Kernel/user space (Was: Re: redhat problems)

[Scott Howell]

Luke,

The only problem I can see right off is the fact that data is buffered. I
for one want all output immediately and not soem stuff queued and only
available once a service comes online. This is where Speakup truly shines
and I can't say I've ever had a problem with Speakup causing problems for
any kernels I compiled. Matter of fact and this is for Kirk, I no longer
have any problems stopping speech when booting my dual processor box. Kirk
you may recall some time back I was haivng problems with this, but that has
gone away. Now only if I could get my Linux box back from the dead, I'd be
sooo much happier. I hate using my wife's winblows box. Well hopefully this
weekend I can borrow some parts from a friend of mine and see what's wrong
with the old box.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Luke Davis" <ldavis at shellworld.net>
To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: 16 April, 2003 22:24
Subject: Kernel/user space (Was: Re: redhat problems)


> Okay, since we're going to have this discussion, let's have it, under a
> better subject...
>
> Long before I started using Speakup, I was apposed to having it in the
> kernel, for all manner of reasons.
>
> However, after using it a bit, and learning more about how it worked, I
> became less attached to that idea, and started looking at it as more of a
> driver, of the display type, and thus as something that needed to be in
> the kernel.  At least, my arguments against it, lost some major weight.
>
> As it stands, I am happy with Speakup as it is--in the kernel.  I still
> maintain, however, that there may be a better way.
>
> What I am looking at (unless Kirc, et al already did), is whether a hybrid
> solution is possible--part in the kernel, and part in user