Status of kernel

[John G Heim]

Years ago, I had a discussion via private email with some members of the 
kernel development team. I asked why the speakup code was stuck in 
staging and they said the code wasn't up to standards. I asked them for 
specific examples and the stuff they sent me was fairly trivial. I said, 
"Are you saying I couldn't find equally bad or worse stuff in the main 
kernel code?" To wich they responded that, yes, if you went looking for 
it you could find worse but what I was asking for was for them to 
approve known sub-standard code.  At which point I started calling them 
names and threatening lawsuits. That's a joke. I didn't really do that. 
Although I did use the d-workd (discrimination) in my response. That was 
pretty much the end of it. But now I think if they had simply phrased it 
differently, I might have had a different perspective. If they had said 
that other sub-standard code was "grandfathered" in and they now have a 
strict no sub-standard code policy, I would have been more willing to 
accept their explanation. Likewise, I guess you could say the serial 
console code is grandfathered in and the speakup code is not. The one 
thing that bothers me is that somebody is always messing with the code 
that disables speakup access to the serial port. I have to keep re-doing 
the patch file I use to disable the disabling. So somebody is taking the 
time to diddle with it but not to fix it. Trying to put this as 
tactfully as I can, it looks to me as if a non-trivial amount of work is 
being put into disabling speakup's access to the serial port. If it ever 
gets to the point where you can't re-enable access by commenting out 
that one line of code, then I'll be ... irritated.


Something just occured to me... I wonder if I could get permission from 
the University of Wisconsin, where I work, to rewrite speakup for USB.  
Everybody who has serial only synths would still be screwed but it'd be 
a step forward.




On 11/15/2016 11:07 AM, Al Sten-Clanton wrote:
> qUOTING sAMUEL tHIBAULT, "Because there is special plumbing between 
> the serial console and the
> serial drivers. Doing the same plumbing between speakup and serial
> drivers would be very very frowned upon."
>
> i WONDER IF WE SHOULD FROWN UPON THE FROWNERS AND TRY TO GET IT DONE, 
> AS HARDWARE SPEECH WOULD HELP A LOT.  wOULD IT WRECK THE KERNEL OR 
> SOMETHING?  aLTERNATIVELY, IS USING USB PROTS NOT A GOOD OPTION?
>
> i'VE FINALLY DECIDED TO TRY TO LEARN c, HOPING i MIGHT KNOW ENOUGH TO 
> HELP DOWN THE ROAD.  iT WILL BE A WHILE EVEN AT BEST BEFORE i CAN BE 
> USEFUL, SO MAYBE IT WON'T MATTER BY THEN, BUT i'D LIKE TO DO MORE THAN 
> COMPLAIN.
>
> tHANKS FOR ANY THOUGHTS.
>
> aL
>
>
> On 11/13/2016 05:11 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> John G. Heim, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 16:05:53 -0600, wrote:
>>> One thing I've never understood is why the kernel can have a serial 
>>> console
>>> yet speakup can't talk to the serial port. How does the kernel's serial
>>> console talk to the serial port? Why can't speakup do the same?
>>
>> Because there is special plumbing between the serial console and the
>> serial drivers. Doing the same plumbing between speakup and serial
>> drivers would be very very frowned upon.
>>
>> Samuel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup at linux-speakup.org
>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
John G. Heim; jheim at math.wisc.edu; sip://jheim@sip.linphone.org