Speakup in user space, why or why not?

[Gene Collins]

Hi Sina.  If your question was ment to be philisophical in nature, as to
why Speakup was not originally designed as a user space program, than
you don't get to ignore the issues of installation and bootup messages. 
You already know that it's possible to write a speakup like user space
program, because there are other apps out there that do parts of what
you want.  So if your question truly is technical in nature, there is no
reson why Speakup can't be a user space program, except that nobody has
done it yet.

So if you really are after knowledge, tell me what you think you've
learned.  Whining about my response to you and calling me names publicly
doesn't give you an out.  The only reasons Speakup is in kernel space
 are the very ones you want to ignore.  Speakup is hiddenfrom all
running applications on the system.  They don't get to bypass it, and
having Speakup in kernel space allows for talking installations, spoken
bootup message, and in many cases, spoken kernel error messages.  If you
want to dismiss those reasons, then there is no reason why Speakup
shouldn't be a user space app, except for the reason of time and
interest I have already mentioned.  Go for it.

If on the other hand the point of raising this discussion is to try to
change Kirk's mind about future Speakup design, well, it's possible, but
not very likely.

Remember, name calling is not an exceptable response.  Have a nice day.

Gene