heretical thoughts was Re: Speakup dropped from Ubuntu

[Albert E. Sten-Clanton]

> > The problem with having only software synthesis on the system is that
> > when there is a problem, the software synthesis is often the first
> > thing to stop functioning.
> Again, that's a bug and a community like this one would do well to help
> find and resolve those. That would help a much larger, less technical
> group in the long term.

Do I misunderstand, or do you mean that it should be technically feasible to have software speech kick in as early in the boot process as speakup can with
a hardware speech device, as well as at other times when it now may become unusable?  My very limited understanding of the technology tells me that's unlikely,
but I'd be glad to be wrong.  If that can't happen, though, then Gene's key complaint, as I read it, stands: software speech is second-rate access, if
that's all there is.

> > I make my living as a computer consultant.  It will be to bad if I'm
> > forced to recomend that folks stay clear of Ubuntu because of it's lack
> > of support for text console accessibility, but if that's the choice I'm
> > force to, then that's what I'll do.  I hope the folks managing Ubuntu
> > will reconsider their decission, but if not, all I can do is steer clear
> > of distros that insist on causing me grieff.
>
> This is what I mean by 'not engaging constructively with the wider
> community'.
>

Actually, I think Gene is indeed constructive here.  He pointed out that if your product doesn't meet the needs he sees he'll use another.  That's rightly
part of the freedom we claim.  At the very least, it's no less constructive a comment or choice than the decision to remove speakup is.

My own purpose here is not to bash ubuntu.  As I see it, the worst problem is the failure to include speakup in the vanilla kernel.  Then, the developers
of neither ubuntu nor any other distro would have to worry about "unpredictable" results of including something "non-standard."  I know there was correspondence
on this list in which it was said that the speakup code didn't meet the relevant standards.  (Indeed, there were specific suggestions on revising it.)
I also know that the grml kernel document I read says that grml uses a vanilla kernel with some patches, and I know speakup is included in those patches.
 (I use it right now largely for that reason.) It seems to me that if the grml folks can include it, then we should probably regard as suspect any "standard"
that keeps it out of the vanilla kernel.  I'm willing to be corrected, but even realizing how little I know, I doubt that my inference is unreasonable.

Al