Hi Sina. If your question was ment to be philisophical in nature, as to why Speakup was not originally designed as a user space program, than you don't get to ignore the issues of installation and bootup messages. You already know that it's possible to write a speakup like user space program, because there are other apps out there that do parts of what you want. So if your question truly is technical in nature, there is no reson why Speakup can't be a user space program, except that nobody has done it yet. So if you really are after knowledge, tell me what you think you've learned. Whining about my response to you and calling me names publicly doesn't give you an out. The only reasons Speakup is in kernel space are the very ones you want to ignore. Speakup is hiddenfrom all running applications on the system. They don't get to bypass it, and having Speakup in kernel space allows for talking installations, spoken bootup message, and in many cases, spoken kernel error messages. If you want to dismiss those reasons, then there is no reason why Speakup shouldn't be a user space app, except for the reason of time and interest I have already mentioned. Go for it. If on the other hand the point of raising this discussion is to try to change Kirk's mind about future Speakup design, well, it's possible, but not very likely. Remember, name calling is not an exceptable response. Have a nice day. Gene
