A comment on Slashdot that concerns me
Ron Kassen
rvkassen at earthlink.net
Sat Mar 25 13:43:41 EST 2000
Seems to me that this person needs to be patient and remember that this is a
developing market. Maybe I am not angry because I have a supported
synthesizer, but if they are really interested in their speech synthesizer
working with Linux, then maybe they should learn the code and write the
drive - maybe get involved with the group of people making this happen. I
encourage your work, keep it up, I know that eventually there will be more
supported synthesizers. There will be people who pitch in and come up with
ideas/ways of writing drivers for unsupported synthesizers. I have to go
back to the dos days, when there were very few synthesizers support by some
programs. It just took some time for the list of supported synthesizers to
develop. The "hallowed list", as this writer puts it, are probably the most
commonly used synthesizers on the market. This is not a bad thing.
RK
-----Original Message-----
From: speakup-admin at braille.uwo.ca
[mailto:speakup-admin at braille.uwo.ca]On Behalf Of Matthew Campbell
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:49 PM
To: speakup at braille.uwo.ca
Subject: A comment on Slashdot that concerns me
Here is one comment that was posted on Slashdot regarding ZipSpeak and
probably Speakup in general:
(begin quote)
This is nothing but a threat to independent producers, and
"slashdot"'s unquestioning boosting of a LinusX technology in this
specialised and delicate market is inappropriate. Although the goal of
having universal access to LinusX is laudable, that is not what this
product offers. Rather, it offers access for the blind so long as they
buy a speech synthesiser which is on the approved list. Those of us
who make speech syntehsisers which didn't make it onto this hallowed
team end up losing a whole chunk of our market because, even though
our synthesisers offer a lot of important functionality for the blind
("easy listening" modulated voices, automatic timbre management,
etc.), we didn't promote our product at the right time to the right
developer.
This product is particularly cruel as it locks in people forever to an
inferior technology, by exploting the fact that they need speech
synthesis if they are to run Linux at all. Zipspeak should be forced
to provide support for all speech synthesiser by writing the
appropriate drivers, and should forfeit their FDA approval and the
tax-deductibility of their product if they continue to tilt the
playing field for synthesisers. It is wholly irresponsible of them to
come into an orderly marketplace and shake things up like this. We
never had these problems with Apple (a company which, IMO, really
"gets it" with regard to open standards) and only a few with
Microsoft. What a shame that the so-called "altruists" of the LinusX
community couldn't be a bit more understanding.
Stephen Mundy
--Murrinco
(end quote)
What have we done wrong? Or what have I done wrong? Should I have
delayed my release of ZipSpeak until there were drivers for all known
synthesizers? Or should I have spent my spring break writing
synthesizer drivers? I probably couldn't anyway, because I know
little about kernel programming and don't have any documentation for
synthesizers other than the DoubleTalk (though I could have learned
some from Emacspeak driver code). Perhaps I should release an updated
ZipSpeak with the new drivers which are on the Speakup FTP site, even
though they're not yet in the official Speakup release. But I figured
that since they're not in the official Speakup release, they probably
aren't ready for general use yet.
I really didn't mean any harm to the makers of unsupported speech
synthesizers, but I guess this person doesn't think so. What do you
all think?
--
Matt Campbell <mattcamp at crosswinds.net>
Web site: http://www.crosswinds.net/~mattcamp/
ICQ #: 33005941
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
More information about the Speakup
mailing list