Re: responsibility for speakup, was: Re: Help with serial synths in 4.X kernels

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I think Greg's description of responsibility below is too broad, but at the very least, many of us can be responsible for the shapes of our suggestions and complaints, and for what we expect or insist on from others. Beyond that, responsibility is a more nuanced animal.

Al

On 2/26/2016 3:37 PM, Gregory Nowak wrote:
Your presence on a list does not make you responsible for code; it is
the license under which the code is released that makes us all
responsible for it. I think I see what John is getting at, so let me
try to explain. Free software is exactly that, free software. That
means that everyone is welcome to modify it, and release the
modifications back to the community. Since the speakup patches are
licensed under the GPL, they are free software. That means that all of
us regardless of presence on this list, regardless of ability or
disability are responsible for it.

Let me try to put this a different way. As citizens in a democracy, we're responsible
for what our government does. The majority of us don't run for office,
though most of us could do so. The majority of us aren't programmers,
though there is nothing stopping most of us from learning to
code. When we vote for a candidate, we are giving our support for that
candidate to govern on our behalf. When we use a given piece of free
software, we are taking an interest in it. Some could say that because
they don't vote, they aren't responsible for how a country is
governed. That's not correct; by not voting, a person is simply voting
for whatever the majority wants. Some could say that because I don't
like how a piece of free software works, I am not going to use
it. That still means that others are using that software, and are
deciding where that software goes as a majority. Admittedly my analogy
probably isn't perfect, but I do feel it's still very close. I hope
why we're all ultimately responsible for speakup makes more sense now.

Greg


On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:55:04PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote:
I made no such accusation.
I stated that speaking only for myself, I am  surprised how such
projects come  together without considering the variations in how
individuals learn, access, and use technologies.
You suggested that others should make contingency plans, assuming
that such plans were a possibility, otherwise why would you suggest
as much.
I am not sure why I am responsible for a code, just because I occupy
a list.  does that make me responsible for Google's access choices,
or Apples, just because I am a list member?
Why does my presence on a list make me responsible for the content
of the speakup code?


On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, John G Heim wrote:

Karen, suggesting one workaround for the problems with serial
synths in speakup does not imply that I am forgetting the basic
needs of my fellow human beings. That's ridiculous. Nothing I said
implies in any way that getting your hands on a braille display is
a solution that works for everyone.

Maybe the concept of open source is unclear but the truth is that
you, Karen, are as responsible as anyone on this list for the
speakup code. Why don't you rewrite it yourself? If you say you
can't do that, would it be fair for me to accuse you of losing
track of the basic needs of your fellow humans?



On 02/24/2016 12:05 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
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




_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup




[Index of Archives]     [Linux for the Blind]     [Fedora Discussioin]     [Linux Kernel]     [Yosemite News]     [Big List of Linux Books]
  Powered by Linux