Main advantages of SBL over Speakup

[Michael Whapples]

I think you have had a response which reflects my views fairly well. 
Speakup is aimed at different people to SBL. The only thing I might add 
is that packaging speakup doesn't really seem any more difficult than 
the packaging of those optional drivers, eg. the nvidia GLX stuff, a 
sighted person needs a driver for the video card so they can have useful 
output, I need a way of making my apollo synth to give useful output 
(speakup).

One big difference is that SBL has Braille support although I have to be 
honest and say that when I tried SBL for that feature I wasn't 
impressed, brltty seems to be much more reliable. I didn't really try 
SBL for speech output as speakup really meets my needs for text console 
access (in the speech department, brltty for the Braille).

There does seem to be a dedicated set of users of SBL, so your effort of 
getting SBL on ubuntu is probably of value. Its good to have the choice, 
I choose not to use it because I find features of greater value in other 
software. Let's not duplicate work by having separately developed clones.

Michael Whapples
On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, Bill Cox wrote:
> I'm trying to port SBL (Suse Blind Linux) to Ubuntu.  It is the
> default console screen reader in Knoppix Adrian.  Some users report
> they prefer SBL, and two main reasons are given:
>
> - SBL has application specific keybindings, all of which are
> user-configurable.  This makes it easy to be more Orca compatible.
> - SBL relies only on the uinput and console devices, and doesn't need
> any special modules to be compiled for the current kernel.  This makes
> it possible to ship as a simple Debian package.
>
> Is there any chance the speakup guys might want to work on either of
> these two features?  I think it would greatly increase the appeal of
> speakup to the main distro developers.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>