Modularisation

[Frank Carmickle]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Saqib Shaikh wrote:
> While I think that it is good that parts of Speakup has been included
> in the kernel, I would still like to see Speakup be a kernel module so
> that it can be added/removed at will.  What do people think of this?
 
Being addressed currently.  If you would like to submit code to make it
move faster feel free.

> Secondly, I personally don't like the fact that one must change the
> keymaps to use Speakup.  Could Speakup be changed so that it monitors
> all keypresses, and if it wants to deal with them it does so and then
> all other keys are passed through?  This would, in my opinion, be a
> far better solution.

Well that's an interesting argument.  Something to the effect of speakup
building it's keyboard hooks in to all of the maps.  Then upon speakup
being initialized it grabs it's keys.

> 
> Finally I would like to raise the issue of security.  Many of my
> friends at universities in the UK use Emacspeak rather than Speakup
> purely because our universities consider patching every kernel both a
> security risk and a hastle.  On the security side I also know of at
> least one distribution that refuses to include Speakup because of it
> being a security risk.
 
I consider myself to be very security conscious.  However I see no good
reason for this to be a security issue.  Once it gets in to the standard
kernel distribution this should cease to be a thought.  Silliness though.  
They trust Linus and Alan but not someone who supplies Linus or Alan with
the initial code.  Hmmm.  Interesting.

-- 
     Frank Carmickle
phone:     412 761-9568
email:     frankiec at dryrose.com