Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #17679 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-22 23:35 +0100 |
| Last post | 2011-04-22 21:25 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 168 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-22 23:35 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-22 16:57 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> - 2011-04-22 19:17 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> - 2011-04-22 19:29 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 01:04 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> - 2011-04-22 20:12 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-22 20:14 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 00:25 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 01:36 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 00:57 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 10:13 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 16:35 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-23 10:22 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-04-24 05:36 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 12:01 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 16:33 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 01:28 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> - 2011-04-22 20:46 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-22 21:24 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 09:55 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> - 2011-04-23 09:07 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 16:24 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 16:16 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 11:32 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 07:42 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-22 19:39 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-22 22:10 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-23 00:34 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-23 06:51 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 01:01 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-23 07:14 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 01:35 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 01:38 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-23 09:19 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 10:24 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 10:47 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 19:46 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 18:20 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 22:20 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-24 08:28 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 14:18 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:13 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-24 13:41 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-24 14:16 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 16:26 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-25 07:49 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 21:43 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Bob Hauck <postmaster@avalanche.org> - 2011-04-25 20:08 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-26 04:28 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 06:02 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-26 22:31 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-26 10:46 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> - 2011-04-23 10:50 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 17:19 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-23 10:18 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-23 12:49 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 12:54 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 20:00 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-24 13:30 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:44 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-26 10:53 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Bob Hauck <postmaster@avalanche.org> - 2011-04-23 18:32 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-24 00:33 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-24 13:29 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 19:35 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-24 19:57 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 20:08 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-24 20:15 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:23 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:20 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:10 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 16:57 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-26 10:50 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 12:34 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-26 10:48 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Big Steel <Steel98@steel98.com> - 2011-04-26 12:50 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 18:29 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-23 21:08 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 15:14 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-23 21:26 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> - 2011-04-23 17:25 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-24 09:42 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:17 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 11:34 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-23 10:22 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 18:30 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-22 21:23 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 23:24 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 07:22 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 14:29 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-22 23:34 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-22 19:46 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> - 2011-04-23 03:31 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-22 23:42 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-23 00:33 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2011-04-23 08:33 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-23 08:21 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-23 09:41 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 07:25 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:31 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 10:29 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-23 17:28 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 22:15 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-23 22:50 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 23:16 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-24 13:44 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-24 22:30 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-24 23:11 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 18:50 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:57 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-24 20:16 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:56 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 10:19 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-24 14:15 -0700
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-24 20:16 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-24 18:40 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-26 10:52 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-27 02:51 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 22:18 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-28 19:51 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 20:48 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-05-04 11:15 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-05-04 20:22 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-05-04 17:30 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-05-04 23:19 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-05-05 13:05 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-05-05 21:50 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-05-06 10:40 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-05-06 23:32 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared stukie <stukieh@gmail.com> - 2011-05-06 23:31 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2011-05-07 00:23 +0000
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-05-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:14 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-26 10:52 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-24 10:42 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 04:58 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-24 11:14 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-24 13:44 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 07:51 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:27 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-23 09:15 -0700
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 14:19 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 10:37 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-23 17:27 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 01:01 +0100
Re: 7 is power less DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-22 20:30 -0400
Re: 7 is power less flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-22 21:28 -0400
Re: 7 is power less 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-23 14:54 +0100
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-22 18:55 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-22 19:36 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 00:27 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-23 10:20 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-23 10:13 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-23 12:54 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 12:57 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 11:05 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 20:05 +0200
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 14:12 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-24 13:34 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> - 2011-04-23 10:55 -0600
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-23 13:03 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-23 17:49 -0400
Re: Linux is power squared JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-04-24 13:39 -0500
Re: Linux is power squared flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-22 21:25 -0400
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 09:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20110423095037.712@usenet.drumscum.be> |
| In reply to | #17713 |
On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: > > And who the hell still uses RS-232. Me. Nearly daily. And so do a bunch of other technicians. RS-232 is still very alive and kicking as a service interface on many devices. -- Oh, so they have internet on computers now! ~ Homer J. Simpson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 09:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iouius$9g9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17774 |
> > >"TomB" wrote in message news:20110423095037.712@usenet.drumscum.be... > >On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: >> >> And who the hell still uses RS-232. > >Me. Nearly daily. And so do a bunch of other technicians. RS-232 is >still very alive and kicking as a service interface on many devices. > I can tell you're not kidding. I'm somewhat surprised because I once had a serial-printer and a few modems but I haven't seen or used RS-232 in probably 10 or 15 years. I thought it went out about the same time as the 5.25" floppy. But searching for "rs-232 service interface" returns a large number of hits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 10:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ioumvh$imc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17774 |
TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
>>
>> And who the hell still uses RS-232.
>
> Me. Nearly daily. And so do a bunch of other technicians. RS-232 is
> still very alive and kicking as a service interface on many devices.
Yup. Cisco Catalysts, for example.
--
<Knghtbrd> r0bert: in short, we're moving several things the client
currently is responsible for telling the server into things the
server checks for itself
<Knghtbrd> If Neo says "There is no spoon", The Matrix will say "Oh yes
there is---no cheating!"
<hollis> But he knows kung fu...
<Knghtbrd> Sure he does, but I have a rocket launcher.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 16:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20110423162100.972@usenet.drumscum.be> |
| In reply to | #17812 |
On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom: > TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: >>> >>> And who the hell still uses RS-232. >> >> Me. Nearly daily. And so do a bunch of other technicians. RS-232 is >> still very alive and kicking as a service interface on many >> devices. > > Yup. Cisco Catalysts, for example. Which is one of the devices with its RS-232 interface patched directly to an RJ45 connector at my desk. I used to hate that my currect work laptop doesn't have a serial port, but since GNU/Linux supports virtually every USB to RS-232 adaptor out of the box, it is less of an issue than I first thought. -- There is no 'ctrl' button on Chuck Norris's computer. Chuck Norris is always in control.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 16:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <_3Csp.5299$Pi.2751@newsfe22.ams2> |
| In reply to | #17814 |
TomB wrote: > On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom: >> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: >>>> >>>> And who the hell still uses RS-232. >>> >>> Me. Nearly daily. And so do a bunch of other technicians. RS-232 is >>> still very alive and kicking as a service interface on many >>> devices. >> >> Yup. Cisco Catalysts, for example. > > Which is one of the devices with its RS-232 interface patched > directly to an RJ45 connector at my desk. > > I used to hate that my currect work laptop doesn't have a serial port, > but since GNU/Linux supports virtually every USB to RS-232 adaptor out > of the box, it is less of an issue than I first thought. I use the $1 MCP2200 chip for USB serial communications. It works right out the box with Linux. Up to 1mbaud. (I have FTDI chips as well thats recognised by Linux out of the box but I haven't used them yet.) As opto isolators out now do 10mbits/sec I have totally opto isolated USB serial comms on some of the faster boards. With Linux tools such as Gambas to buffer all that data and parse it quickly enough when other competing OSen just lock up adds more than power just Linux on steroids, its the Linux power squared effect smacking down project times down to a quarter or less. Who knows, I can probably get some kind of dictionary compression going soon and achieve much higher data rates. Its possible and I can see a way: The good thing is that the embedded system uses netbeans and a modified version of gcc to write C code. I can use the netbeans and c environment to generate the tokens for the embedded program, the opto isolated serial port will send the coded numbers, then within Linux, I can probably get gambas to call a c program writtne for gcc that took the embedded c program's codes and convert them to messages that then espeak could read out. As the tokens and the dictionary change, I can get netbeans to run post compiling operation to start up a script that recompiled the gcc C program. This makes both software understand each other without having dictionary sync issues. A complete integration of complicated ideas in rapid time in minutes to hours. gcc is free, netbeans is free, drivers for MCP2200 free, gambas free. All working in harmony. I use gambas because it has a visual GUI, but these days I getting to grips with python and Tkinter as well - so who knows this could all be done it python next. Python is free, espeak is free, python binding for espeak is free, python bindings for tkinter is free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 11:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <w8w9mdeacgem$.tt416r28mxxg.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #17814 |
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:24:44 +0200, TomB wrote: > On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom: >> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> On 2011-04-23, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel: >>>> >>>> And who the hell still uses RS-232. >>> >>> Me. Nearly daily. And so do a bunch of other technicians. RS-232 is >>> still very alive and kicking as a service interface on many >>> devices. >> >> Yup. Cisco Catalysts, for example. > > Which is one of the devices with its RS-232 interface patched > directly to an RJ45 connector at my desk. > > I used to hate that my currect work laptop doesn't have a serial port, > but since GNU/Linux supports virtually every USB to RS-232 adaptor out > of the box, it is less of an issue than I first thought. Actually you need a "Rollover" cable via the console port on Cisco switches, most of them anyway. The baby blue cable that comes with the switches is one such cable. The pins are mirror images of each other, hence the name "Rollover". Some also have an RS-232 interface as well. Point is RS-232 is used a lot, in various forms. -- flatfish+++ Please visit our hall of Linux idiots. http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/ Watching Linux Fail: http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/ Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead "By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory." http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-25 07:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k0rar6lcoh9hg34cjr8ofbv043ks3s7mtf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #17774 |
TomB wrote: >> And who the hell still uses RS-232. > >Me. Nearly daily. And so do a bunch of other technicians. RS-232 is >still very alive and kicking as a service interface on many devices. Me too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 19:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnir47tb.9d.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #17699 |
On 2011-04-22, Ezekiel <Me@Not-there.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Ezekiel" wrote in message news:iot2a3$os$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Tom Shelton" wrote in message news:iot149$379$1@dont-email.me...
>>>7 presented the following explanation :
>>>> Linux is power squared
>>>> ----------------------
>>>>
>>>> The thing about GNU/Linux and open source I like most is
>>>> the entire ecosystem is power squared.
[deletia]
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL... I can speak a file in powershell:
>>>
>>>
>>>$s = $null
>>>$s = new-object -c "SAPI.SpVoice"
>>>foreach ($line in get-content "C:\Users\Tom\Documents\mytextfile.txt")
>>>{
>>> $s.speak($line, 3)
>>> $s.waituntildone(1000)
>>>}
>>>
>>
>>Here's the same thing in 4 lines of jscript. Save the file as "test.js" and
>>invoke it with "cscript test.js" and you're good to go. It uses Windows
>>Scripting (available since before Win2k) and this code should work with
>>WinXP and beyond.
>>
>>SpeakIt("Hello World");
>>
>>function SpeakIt(phrase) {
>> var vt = WScript.CreateObject("SAPI.SpVoice");
>> vt.Speak(phrase);
>>}
>>
>>
>>>I could easily write a function to read any file from the command line...
>>
>>The default to the Speak() method is to speak the parameter that was passed
>>in. There are optional flags (SVSFIsFilename) telling Speak() to treat the
>>string as a file. It can also handle properly formatted XML with the
>>SVSFIsXML flag amongst other things.
>>
>
> One additional point is that this can be done from MS-Excel, MS-Word or
> virtually any Windows application that supports scripting. Or any
...yes. All 3 of them.
[deletia]
The point of the Unix model is that tools don't have to be specially
instrumented to do anything but read and/or write from stdout or merely
have the option of being invoked by a single command.
Apple scripting falls prey to the same sorts of "tool has to be built
with scripting especially in mind" when it comes to it's own scripting
model for GUI tools.
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 22:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iotcej$k61$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17731 |
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnir47tb.9d.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-04-22, Ezekiel <Me@Not-there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>"Ezekiel" wrote in message news:iot2a3$os$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Tom Shelton" wrote in message news:iot149$379$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>7 presented the following explanation :
>>>>> Linux is power squared
>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing about GNU/Linux and open source I like most is
>>>>> the entire ecosystem is power squared.
> [deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL... I can speak a file in powershell:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>$s = $null
>>>>$s = new-object -c "SAPI.SpVoice"
>>>>foreach ($line in get-content "C:\Users\Tom\Documents\mytextfile.txt")
>>>>{
>>>> $s.speak($line, 3)
>>>> $s.waituntildone(1000)
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here's the same thing in 4 lines of jscript. Save the file as "test.js"
>>>and
>>>invoke it with "cscript test.js" and you're good to go. It uses Windows
>>>Scripting (available since before Win2k) and this code should work with
>>>WinXP and beyond.
>>>
>>>SpeakIt("Hello World");
>>>
>>>function SpeakIt(phrase) {
>>> var vt = WScript.CreateObject("SAPI.SpVoice");
>>> vt.Speak(phrase);
>>>}
>>>
>>>
>>>>I could easily write a function to read any file from the command
>>>>line...
>>>
>>>The default to the Speak() method is to speak the parameter that was
>>>passed
>>>in. There are optional flags (SVSFIsFilename) telling Speak() to treat
>>>the
>>>string as a file. It can also handle properly formatted XML with the
>>>SVSFIsXML flag amongst other things.
>>>
>>
>> One additional point is that this can be done from MS-Excel, MS-Word or
>> virtually any Windows application that supports scripting. Or any
>
> ...yes. All 3 of them.
>
So you're not very good at counting either. Try nearly every Windows
programming language from Visual Basic to C++ to Ruby, Python, Perl, PHP,
ASP, etc. Or any application that suports scripting can make use of this
just as easily.
> [deletia]
>
> The point of the Unix model is that tools don't have to be specially
> instrumented to do anything but read and/or write from stdout or merely
> have the option of being invoked by a single command.
>
I'm familiar with the Unix model for doing things. The model is basically
"call an external app" and have it do the work. The Windows model is to
provide this as a built-in system service that is available to any app that
wants to invoke it.
> Apple scripting falls prey to the same sorts of "tool has to be built
> with scripting especially in mind" when it comes to it's own scripting
> model for GUI tools.
>
It does *not* have to be built with scripting in mind. Scripting is just but
one way to invoke this and it can be called directly from C++ or any
programming language. If someone wants to write a "Unix like" 3-line app (or
script) named espeak then it can also be done that way.
The difference is that with the Unix model the only accessible way is to
call espeak. Because you sure aren't going to be doing text-to-speech
directly from Python, Perl, bash or most likely C++.
In Windows (as was just shown) it's 4 lines of code to write "espeak" as
either a script or an executable and I can do exactly what Unix can do. But
I can also call this functionality directly from C/C++/Python/Perl/Ruby or
anywhere I want. That's an option you don't have with the Unix model because
it's basically call "espeak" or nothing at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 00:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnir4p6n.f00.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #17745 |
On 2011-04-23, Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnir47tb.9d.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-04-22, Ezekiel <Me@Not-there.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ezekiel" wrote in message news:iot2a3$os$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Tom Shelton" wrote in message news:iot149$379$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>7 presented the following explanation :
>>>>>> Linux is power squared
>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing about GNU/Linux and open source I like most is
>>>>>> the entire ecosystem is power squared.
>> [deletia]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL... I can speak a file in powershell:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>$s = $null
>>>>>$s = new-object -c "SAPI.SpVoice"
>>>>>foreach ($line in get-content "C:\Users\Tom\Documents\mytextfile.txt")
>>>>>{
>>>>> $s.speak($line, 3)
>>>>> $s.waituntildone(1000)
>>>>>}
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here's the same thing in 4 lines of jscript. Save the file as "test.js"
>>>>and
>>>>invoke it with "cscript test.js" and you're good to go. It uses Windows
>>>>Scripting (available since before Win2k) and this code should work with
>>>>WinXP and beyond.
>>>>
>>>>SpeakIt("Hello World");
>>>>
>>>>function SpeakIt(phrase) {
>>>> var vt = WScript.CreateObject("SAPI.SpVoice");
>>>> vt.Speak(phrase);
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I could easily write a function to read any file from the command
>>>>>line...
>>>>
>>>>The default to the Speak() method is to speak the parameter that was
>>>>passed
>>>>in. There are optional flags (SVSFIsFilename) telling Speak() to treat
>>>>the
>>>>string as a file. It can also handle properly formatted XML with the
>>>>SVSFIsXML flag amongst other things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One additional point is that this can be done from MS-Excel, MS-Word or
>>> virtually any Windows application that supports scripting. Or any
>>
>> ...yes. All 3 of them.
>>
>
> So you're not very good at counting either. Try nearly every Windows
> programming language from Visual Basic to C++ to Ruby, Python, Perl, PHP,
Those are programming languages, not applications.
[deletia]
--
Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 06:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n89ahwer.h94thr@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17745 |
Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote: > > It does *not* have to be built with scripting in mind. Scripting is just but > one way to invoke this and it can be called directly from C++ or any > programming language. If someone wants to write a "Unix like" 3-line app (or > script) named espeak then it can also be done that way. > > The difference is that with the Unix model the only accessible way is to > call espeak. Because you sure aren't going to be doing text-to-speech > directly from Python, Perl, bash or most likely C++. > Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can call espeak. > In Windows (as was just shown) it's 4 lines of code to write "espeak" as > either a script or an executable and I can do exactly what Unix can do. But > I can also call this functionality directly from C/C++/Python/Perl/Ruby or > anywhere I want. That's an option you don't have with the Unix model because > it's basically call "espeak" or nothing at all. > What's wrong with espeak for this? Seriously, text to speech is of limited use anyway, so I struggle to imagine a case that would be any better served by direct calls to a specialized API.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 01:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iotthe$pca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17768 |
owl submitted this idea : > Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote: >> >> It does *not* have to be built with scripting in mind. Scripting is just but >> one way to invoke this and it can be called directly from C++ or any >> programming language. If someone wants to write a "Unix like" 3-line app (or >> script) named espeak then it can also be done that way. >> >> The difference is that with the Unix model the only accessible way is to >> call espeak. Because you sure aren't going to be doing text-to-speech >> directly from Python, Perl, bash or most likely C++. >> > > Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can > call espeak. > >> In Windows (as was just shown) it's 4 lines of code to write "espeak" as >> either a script or an executable and I can do exactly what Unix can do. But >> I can also call this functionality directly from C/C++/Python/Perl/Ruby or >> anywhere I want. That's an option you don't have with the Unix model because >> it's basically call "espeak" or nothing at all. >> > > What's wrong with espeak for this? Seriously, text to speech is of limited > use anyway, so I struggle to imagine a case that would be any better served > by direct calls to a specialized API. LOL... You guys are serious idiots. If you want a command tool, say.exe on windows will do it. It's free. If you don't want to download it and you know how, you write your own... It takes about 5 minutes. -- Tom Shelton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 07:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nv89asef.9wfa@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17769 |
Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> owl submitted this idea :
>> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It does *not* have to be built with scripting in mind. Scripting is just but
>>> one way to invoke this and it can be called directly from C++ or any
>>> programming language. If someone wants to write a "Unix like" 3-line app (or
>>> script) named espeak then it can also be done that way.
>>>
>>> The difference is that with the Unix model the only accessible way is to
>>> call espeak. Because you sure aren't going to be doing text-to-speech
>>> directly from Python, Perl, bash or most likely C++.
>>>
>>
>> Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can
>> call espeak.
>>
>>> In Windows (as was just shown) it's 4 lines of code to write "espeak" as
>>> either a script or an executable and I can do exactly what Unix can do. But
>>> I can also call this functionality directly from C/C++/Python/Perl/Ruby or
>>> anywhere I want. That's an option you don't have with the Unix model because
>>> it's basically call "espeak" or nothing at all.
>>>
>>
>> What's wrong with espeak for this? Seriously, text to speech is of limited
>> use anyway, so I struggle to imagine a case that would be any better served
>> by direct calls to a specialized API.
>
> LOL... You guys are serious idiots. If you want a command tool,
> say.exe on windows will do it. It's free. If you don't want to
> download it and you know how, you write your own... It takes about 5
> minutes.
>
There are plenty of tools that you can write yourself if you feel inclined
to reinvent the wheel.
I also notice that you failed to give a use case that is better served
by something beyond a basic system("espeak \"blah\"") called from any
of those languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 01:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iotvfv$v8o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17770 |
owl formulated the question :
> Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>> owl submitted this idea :
>>> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It does *not* have to be built with scripting in mind. Scripting is just
>>>> but one way to invoke this and it can be called directly from C++ or any
>>>> programming language. If someone wants to write a "Unix like" 3-line app
>>>> (or script) named espeak then it can also be done that way.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that with the Unix model the only accessible way is to
>>>> call espeak. Because you sure aren't going to be doing text-to-speech
>>>> directly from Python, Perl, bash or most likely C++.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can
>>> call espeak.
>>>
>>>> In Windows (as was just shown) it's 4 lines of code to write "espeak" as
>>>> either a script or an executable and I can do exactly what Unix can do.
>>>> But I can also call this functionality directly from
>>>> C/C++/Python/Perl/Ruby or anywhere I want. That's an option you don't
>>>> have with the Unix model because it's basically call "espeak" or nothing
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's wrong with espeak for this? Seriously, text to speech is of limited
>>> use anyway, so I struggle to imagine a case that would be any better served
>>> by direct calls to a specialized API.
>>
>> LOL... You guys are serious idiots. If you want a command tool,
>> say.exe on windows will do it. It's free. If you don't want to
>> download it and you know how, you write your own... It takes about 5
>> minutes.
>>
>
> There are plenty of tools that you can write yourself if you feel inclined
> to reinvent the wheel.
>
that's the point - this isn't reinventing the wheel... It's simply
callign a system service using the syntax of the language your app is
in.
> I also notice that you failed to give a use case that is better served
> by something beyond a basic system("espeak \"blah\"") called from any
> of those languages.
Stop being ridiculous... In almost every languge, in windows it's a
simple create object, call speak. It's a system service provided to
any app that wants to speak text. You don't need a specialized tool to
do it. For instance, it has taken me all of about 10 minutes to write
a powershell cmdlet that will be available in any powershell session.
Now, I want to speak a file:
--
Tom Shelton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 01:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iotvlr$vg2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17771 |
Tom Shelton explained on 4/23/2011 :
> owl formulated the question :
>> Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>>> owl submitted this idea :
>>>> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It does *not* have to be built with scripting in mind. Scripting is just
>>>>> but one way to invoke this and it can be called directly from C++ or
>>>>> any programming language. If someone wants to write a "Unix like" 3-line
>>>>> app (or script) named espeak then it can also be done that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is that with the Unix model the only accessible way is to
>>>>> call espeak. Because you sure aren't going to be doing text-to-speech
>>>>> directly from Python, Perl, bash or most likely C++.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can
>>>> call espeak.
>>>>
>>>>> In Windows (as was just shown) it's 4 lines of code to write "espeak" as
>>>>> either a script or an executable and I can do exactly what Unix can do.
>>>>> But I can also call this functionality directly from
>>>>> C/C++/Python/Perl/Ruby or anywhere I want. That's an option you don't
>>>>> have with the Unix model because it's basically call "espeak" or
>>>>> nothing at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with espeak for this? Seriously, text to speech is of
>>>> limited
>>>> use anyway, so I struggle to imagine a case that would be any better
>>>> served
>>>> by direct calls to a specialized API.
>>>
>>> LOL... You guys are serious idiots. If you want a command tool, say.exe
>>> on windows will do it. It's free. If you don't want to download it and
>>> you know how, you write your own... It takes about 5 minutes.
>>>
>>
>> There are plenty of tools that you can write yourself if you feel inclined
>> to reinvent the wheel.
>>
>
> that's the point - this isn't reinventing the wheel... It's simply callign a
> system service using the syntax of the language your app is in.
>
>> I also notice that you failed to give a use case that is better served
>> by something beyond a basic system("espeak \"blah\"") called from any
>> of those languages.
>
I'll further add, what's so bad about the way it's done on windows...
Create the object
call it's speak method.
It' accomplishes the same thign, it's just done a different way.
> Stop being ridiculous... In almost every languge, in windows it's a simple
> create object, call speak. It's a system service provided to any app that
> wants to speak text. You don't need a specialized tool to do it. For
> instance, it has taken me all of about 10 minutes to write a powershell
> cmdlet that will be available in any powershell session.
>
> Now, I want to speak a file:
lol... accidently posted... Anyway, I was saying if I want to speak a
file from now on its:
$> cat "path-to-file" | speak-text
--
Tom Shelton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 09:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <79awer.i9oe98at@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17772 |
Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> Tom Shelton explained on 4/23/2011 :
>> owl formulated the question :
>>> Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>>>> owl submitted this idea :
>>>>> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does *not* have to be built with scripting in mind. Scripting is just
>>>>>> but one way to invoke this and it can be called directly from C++ or
>>>>>> any programming language. If someone wants to write a "Unix like" 3-line
>>>>>> app (or script) named espeak then it can also be done that way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference is that with the Unix model the only accessible way is to
>>>>>> call espeak. Because you sure aren't going to be doing text-to-speech
>>>>>> directly from Python, Perl, bash or most likely C++.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can
>>>>> call espeak.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In Windows (as was just shown) it's 4 lines of code to write "espeak" as
>>>>>> either a script or an executable and I can do exactly what Unix can do.
>>>>>> But I can also call this functionality directly from
>>>>>> C/C++/Python/Perl/Ruby or anywhere I want. That's an option you don't
>>>>>> have with the Unix model because it's basically call "espeak" or
>>>>>> nothing at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with espeak for this? Seriously, text to speech is of
>>>>> limited
>>>>> use anyway, so I struggle to imagine a case that would be any better
>>>>> served
>>>>> by direct calls to a specialized API.
>>>>
>>>> LOL... You guys are serious idiots. If you want a command tool, say.exe
>>>> on windows will do it. It's free. If you don't want to download it and
>>>> you know how, you write your own... It takes about 5 minutes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are plenty of tools that you can write yourself if you feel inclined
>>> to reinvent the wheel.
>>>
>>
>> that's the point - this isn't reinventing the wheel... It's simply callign a
>> system service using the syntax of the language your app is in.
>>
It's reinventing the wheel if the tool already exists.
system() is a valid function in all of those languages. perl, ruby,
python, c, c++. Any app written in those languages can call upon
espeak through system().
>>> I also notice that you failed to give a use case that is better served
>>> by something beyond a basic system("espeak \"blah\"") called from any
>>> of those languages.
>>
>
> I'll further add, what's so bad about the way it's done on windows...
>
Nothing. I'm just countering the assertion that these other languages
cannot make use of espeak simply because it is not an API function call.
> Create the object
> call it's speak method.
>
That sounds like just an excuse to use powershell.
> It' accomplishes the same thign, it's just done a different way.
>
>> Stop being ridiculous... In almost every languge, in windows it's a simple
>> create object, call speak. It's a system service provided to any app that
>> wants to speak text. You don't need a specialized tool to do it. For
>> instance, it has taken me all of about 10 minutes to write a powershell
>> cmdlet that will be available in any powershell session.
>>
espeak is available to any bash session, and since espeak is cross-platform
it can be available to any cmd.exe session.
>> Now, I want to speak a file:
>
> lol... accidently posted... Anyway, I was saying if I want to speak a
> file from now on its:
>
> $> cat "path-to-file" | speak-text
>
espeak -f afile
(among other things)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 10:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iounge$imc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17771 |
Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Stop being ridiculous... In almost every languge, in windows it's a > simple create object, call speak. It's a system service provided to > any app that wants to speak text. You don't need a specialized tool to > do it. Uh, Tom, a system service *is* a specialized tool. > For instance, it has taken me all of about 10 minutes to write > a powershell cmdlet that will be available in any powershell session. Ooooh. Bleeding edge stuff there!! You one fast coder! But please! Do *not* show us code! We get enough of that testosteronal muscle flexing from our VB guru, DFS. Nobody here cares that you can do stuff in Microsoft languages and APIs. :-) -- Artificial intelligence has the same relation to intelligence as artificial flowers have to flowers. -- David Parnas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 10:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iouvqp$7q8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17815 |
Chris Ahlstrom submitted this idea : > Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Stop being ridiculous... In almost every languge, in windows it's a >> simple create object, call speak. It's a system service provided to >> any app that wants to speak text. You don't need a specialized tool to >> do it. > > Uh, Tom, a system service *is* a specialized tool. > Ok... let's stop the nonsense - espeak is just as much a "specialized tool" as any "system service". >> For instance, it has taken me all of about 10 minutes to write >> a powershell cmdlet that will be available in any powershell session. > > Ooooh. Bleeding edge stuff there!! You one fast coder! > > But please! Do *not* show us code! We get enough of that testosteronal > muscle flexing from our VB guru, DFS. Nobody here cares that you can do > stuff in Microsoft languages and APIs. > > :-) Then they need to stop claiming you can't. Because, you know as well as i do they are full of crap. -- Tom Shelton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 19:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rhtydo7tdn.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #17853 |
Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> writes: > Chris Ahlstrom submitted this idea : >> Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> Stop being ridiculous... In almost every languge, in windows it's a simple >>> create object, call speak. It's a system service provided to any app that >>> wants to speak text. You don't need a specialized tool to do it. >> >> Uh, Tom, a system service *is* a specialized tool. >> > > Ok... let's stop the nonsense - espeak is just as much a "specialized tool" as > any "system service". LOL: Creepy Chris Ahlstrom hasn't a clue. Watch out btw. His use of your first name suggests he'll be sniffing your backside next looking for a pat. > >>> For instance, it has taken me all of about 10 minutes to write a powershell >>> cmdlet that will be available in any powershell session. >> >> Ooooh. Bleeding edge stuff there!! You one fast coder! >> >> But please! Do *not* show us code! We get enough of that testosteronal >> muscle flexing from our VB guru, DFS. Nobody here cares that you can do >> stuff in Microsoft languages and APIs. So you dont agree with your "mates" that it cant be done easily in Windows. You sure are a hypocritical little weenie. >> >> :-) > > Then they need to stop claiming you can't. Because, you know as well as i do > they are full of crap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 18:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iovjd7$94g$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17853 |
Tom Shelton wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Chris Ahlstrom submitted this idea : >> >> But please! Do *not* show us code! We get enough of that testosteronal >> muscle flexing from our VB guru, DFS. Nobody here cares that you can do >> stuff in Microsoft languages and APIs. >> >> :-) > > Then they need to stop claiming you can't. Because, you know as well > as i do they are full of crap. Well, it is pretty obvious that 7 was trolling... and succeeding. I just wish the noxious trolls here (that doesn't include you) would let us the fsck alone to talk up Linux. Windows doesn't need any help... it has the primary consumer OS vendor pushing it. -- In defeat, unbeatable; in victory, unbearable. -- W. Churchill, on General Montgomery
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web