Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #17679 > unrolled thread

Linux is power squared

Started by7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com>
First post2011-04-22 23:35 +0100
Last post2011-04-22 21:25 -0400
Articles 20 on this page of 168 — 25 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#17960

FromChris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com>
Date2011-04-23 18:29 -0400
Message-ID<iovjt4$94g$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17837
JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-04-23, Ezekiel <Me@Not-there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"owl"  wrote in message news:n89ahwer.h94thr@rooftop.invalid...
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Calling system() may work fine for a trivial example like 'speak a text 
>> file' but it doesn't scale as well as an object-oriented interface for more 
>> complex tasks.
>>
>> Example - Manipulating XML files. Using an object model lets me use any 
>> built-in system service like handling XML files in anything from a language 
>> like C/C++ to scripts to directly within apps like Excel or MS-Access.  So 
>> if all you need to do is "espeak <filename>" then either one will work just 
>> as well. But if you need to iterate over all of the nodes in an XML document 
>
> ...sounds like a lot of unecessary work considering the whole point of XML
> is the fact that it is "structured" so you don't have to do that sort of
> nonsense. It really sounds like processing a plain ascii file by brute force
> rather than taking advantage of the inherent power of the given data format.

Or of system functions that understand the file formats they handle (e.g.
the UNIX functions for parsing /etc/hosts, /etc/services, etc.).

> [deletia]
>
> ...not that XML is terribly hard to deal with in a brute force non-object
> oriented fashion anyways.

We use Xerces to handle XML.  Way overblown, since we use it mostly for
reading/writing configuration files.  If I'm not dealing with nested
classes, I'll just use fprintf()'s to write the XML out, it's a lot simpler.

boost::serialization is a nice middle ground, and it handles formats other
than XML as well.

-- 
The Worst Bank Robbery
	In August 1975 three men were on their way in to rob the Royal Bank of
Scotland at Rothesay, when they got stuck in the revolving doors.  They
had to be helped free by the staff and, after thanking everyone,
sheepishly left the building.
	A few minutes later they returned and announced their intention of
robbing the bank, but none of the staff believed them.  When they demanded
5,000 pounds in cash, the head cashier laughed at them, convinced that it
was a practical joke.
	Then one of the men jumped over the counter, but fell to the floor
clutching his ankle.  The other two tried to make their getaway, but got
trapped in the revolving doors again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17916

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2011-04-23 21:08 +0000
Message-ID<79awera.nb9ouaw4@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#17824
Ezekiel <Me@not-there.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"owl"  wrote in message news:n89ahwer.h94thr@rooftop.invalid...
> >
> >Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can
> >call espeak.
> >

> Calling system() may work fine for a trivial example like 'speak a text 
> file' but it doesn't scale as well as an object-oriented interface for more 
> complex tasks.

> Example - Manipulating XML files. Using an object model lets me use any 
> built-in system service like handling XML files in anything from a language 
> like C/C++ to scripts to directly within apps like Excel or MS-Access.  So 
> if all you need to do is "espeak <filename>" then either one will work just 
> as well. But if you need to iterate over all of the nodes in an XML document 
> and process them based on the document contents then I don't see a 
> reasonable way to do this by just calling system() and running some app. 
> There just isn't enough control and interaction between the two ends to make 
> this work.


I don't how well espeak works with XML, but from its manpage:

-m     Indicates  that  the text contains SSML (Speech Synthesis Markup
       Language) tags or other XML tags. Those SSML tags which are sup???
       ported are interpreted. Other tags, including HTML, are ignored,
       except that some HTML tags such as <hr> <h2> and <li>  ensure  a
       break in the speech.


> >
> >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.
> >

> For something trivial like espeak <filename> it doesn't matter. But as the 
> tasks become increasing more complex like parsing XML then it's much easier 
> with an object model vs. calling system().

> For example - let's say that you're speaking a long file ( espeak <big-file> 
> or  obj.Speak(<big-file>, SVSFIsFilename); ) that's several minutes long. 
> Part-way through this a higher-priority even happens and you need to pause 
> the speaking and say something else ("Reactor is overheating" or "Possible 
> intruder at front door").  Using the object model it's trivial:

>     obj.Pause();
>     # Do something else
>     obj.Resume();

> If espeak was started via system() then doing these sorts of things isn't 
> always easy or even possible to do.

Not difficult.  You get espeak's PID (with ps and grep) and send it
a SIGTSTP or SIGSTOP, followed later with a SIGCONT.

kill -20 <pid_of_espeak>
(deal with overheating reactor)
kill -18 <pid_of_espeak>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17919

FromTom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid>
Date2011-04-23 15:14 -0600
Message-ID<iovffl$khe$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17916
owl formulated the question :
> Ezekiel <Me@not-there.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "owl"  wrote in message news:n89ahwer.h94thr@rooftop.invalid...
>>> 
>>> Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can
>>> call espeak.
>>> 
>
>> Calling system() may work fine for a trivial example like 'speak a text 
>> file' but it doesn't scale as well as an object-oriented interface for more 
>> complex tasks.
>
>> Example - Manipulating XML files. Using an object model lets me use any 
>> built-in system service like handling XML files in anything from a language 
>> like C/C++ to scripts to directly within apps like Excel or MS-Access.  So 
>> if all you need to do is "espeak <filename>" then either one will work just 
>> as well. But if you need to iterate over all of the nodes in an XML document 
>> and process them based on the document contents then I don't see a 
>> reasonable way to do this by just calling system() and running some app. 
>> There just isn't enough control and interaction between the two ends to make 
>> this work.
>
>
> I don't how well espeak works with XML, but from its manpage:
>
> -m     Indicates  that  the text contains SSML (Speech Synthesis Markup
>        Language) tags or other XML tags. Those SSML tags which are sup???
>        ported are interpreted. Other tags, including HTML, are ignored,
>        except that some HTML tags such as <hr> <h2> and <li>  ensure  a
>        break in the speech.
>
>
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>
>> For something trivial like espeak <filename> it doesn't matter. But as the 
>> tasks become increasing more complex like parsing XML then it's much easier 
>> with an object model vs. calling system().
>
>> For example - let's say that you're speaking a long file ( espeak <big-file> 
>> or  obj.Speak(<big-file>, SVSFIsFilename); ) that's several minutes long. 
>> Part-way through this a higher-priority even happens and you need to pause 
>> the speaking and say something else ("Reactor is overheating" or "Possible 
>> intruder at front door").  Using the object model it's trivial:
>
>>     obj.Pause();
>>     # Do something else
>>     obj.Resume();
>
>> If espeak was started via system() then doing these sorts of things isn't 
>> always easy or even possible to do.
>
> Not difficult.  You get espeak's PID (with ps and grep) and send it
> a SIGTSTP or SIGSTOP, followed later with a SIGCONT.
>
> kill -20 <pid_of_espeak>
> (deal with overheating reactor)
> kill -18 <pid_of_espeak>

So, in other words, it becomes a much more involved multi-step process 
on linux if you want to do something beyond the trivial.

-- 
Tom Shelton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17931

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2011-04-23 21:26 +0000
Message-ID<789eaf.hb0uhawefr@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#17919
Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> owl formulated the question :
> > Ezekiel <Me@not-there.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >
> >> For example - let's say that you're speaking a long file ( espeak <big-file> 
> >> or  obj.Speak(<big-file>, SVSFIsFilename); ) that's several minutes long. 
> >> Part-way through this a higher-priority even happens and you need to pause 
> >> the speaking and say something else ("Reactor is overheating" or "Possible 
> >> intruder at front door").  Using the object model it's trivial:
> >
> >>     obj.Pause();
> >>     # Do something else
> >>     obj.Resume();
> >
> >> If espeak was started via system() then doing these sorts of things isn't 
> >> always easy or even possible to do.
> >
> > Not difficult.  You get espeak's PID (with ps and grep) and send it
> > a SIGTSTP or SIGSTOP, followed later with a SIGCONT.
> >
> > kill -20 <pid_of_espeak>
> > (deal with overheating reactor)
> > kill -18 <pid_of_espeak>

> So, in other words, it becomes a much more involved multi-step process 
> on linux if you want to do something beyond the trivial.

How is it more involved than the way obj.Pause()/obj.Resume() deal
with it?  Saving the PID at the start of the program gives you signal
access when you need it.  Not much different from having an object
handle in this context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17930

From"Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com>
Date2011-04-23 17:25 -0400
Message-ID<iovg47$ont$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17916
>
>
>"owl"  wrote in message news:79awera.nb9ouaw4@rooftop.invalid...
>
>Ezekiel <Me@not-there.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >"owl"  wrote in message news:n89ahwer.h94thr@rooftop.invalid...
>> >
>> >Every one of those languages has a system() function from which you can
>> >call espeak.
>> >
>
>> Calling system() may work fine for a trivial example like 'speak a text
>> file' but it doesn't scale as well as an object-oriented interface for 
>> more
>> complex tasks.
>
>> Example - Manipulating XML files. Using an object model lets me use any
>> built-in system service like handling XML files in anything from a 
>> language
>> like C/C++ to scripts to directly within apps like Excel or MS-Access. 
>> So
>> if all you need to do is "espeak <filename>" then either one will work 
>> just
>> as well. But if you need to iterate over all of the nodes in an XML 
>> document
>> and process them based on the document contents then I don't see a
>> reasonable way to do this by just calling system() and running some app.
>> There just isn't enough control and interaction between the two ends to 
>> make
>> this work.
>
>
>I don't how well espeak works with XML, but from its manpage:
>

You misread what I tried to say. It's not an issue of espeak reading XML but 
rather using an XML object model to process XML documents. For something 
more complicated (like processing XML docs) an object model works better 
than trying to do the same processing by running various CLI utilities.


>
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>
>> For something trivial like espeak <filename> it doesn't matter. But as 
>> the
>> tasks become increasing more complex like parsing XML then it's much 
>> easier
>> with an object model vs. calling system().
>
>> For example - let's say that you're speaking a long file ( espeak 
>> <big-file>
>> or  obj.Speak(<big-file>, SVSFIsFilename); ) that's several minutes long.
>> Part-way through this a higher-priority even happens and you need to 
>> pause
>> the speaking and say something else ("Reactor is overheating" or 
>> "Possible
>> intruder at front door").  Using the object model it's trivial:
>
>>     obj.Pause();
>>     # Do something else
>>     obj.Resume();
>
>> If espeak was started via system() then doing these sorts of things isn't
>> always easy or even possible to do.
>
>Not difficult.  You get espeak's PID (with ps and grep) and send it
>a SIGTSTP or SIGSTOP, followed later with a SIGCONT.
>
>kill -20 <pid_of_espeak>
>(deal with overheating reactor)
>kill -18 <pid_of_espeak>

That would work though it usually takes SIGSTOP since many apps ignore 
SIGTSTP.   A lot of it is what you're used to and while some of the people 
here can understand "kill -18 <pid>"  it's not as accessible to other people 
as obj.Resume(); would be.

And if you want to go just a little beyond this and have "espeak" skip 
forward 3 sentences you can call  obj.Skip("sentence", 3);   Negative 
numbers rewind and so forth which most likely doesn't have an equivalent 
signal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18062

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2011-04-24 09:42 +0000
Message-ID<siangf.804pes@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#17930
Ezekiel <Me@not-there.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"owl"  wrote in message news:79awera.nb9ouaw4@rooftop.invalid...
>>
>>
>>Not difficult.  You get espeak's PID (with ps and grep) and send it
>>a SIGTSTP or SIGSTOP, followed later with a SIGCONT.
>>
>>kill -20 <pid_of_espeak>
>>(deal with overheating reactor)
>>kill -18 <pid_of_espeak>
> 
> That would work though it usually takes SIGSTOP since many apps ignore 
> SIGTSTP.   A lot of it is what you're used to and while some of the people 
> here can understand "kill -18 <pid>"  it's not as accessible to other people 
> as obj.Resume(); would be.
> 

So name the scripts that issue the signals "pause" and "resume".


> And if you want to go just a little beyond this and have "espeak" skip 
> forward 3 sentences you can call  obj.Skip("sentence", 3);   Negative 
> numbers rewind and so forth which most likely doesn't have an equivalent 
> signal.
> 

Well, a wrapper script could trap SIGUSR1 and force espeak to start
reading the file at a different offset.  Since espeak doesn't have
a file-offset option, you'd have to code that into the wrapper.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17794

FromHadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>
Date2011-04-23 14:17 +0200
Message-ID<0gaafh9n7h.fsf@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#17745
"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes:

> "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.


The cluelessness exhibited by Jed, Ahlstrom, 7 and co is simply mind
numbing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17833

Fromflatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com>
Date2011-04-23 11:34 -0400
Message-ID<gqlxjq8tba01.moroos918ysc.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#17794
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:17:06 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes:
> 
>> "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.
> 
> 
> The cluelessness exhibited by Jed, Ahlstrom, 7 and co is simply mind
> numbing.

This is so typical of the COLA Linux community.
They will argue a point they lost with the first post.
They will circle the wagons backing each other up no matter how
ludicrous the statements they are making. And they will never admit they
were wrong.

What a collection of idiots.
Really.

-- 
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]

#17838

FromJEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet>
Date2011-04-23 10:22 -0500
Message-ID<slrnir5rkt.g2j.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
In reply to#17794
On 2011-04-23, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> writes:
>
>> "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...
[deletia]
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> The cluelessness exhibited by Jed, Ahlstrom, 7 and co is simply mind
> numbing.

   Repeating a lie won't make it any more true.

   The whole point of something like scripting is to avoid the extra
complexity and arcana and overhead that usually comes with coding in 
something like C++.

   The example of powershell's superiority did infact do nothing but show
how much more of a bother it was.

-- 
	On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

        When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were        |||
        meant to be computationally convenient rather than just     / | \
	arbitrarily assigned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17961

FromChris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com>
Date2011-04-23 18:30 -0400
Message-ID<iovjvm$94g$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17838
JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-04-23, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The cluelessness exhibited by Jed, Ahlstrom, 7 and co is simply mind
>> numbing.
>
>    Repeating a lie won't make it any more true.

And that's all the trolling asshat had to interject!

What an idiot.

>    The whole point of something like scripting is to avoid the extra
> complexity and arcana and overhead that usually comes with coding in 
> something like C++.
>
>    The example of powershell's superiority did infact do nothing but show
> how much more of a bother it was.

There's far more than one way to skin a cat.  Let's skin "Hadron".

-- 
QUESTION AUTHORITY.
 
(Sez who?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17737

Fromflatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com>
Date2011-04-22 21:23 -0400
Message-ID<qoofy8zd8nc0$.nn950hkqmsq9.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#17694
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:17:22 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

>>
>>
>>"Tom Shelton"  wrote in message news:iot149$379$1@dont-email.me...
>>7 presented the following explanation :
>>> Linux is power squared
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> The thing about GNU/Linux and open source I like most is
>>> the entire ecosystem is power squared.
>>>
>>> Doing something requires tools, and if they are free
>>> and readily available, then time taken to complete a
>>> task is reduced by the square of the number of tools.
>>>
>>> Linux easily has more than double the number
>>> of readily available tools that are free
>>> which reduce time scales for doing a project to a quarter
>>> and less than any competing OS.
>>>
>>> A few days ago, I was doing some embedded project
>>> and got bored with looking through reams of output.
>>> Then I thought, why not let the thing speak its mind.
>>> So I created a separate c file for speech output
>>> and used some #defines to enable and disable speech output.
>>> All it does is appends <s> and </s> around printf that
>>> was required to be spoken.
>>> Then I went over to my Linux netbook running Ubuntu 10.10,
>>> fired up Gambas, took the built in sample code for RS232, and then wrote
>>> a 10 line parser that took the content between <s> </s> markers,
>>> and wrote the contents to a file and
>>> and called espeak to talk that file's content.
>>> And hey presto, my embedded machine
>>> was speaking to me whenever it got something useful to say.
>>>
>>> The whole thing took half hour for the gambas and about
>>> an hour for the c file. The C samples were compiled
>>> in netbeans IDE which is free. Gambas is free, espeak is free,
>>> Ubunti 10.10 is free. Beginning to end, the whole
>>> thing took less than 2 hours. That is Linux smacking down
>>> development time with its power squared feature.
>>>
>>
>>LOL... I can speak a file in powershell:
>>
>>
>>$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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>What a maroon you are.
>>
>>I'm not even going to bother with the rest of you non-sense...
>>
> 
> Calling it non-sense is giving him way too much credit.
> 
> Once again he finds a solution that only took him a few hours and misses the 
> point that someone competent could have been done in a few minutes.

That's the Linux credo!!!

Why do it the easy way when you can do it the Linux way!

-- 
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]

#17698

Fromstukie <stukieh@gmail.com>
Date2011-04-22 23:24 +0000
Message-ID<iot2nl$df$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#17683
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:57:05 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:

>
> $s = new-object -c "SAPI.SpVoice"
>

what is the bash equivalent to natively instantiate an object like this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17788

FromChris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com>
Date2011-04-23 07:22 -0400
Message-ID<ioucr4$t7k$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17698
dookie wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:57:05 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> $s = new-object -c "SAPI.SpVoice"
>
> what is the bash equivalent to natively instantiate an object like this?

Who cares?

Bully for you, Microsoft is providing an implementation of pretty much
everything under the Sun for you.

Now you are tied to Microsoft.

Now let's start talking some non-corporate shells/languages, such as Python,
Ruby, and Perl, which also provide libraries for such "objects".

And, get this, they will run on Linux *and* Windows.  You're not tied to a
single corporation whose sacerdotes will provide code from up on high that
you must use, and, if they break it, or churn it too fast for you to keep up
with the latest versions, tough shit.  You're committed now boy.

-- 
Would you *______really* want to get on a non-stop flight?
		-- George Carlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17805

From7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com>
Date2011-04-23 14:29 +0100
Message-ID<lvAsp.39212$o81.28537@newsfe28.ams2>
In reply to#17698
stukie wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:57:05 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
> 
>>
>> $s = new-object -c "SAPI.SpVoice"
>>
> 
> what is the bash equivalent to natively instantiate an object like this?


bash????

Use python.

Python has bindings for espeak.



#!/usr/bin/python
from espeak import espeak
espeak.set_parameter(espeak.parameter_RATE, 200, False)
espeak.synth("My name is stukie.")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17700

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2011-04-22 23:34 +0000
Message-ID<n8auw4r.7y974qr@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#17683
Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >

> 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)
> }

> I could easily write a function to read any file from the command 
> line...

> What a maroon you are.

> I'm not even going to bother with the rest of you non-sense...


owl@laptop:~$ espeak "all your ps are belong to us"
owl@laptop:~$

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17728

FromJEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet>
Date2011-04-22 19:46 -0500
Message-ID<slrnir48bn.9d.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
In reply to#17700
On 2011-04-22, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>> >
>> >
>
>> 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)
>>    $s.waituntildone(1000)
>> }
>
>> I could easily write a function to read any file from the command 
>> line...
>
>> What a maroon you are.
>
>> I'm not even going to bother with the rest of you non-sense...
>
>
> owl@laptop:~$ espeak "all your ps are belong to us"
> owl@laptop:~$ 
>

   I guess this what passes for Linux "bloat" these days.

$ espeak "This is much easier than a powershell script" -s 60

   Seems to idle a bit fast though...

-- 
    Apple: Because if it's not from the iTunes store, 
    	   	                          then it's pirated.         |||
                                                                    / | \

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17750

FromDFS <nospam@dfs_.com>
Date2011-04-23 03:31 +0000
Message-ID<ioth6l$t29$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17728
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:46:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>    I guess this what passes for Linux "bloat" these days.
> 
> $ espeak "This is much easier than a powershell script" -s 60
> 
>    Seems to idle a bit fast though...


dfs@ubuntu:~$ espeak "Say something"
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111) Cannot
connect to server socket err = No such file or directory Cannot connect to
server socket
jack server is not running or cannot be started

dfs@ubuntu:~$ sudo apt-get install jack 
[sudo] password for dfs:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following package was automatically installed and is no longer
required:
  linux-headers-2.6.35-22
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them. The following extra packages will
be installed:
  cdparanoia libao-common libao4 python-cddb python-eyed3 python-ogg
  python-pyvorbis vorbis-tools
Suggested packages:
  libaudio2 libesd0 libesd-alsa0 python-ogg-dbg python-pyvorbis-dbg
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  cdparanoia jack libao-common libao4 python-cddb python-eyed3 python-ogg
  python-pyvorbis vorbis-tools
0 upgraded, 9 newly installed, 0 to remove and 285 not upgraded. Need to
get 493kB of archives.
After this operation, 2,159kB of additional disk space will be used. Do
you want to continue [Y/n]? y
Get:1 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main cdparanoia i386
3.10.2+debian-9 [41.3kB]
Get:2 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-cddb i386
1.4-5.1build3 [15.0kB]
Get:3 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-eyed3 all
0.6.17-1build1 [66.6kB]
Get:4 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-ogg i386
1.3+repack-5 [18.8kB]
Get:5 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-pyvorbis
i386 1.4-2build1 [34.2kB]
Get:6 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main libao-common i386
1.0.0-4 [10.1kB]
Get:7 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main libao4 i386
1.0.0-4 [36.9kB]
Get:8 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main vorbis-tools i386
1.4.0-1ubuntu1 [118kB]
Get:9 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/universe jack i386
3.1.1+cvs20050801-26 [152kB]
Fetched 493kB in 1s (363kB/s)
Selecting previously deselected package cdparanoia. (Reading database ...
132054 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking cdparanoia
(from .../cdparanoia_3.10.2+debian-9_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously
deselected package python-cddb. Unpacking python-cddb (from
.../python-cddb_1.4-5.1build3_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously
deselected package python-eyed3. Unpacking python-eyed3 (from
.../python-eyed3_0.6.17-1build1_all.deb) ... Selecting previously
deselected package python-ogg. Unpacking python-ogg (from
.../python-ogg_1.3+repack-5_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected
package python-pyvorbis. Unpacking python-pyvorbis (from .../python-
pyvorbis_1.4-2build1_i386.deb) ...
Selecting previously deselected package libao-common. Unpacking
libao-common (from .../libao-common_1.0.0-4_i386.deb) ... Selecting
previously deselected package libao4. Unpacking libao4 (from
.../libao4_1.0.0-4_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package
vorbis-tools. Unpacking vorbis-tools (from
.../vorbis-tools_1.4.0-1ubuntu1_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously
deselected package jack. Unpacking jack (from
.../jack_3.1.1+cvs20050801-26_i386.deb) ... Processing triggers for man-db
...
Setting up cdparanoia (3.10.2+debian-9) ... Setting up python-cddb
(1.4-5.1build3) ... Setting up python-eyed3 (0.6.17-1build1) ... Setting
up python-ogg (1.3+repack-5) ... Setting up python-pyvorbis (1.4-2build1)
... Setting up libao-common (1.0.0-4) ... Setting up libao4 (1.0.0-4) ...
Setting up vorbis-tools (1.4.0-1ubuntu1) ... Setting up jack
(3.1.1+cvs20050801-26) ... Processing triggers for python-support ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin ...
ldconfig deferred processing now taking place

dfs@ubuntu:~$ jack
This is jack 3.1.1 (C)2004 Arne Zellentin <zarne@users.sf.net>
 *warning* You have no standard location set, putting files into the
current
           directory. Please consider setting base_dir in ~/.jack3rc.
 *error* Access of CD device /dev/cdrom resulted in error: No medium found

Put CD in drive and it gets recognized and starts RhythmBox

dfs@ubuntu:~$ jack

Now it starts CDDB.py and tries to read the CD?

Take CD out

dfs@ubuntu:~$ espeak "Say something"
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111) Cannot
connect to server socket err = No such file or directory Cannot connect to
server socket
jack server is not running or cannot be started




Another confusing Lunix shitware failure... who woulda guessed?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17755

Fromflatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com>
Date2011-04-22 23:42 -0400
Message-ID<1u8fpqdm2m8x9.z2a5s9spqr2p$.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#17750
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 03:31:33 +0000 (UTC), DFS wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:46:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>    I guess this what passes for Linux "bloat" these days.
>> 
>> $ espeak "This is much easier than a powershell script" -s 60
>> 
>>    Seems to idle a bit fast though...
> 
> 
> dfs@ubuntu:~$ espeak "Say something"
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111) Cannot
> connect to server socket err = No such file or directory Cannot connect to
> server socket
> jack server is not running or cannot be started
> 
> dfs@ubuntu:~$ sudo apt-get install jack 
> [sudo] password for dfs:
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> The following package was automatically installed and is no longer
> required:
>   linux-headers-2.6.35-22
> Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them. The following extra packages will
> be installed:
>   cdparanoia libao-common libao4 python-cddb python-eyed3 python-ogg
>   python-pyvorbis vorbis-tools
> Suggested packages:
>   libaudio2 libesd0 libesd-alsa0 python-ogg-dbg python-pyvorbis-dbg
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   cdparanoia jack libao-common libao4 python-cddb python-eyed3 python-ogg
>   python-pyvorbis vorbis-tools
> 0 upgraded, 9 newly installed, 0 to remove and 285 not upgraded. Need to
> get 493kB of archives.
> After this operation, 2,159kB of additional disk space will be used. Do
> you want to continue [Y/n]? y
> Get:1 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main cdparanoia i386
> 3.10.2+debian-9 [41.3kB]
> Get:2 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-cddb i386
> 1.4-5.1build3 [15.0kB]
> Get:3 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-eyed3 all
> 0.6.17-1build1 [66.6kB]
> Get:4 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-ogg i386
> 1.3+repack-5 [18.8kB]
> Get:5 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main python-pyvorbis
> i386 1.4-2build1 [34.2kB]
> Get:6 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main libao-common i386
> 1.0.0-4 [10.1kB]
> Get:7 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main libao4 i386
> 1.0.0-4 [36.9kB]
> Get:8 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main vorbis-tools i386
> 1.4.0-1ubuntu1 [118kB]
> Get:9 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/universe jack i386
> 3.1.1+cvs20050801-26 [152kB]
> Fetched 493kB in 1s (363kB/s)
> Selecting previously deselected package cdparanoia. (Reading database ...
> 132054 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking cdparanoia
> (from .../cdparanoia_3.10.2+debian-9_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously
> deselected package python-cddb. Unpacking python-cddb (from
> .../python-cddb_1.4-5.1build3_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously
> deselected package python-eyed3. Unpacking python-eyed3 (from
> .../python-eyed3_0.6.17-1build1_all.deb) ... Selecting previously
> deselected package python-ogg. Unpacking python-ogg (from
> .../python-ogg_1.3+repack-5_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected
> package python-pyvorbis. Unpacking python-pyvorbis (from .../python-
> pyvorbis_1.4-2build1_i386.deb) ...
> Selecting previously deselected package libao-common. Unpacking
> libao-common (from .../libao-common_1.0.0-4_i386.deb) ... Selecting
> previously deselected package libao4. Unpacking libao4 (from
> .../libao4_1.0.0-4_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package
> vorbis-tools. Unpacking vorbis-tools (from
> .../vorbis-tools_1.4.0-1ubuntu1_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously
> deselected package jack. Unpacking jack (from
> .../jack_3.1.1+cvs20050801-26_i386.deb) ... Processing triggers for man-db
> ...
> Setting up cdparanoia (3.10.2+debian-9) ... Setting up python-cddb
> (1.4-5.1build3) ... Setting up python-eyed3 (0.6.17-1build1) ... Setting
> up python-ogg (1.3+repack-5) ... Setting up python-pyvorbis (1.4-2build1)
> ... Setting up libao-common (1.0.0-4) ... Setting up libao4 (1.0.0-4) ...
> Setting up vorbis-tools (1.4.0-1ubuntu1) ... Setting up jack
> (3.1.1+cvs20050801-26) ... Processing triggers for python-support ...
> Processing triggers for libc-bin ...
> ldconfig deferred processing now taking place
> 
> dfs@ubuntu:~$ jack
> This is jack 3.1.1 (C)2004 Arne Zellentin <zarne@users.sf.net>
>  *warning* You have no standard location set, putting files into the
> current
>            directory. Please consider setting base_dir in ~/.jack3rc.
>  *error* Access of CD device /dev/cdrom resulted in error: No medium found
> 
> Put CD in drive and it gets recognized and starts RhythmBox
> 
> dfs@ubuntu:~$ jack
> 
> Now it starts CDDB.py and tries to read the CD?
> 
> Take CD out
> 
> dfs@ubuntu:~$ espeak "Say something"
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111) Cannot
> connect to server socket err = No such file or directory Cannot connect to
> server socket
> jack server is not running or cannot be started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another confusing Lunix shitware failure... who woulda guessed?

And HPT wonders why professional studios run Protools?

Could you see the look on the client's face when you try to fire up JACK
so you can run Ardour or something similar and get a mess like that?

Of course not.
Why?
Because the client will be walking out the door and running to another
studio so all you will see is his back.

-- 
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]

#17766

FromJEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet>
Date2011-04-23 00:33 -0500
Message-ID<slrnir4p56.f00.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
In reply to#17755
On 2011-04-23, flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 03:31:33 +0000 (UTC), DFS wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:46:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 
>>>    I guess this what passes for Linux "bloat" these days.
>>> 
>>> $ espeak "This is much easier than a powershell script" -s 60
>>> 
>>>    Seems to idle a bit fast though...
>> 
>> 
>> dfs@ubuntu:~$ espeak "Say something"

...another case of Lemmings spouting total nonsense.

>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111) Cannot
>> connect to server socket err = No such file or directory Cannot connect to
>> server socket
>> jack server is not running or cannot be started

[deletia]

   espeak was "just there". I didn't even have to install it or anything.
That's why I referred to it as "bloatware". Wonder if it "tagged along" 
with something else. Can't imagine what though.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17795

FromNorman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com>
Date2011-04-23 08:33 -0400
Message-ID<iougv2$i1d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#17766
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2011-04-23, flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 03:31:33 +0000 (UTC), DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:46:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>>    I guess this what passes for Linux "bloat" these days.
>>>>
>>>> $ espeak "This is much easier than a powershell script" -s 60
>>>>
>>>>    Seems to idle a bit fast though...
>>>
>>> dfs@ubuntu:~$ espeak "Say something"
> 
> ....another case of Lemmings spouting total nonsense.
> 
>>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
>>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
>>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111)
>>> bt_audio_service_open: connect() failed: Connection refused (111) Cannot
>>> connect to server socket err = No such file or directory Cannot connect to
>>> server socket
>>> jack server is not running or cannot be started
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>    espeak was "just there". I didn't even have to install it or anything.
> That's why I referred to it as "bloatware". Wonder if it "tagged along" 
> with something else. Can't imagine what though.
> 

   I've yet to see tag along programs under linux (not saying it won't 
ever happen). But I wouldn't consider it being included in a default 
install 'bloatware'...

1) it didn't tag along
2) it didn't slip by
3) it hasn't thrown ads in you face
4) it didn't come with it's own special speakers
5) it doesn't want to phone home every 15 minutes

...and it can be easily removed without diving into a registry.

-- 
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 8.04 64bit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 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