time, or perhaps the interest in such a project. So htat leaves you with learning enough to write the port yourself, or finding someone who has the skill and knowledge, and is willing to take on such a task. That would means that every time there was an upgrade to Speakup, he or she would have to port the upgrade. Not if it is done correclty via modular design. I suspect you already know this, but I'll point it out for the benefit of other readers. Speakup is a series of code segments that are patched into the kernel source code. This means that some of those patches cannot function as standalone code that would run in user space. So someone would have to write additional code to fillin the gaps. Is it possible? Probably. The question is, "who has the time, knowledge and skill, and the interest?" Find that person, or learn what it takes to do it yourself, and you can have what you want. You're write ... Those patches couldn't. other code could. By the way, this message is not ment to be disrespectful, or discourteous. It's just ment to point out the way things are. It definitely came across as so. You would not believe how rude, unhelpful, disrespectful, and acusatory it came across as. Gene
