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
