What I've found with Dell with regards to linux support is they only "support" it on server machines, but in my experience it works fine on their desktop/laptop lines, at least the business ones. On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:46:10PM -0500, Trevor Astrope wrote: > Hi Butch, > > Check out the Dell Optiplex line. I'm not sure if all Optiplex models have > a serial port, but there are some that do. It should be fine for XP, but > Dell said linux is not supported on the Optiplex line. This doesn't mean > that Linux won't install or work on these machines, but ymmv. John likely > has more experience with linux on these machines and might be able to > provide more info... > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Butch Bussen wrote: > > >A bit off topic, but can you tell me which Dell business machine has a > >serial port? model? I need a better machine for xp, but I need at least > >one and preferably two serial ports. > >Thanks. > >73 > >Butch Bussen > >wa0vjr > >open Node 3148 > >Las Vegas > > > > > >On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Trevor Astrope wrote: > > > >>John, what I said is there is no advantage to having speakup in the > >>kernel if it cannot support serial synths on modern computers and I stand > >>by my statement that most modern computers do not come with serial ports. > >>I know there is a Dell business machine that does, but these are the > >>exception, not the rule and are also much more expensive. > >> > >>Basically, my point is speakup needs to support external serial ports > >>and/or usb serial ports going forward or it loses any advantage it has of > >>being in the kernel. If software speech is the only option for the > >>majority of computers, than there is really no point of speakup being in > >>the kernel. > >> > >>Feel free to disagree, but I think my statements are accurate and you > >>will find that over time you will find fewer and fewer machines with > >>built-in serial ports, as usb was intended to replace rs232 serial ports > >>and this is happening today, although I do agree it isn't totally > >>complete. > >> > >>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote: > >> > >>> I just think you are over stating your case. I'm sure the speakup > >>> developers would love to support USB. But your original comment was > >>> that speakup doesn't support modern motherboards -- which is just > >>>totally > >>> untrue. You also said that having speakup in the kernel has "no > >>> advantage". Also untrue. I don't have a problem with your offereing the > >>> suggestion that speakup be modified to support USB hardware synths. I > >>>just > >>> think you shouldn't exaggerate the problems. After all, look at the > >>> subject line of this thread, "Main advantages of SBL over Speakup." If > >>> we're going to compare sbl and speakup, lets be fair about it. > >>> > >>> You made it sound like speakup is already obsolete. And that's just not > >>> true. Really, it seems to me to be a fairly small niche you are in. We > >>> both agree that most servers have serial ports, right? So your problem > >>> is > >>> that you have a desktop with no serial port but you have to have speech > >>> right away during boot? Why can't you just use software speech on your > >>> desktop? In fact, I'm unclear as to why it is so important to you that > >>>the > >>> workstations you support have hardware synth speech. As I said, all of > >>>the > >>> PCs in my department have serial ports (literally 100s of machines) but > >>> when I have to do support, I just use software speech. I'm not going to > >>> drag my hardware speech synth around with me unless I have to. Its so > >>>much > >>> easier just to grap a USB headset and fire up software speech. > >>> > >>> Actually, some years ago, I posted a message to this list about how you > >>> could modify your udev rules to recognize when your USB headset is > >>>plugged > >>> into a machine and have it start software speech. Each USB device has a > >>> unique serial number and you can write a udev rule to run a script to > >>> start speech when a device with a specific serial number is plugged in. > >>>So > >>> its possible to sit down at a PC at the login prompt, plug in your USB > >>> headset, and login with speech. > >>> > >>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" <astrope at tabbweb.com> > >>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." > >>> <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:09 PM > >>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup > >>> > >>> > >>> John, yes I do manage servers and I do agree that having speakup in the > >>> kernel is immensely important if you have a serial port and synth. > >>> > >>> Perhaps it is different where you are, but where I live, desktops with > >>> serial ports are extremely rare. The only ones I managed to find were > >>>some > >>> low end Acers. I also found some business machines with serial ports, > >>> but > >>> they are twice the cost for about half the performance as a consumer > >>> desktop machine and we don't buy them where I work. > >>> > >>> Like Kelly mentioned earlier today, I also do not install speakup in the > >>> kernels of the servers I manage, but in the machine I use to manage the > >>> servers. > >>> > >>> So, I respectfully disagree with you about the availability of serial > >>> ports in modern desktop machines and I stand by my statement that > >>> speakup > >>> as a kernel-level speech system will become less relevant over time > >>>unless > >>> it can support external serial ports and usb serial ports. In my > >>> opinion, > >>> this is where speakup development should be focused, as more and more > >>> people will face this issue as they upgrade their machines. But I am > >>> not a > >>> speakup developer, so I have no influence on the direction it takes. I > >>>can > >>> only offer my opinion, which I have stated several times on this list > >>> and > >>> I can only hope that speakup developers agree with it and take up the > >>> challenge. > >>> > >>> In the meantime, I do have a job to do and I will need to decide > >>> whether I > >>> continue using speakup with software synth, which will make my job more > >>> difficult or use something else like orca or a mac, which still won't > >>> solve the problem of having access to early kernel messages, but may > >>> give > >>> me more flexability going forward. > >>> > >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, John G. Heim wrote: > >>> > >>>> Well, perhaps its a minor point but plenty of modern computers have > > >>>serial > >>>> ports. I've never seen a server that didn't have a serial port. In > >>>fact, > >>>> except for laptops, I have yet to see a computer that doesn't have a > >>>> serial > >>>> port. That includes the 200 or so desktop units we have where I work. > >>>> Even > >>>> the machine I built myself has a serial port. > >>>> > It certainly is a huge over statement to say that having speakup in > >>>the > >>>> kernel has no advantage. If you manage servers like I do, having > > >>>speakup in > >>>> the kernel is just about the most important thing there is for a > >>>screen > >>>> reader. I don't really care that much about what happens after the > > >>>machine is > >>>> booted. About the only time I need a run time screen reader is if > > >>>something > >>>> is wrong with networking. But mostly, I can admin these machines > > >>>remotely > >>>> after they boot. > >>>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Astrope" > > >>><astrope at tabbweb.com> > >>>> To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." > > >>><speakup at braille.uwo.ca> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:09 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: Main advantages of SBL over Speakup > >>>> > > Samuel, do you mean there is no kernel convention for accessing > >>>serial > >>>> ports or there is no speakup support for accessing serial ports > > >>>according > >>>> to kernel conventions? > >>>> > It would be really great if speakup could use ttyS# devices, so > >>>speakup > >>>> would work with modern motherboards that do not have built-in serial > >>>> ports. The way I see it is speakup can only use software speech on > > >>>modern > >>>> computers, so unless it can access external serial ports or usb serial > >>>> ports, there really is no advantage to speakup being in the kernel so > >>>> far > >>>> as I can tell... > >>>> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >>>> > > Bill Cox, le Tue 09 Feb 2010 14:23:25 -0500, a ?crit : > >>>> > > I hear that it doesn't follow kernel > >>>> > > programming conventions, for example in how it interfaces to the > >>>COM > >>>> > > ports. > >>>> > > > Yes, because no such thing exists (yet). > >>>> > > > Samuel > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > Speakup mailing list > >>>> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >>>> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > > > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > Speakup mailing list > >>>> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >>>> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > >>>> > > > _______________________________________________ > >>>> Speakup mailing list > >>>> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > >>>> > > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Speakup mailing list > >>>> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Speakup mailing list > >>> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > >>> > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- [In 'Doctor' mode], I spent a good ten minutes telling Emacs what I thought of it. (The response was, 'Perhaps you could try to be less abusive.') -- Matt Welsh
