I respect that you feel your stance and your work is important. I agree
on Samuel, he has given a grand deal, providing much talent to this effort
as well.
However, speaking only for myself, I do not find the suggestion that what
you are using applies to anyone else making a great deal of
sense...there is only one of you.
Speaking only for myself, I am amazed how these projects have come
together forgetting the most fundamental thing about the people using
them.
You are talking of humans, millions of them, and all humans learn
differently. You are using a braille display and software speech. that
is fine, but what if the person using the screen reader is doing so
because they have a learning disability instead?
a large percentage of the population that can benefit from speech. what
if they are in the sight loss majority, not braille users, or have no
access to a display....costly are they not? what if they, as I know can
be the case, find software speech impossible to hear and understand?
What if they are managing a combination of print challenges? I can go on
and on. Believe me i resonate with the challenges of getting a good answer
out of the larger Linux community...I have been working on a really
functional Linux box for a good decade or more at least.
Still there are some who hold Linux out as a better alternative to say
using other low graphics options, like DOS...and you indicate here that
the suggestion may not be reasonable, unless you are willing and able to
build the house yourself. You must be a programmer before you can
fully have the program. I cannot say this is necessary using dos for
sure.
I can say, speaking only for myself though that thinking everyone sharing
a label with you is just like you prevents talent from being used for a
greater and flexible solution across low graphics platforms.
Or even more graphical ones for that matter.
I grant you my Microsoft comparison may not be fair. Save the same kind
of arrogance you found in the Linux community has been mirrored in the
windows one on many occasions.
I sincerely wish you success finding a real solution. Tony as well.
However, if anyone starts to wonder why I personally will choose ssh
TELNET into any Linux structure from outside, I can point to this entire
thread, smiles.
Thanks for engaging with me,
Karen
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, John G Heim wrote:
> Well, as I said, I've been relying more and more upon a braille display
> and software speech.
>
> I can't say it's unfair to say linux is no better than Microsoft because
> I think in this context, it's comparing apples and oranges. IMO, it's
> neiher fair or unfair. It's like saying a dolphin is no better than an
> oak tree. Well, at what? If you want linux to do something, you have to
> do it yourself or maybe pay someone to do it for you.
> On the other hand, I would say that developers are ethically required to
> allow accessibility software to work with their code and the linux
> kernel developers have been woefully inadequate in that regard. A year
> or two ago, I took the time to drill down through the functions the
> speakup code was calling to "steal" the serial port. I found it led to a
> function inside the main kernel code (not in staging) that could never
> return a success. I asked about it on the kernel developers list. If
> speakup isn't accessing the serial port the right way, what is the right
> way? The answers I got were BS. The speakup code is not very well
> written, the whole thing should be moved to user space, etc. My reaction
> was like, okay, maybe, but can someone please answer the question? But
> apparently not. It was infuriating. That's when I started posting
> kernels with the function call commented out.
>
> The whole thing just makes no sense. Why even include code that is
> deliberately disabled? Samuel is probably freaking out if he has read
> this far. Someone, probably him, went through a lot of work just to get
> speakup in staging. And, after all, software speech does work. That is
> not trivial.
>
> On 02/24/2016 10:05 AM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> > May i ask how one finds contingency plans for your ears, your brain,
> > and
> > your processing? smiles.
> > I am not following this debate closely, but it certainly supports my
> > worries about Linux as a main computing solution. If someone is
> > going to
> > remove the door to functionality, or decide for me how I personally
> > accommodate my body differences, then they are no different than say
> > Microsoft.
> > Access is a human right in some places, not a feature.
> > defining that access begins and ends with the individual, which is
> > why the
> > best access uses a foundation allowing for many ways in so to speak.
> >
> > Going back to the corner now,
> > Kare
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, John G Heim wrote:
> >
> > > Well, first of all, I didn't mean to say you shouldn't use a
> > serial > hardware synth. However,IMO, you would be wise to consider
> > contingency > plans. If your livelihood depends on that serial synth,
> > you'd be wise to > begin examining your alternatives.
> > > > Also, I can't promise to debug the kernel code. When I said
> > check the > syslog, I meant for you to check the syslog. If I can
> > find the time to > take a look at it, I certainly will but I can't
> > promise that. I suspect > that what's happening is that when speakup
> > tries to "steal" the serial > port, the return value is no longer
> > just null. When I last traced back > the functions that speakup was
> > calling to steal the serial port, it was > bullstuff. Speakup called
> > a function that did nothing -- which isn't the > fault of the speakup
> > developers. I suspect that those functions now do > something --
> > probably not what we want but something.
> > > > It has probably been a year since I last posted a rant on this
> > list > about the linux kernel developers. As I write this, I find
> > myself > getting all worked up about it again. The one good thing
> > about Trump > running for President is that now I have someone I find
> > more arrogant > and irritating than the linux kernel development
> > team.
> > > > > > On 02/24/2016 08:29 AM, Tony Baechler wrote:
> > > > On 2/23/2016 6:31 AM, John G Heim wrote:
> > > > > You should check the syslog. There are almost certainly
> > messages > > in > there
> > > > > reporting what is happening. I'll try to compile 4.3 kernels
> > for > > ubuntu > and
> > > > > debian over the next few days. I had planned to automate the
> > > > process. > Every
> > > > > time my ubuntu machines download a new kernel, generate a
> > new > > patched > kernel
> > > > > package. I never got around to it though. I was using a sed
> > > > command to
> > > > > comment out the line that caused serial synths to not work
> > so that
> > > > > automation was possible. Part of the problem here is that I
> > have > > kind of
> > > > > given up on serial synths myself. I have been depending more
> > and > > more on > the
> > > > > combination of a braille display and software speech. It
> > seems to > > me > that
> > > > > using a hardware speech synth is going against the grain
> > these > > > days.
> > > > > > > > As Karen and others have pointed out, we all have our
> > own personal > > speech
> > > > preferences. In my case, I have multiple reasons for wanting
> > serial > > speech
> > > > to work. I find it easier to hear and understand for one thing.
> > There > > are
> > > > some bugs in the DECtalk Express module which might be easily
> > fixed, > > but
> > > > the last unpatched kernel I know of that actually worked was
> > 2.6.32 > > which
> > > > is no longer supported. Anyway, as requested, here is the dmesg
> > > > output. I
> > > > don't see anything helpful. I did the following:
> > > > > > service espeakup stop
> > > > rmmod speakup_soft
> > > > modprobe speakup_dectlk
> > > > rmmod speakup_dectlk
> > > > rmmod speakup
> > > > modprobe speakup_soft
> > > > espeakup
> > > > > > [ 11.336314] r8169 0000:02:00.0 eth0: link up
> > > > [ 11.336325] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link
> > becomes > > ready
> > > > [ 27.013903] releasing synth soft
> > > > [ 27.013975] unregistered /dev/softsynth
> > > > [ 32.824006] speakup: unregistering synth device /dev/synth
> > > > [ 56.630004] speakup: module is from the staging directory,
> > the > > quality
> > > > is unknown, you have been warned.
> > > > [ 56.630896] input: Speakup as /devices/virtual/input/input7
> > > > [ 56.631031] initialized device: /dev/synth, node (MAJOR 10,
> > > > MINOR 25)
> > > > [ 56.631055] speakup 3.1.6: initialized
> > > > [ 56.631057] synth name on entry is: dectlk
> > > > [ 56.639855] speakup_dectlk: module is from the staging > >
> > directory, the
> > > > quality is unknown, you have been warned.
> > > > [ 56.640036] synth probe
> > > > [ 56.640039] Ports not available, trying to steal them
> > > > [ 56.640042] Unable to allocate port at 3f8, errno -16
> > > > [ 56.640044] Dectalk Express: not found
> > > > [ 56.640045] dectlk: device probe failed
> > > > [ 67.012005] speakup: unregistering synth device /dev/synth
> > > > [ 70.985966] speakup: module is from the staging directory,
> > the > > quality
> > > > is unknown, you have been warned.
> > > > [ 70.986851] input: Speakup as /devices/virtual/input/input8
> > > > [ 70.986983] initialized device: /dev/synth, node (MAJOR 10,
> > > > MINOR 25)
> > > > [ 70.987006] speakup 3.1.6: initialized
> > > > [ 70.987008] synth name on entry is: dectlk
> > > > [ 70.987055] speakup_soft: module is from the staging
> > directory, > > the
> > > > quality is unknown, you have been warned.
> > > > [ 70.987193] synth probe
> > > > [ 70.987230] initialized device: /dev/softsynth, node (MAJOR
> > 10, > > MINOR
> > > > 26)
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
>
>
>
