"Even with a hardware synth we have nowhere near a power-up to shutdown solution like we used to have. From that perspective speakup is a very sad distant relation to it's earlier self. If we were to go back and include that capability we would probably lose the in-roads we've made into being made available on many distributions and tolerance to the linux kernel community." What's with these kernel geeks? Is there some legitimate technical reason why this is true, or is this entirely or mostly a case of inflexible but largely arbitrary design standards? Most people here know that there have been several speakup-modified versions of Fedora, though, sadly, not created by the Fedora folks in the ordinary course of their work. GRML had speakup available early in the boot process for some time, and apparently will again. Slackware's had a speakup-modified kernel for a while, it seems. I gather that Ubuntu once had speakup, and that Gentoo had it and may have it now. Does anybody here know what the *real* deal is with not making it a regular part of the kernel, as visual access and a great many things are? Yes, I know these issues have been raised here before, but I don't think anybody from anywhere has made a technical case that speakup is somehow fundamentally different from the great number of things that the kernel has come to include one way or another. So far, it seems to me that the real argument is "We don't want to. You blinks don't count that much." Is this all or mostly wrong? If so, is there something I can read that will explain why, something in plain enough English that a person who knows little about the kernel can understand? I want it clear that I appreciate greatly the work some people are doing to make speakup more available, like the Debian folks and Chris Brannon. Of course, I've long been grateful for Bill Acker's and Janina Sajka's work, which gave me my path into Linux. I understand Kirk's comment quoted above to suggest that the speakup that is being made more available has limitations that earlier version didn't have, though, and that the fault lies where the kernel buck stops. If I'm wrong, please correct my information; if I'm right, then the next turkey we cook in this house will be named Kernel Bummer or something. Al
