[DECtalk] new to the list
Brent Harding
bharding at doorpi.net
Mon Feb 27 21:08:48 EST 2006
I heard it's sort of back. I heard about it in spam though. Whatever service it is ripping off the name.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dectalk at aol.com
To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
I guess there is. I spoke with Corine today and she said Dennis use to give out the codes. So yes, the code is out there somewhere.
Where is E-voice when you need it? E-voice was a free voice mail services with tons of Dectalk groups on it. Out of all those people I bet someone knew the codes.
How the heck do we track it down?
SNOOPI
In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:33:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, ratguy at bellsouth.net writes:
Hi,
You mean, there is publicly available source code for DECtalk?
Jayson.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Corine Bickley" <corine.bickley at gallaudet.edu>
To: "'DECtalk Discussions'" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
Thanks for the encouragement, Snoopi, but unfortunately I have no influence
on Fonix decisions.
I was thinking tho that we might be able to get federal grant support
(NIH-NIDCD) for such a project. Whoever thinks this would be a good use of
OUR tax dollars, please reply. If I can show enough need for the project (to
take publicly-available source code for DECtalk and update it to run with
current operating systems and be usable to current screen readers and
accessible devices), then we can show the need. I'll volunteer to write the
application, and have been able to get funding for similar projects in the
past, and I'd be extremely interested in making this happen - IF enough
users out there want it. Please let me know what you think.
corine
-----Original Message-----
From: dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
[mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com] On Behalf Of Dectalk at aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:02 AM
To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
Well, Corine is on this list. When she reads that this can be done, she'll
probably call Fonix and scream for permission. I've been trying to tell her
that this could be done, but Fonix says it can't. I know it can, I had
friends crack and modify other programs, even Windows professional. Illegal
as you can get, but we did it. So I laugh when Fonix says it can't be done,
I know it can.
I hope we get the go ahead, it would put Fonix back on track.
SNOOPI
In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:00:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shaun.e at xtra.co.nz writes:
What we could do is approach the current owner of dectalk and ask them if we
could hack the old code out of either the old dectalk synths, or out of old
software, say 4.3 and make some open source mod bassed on that.
We couldn't call that dectalk or access 32.
Probably open dectalk simular to open office or whatever though.
We could have someone set up something on sf.net.
There are loads of such opensource projects on linux, I don't see any
problem if we get permission to, if we just hacked the code and based on
that made our own synth.
After they will not sell olded out dated software.
At 09:52 p.m. 27/02/2006, you wrote:
>Hi,
>Let's not start World War III about this, but here are a few more thoughts
>on this.
>First, if you've ever seen the darker side of the net, you doubtless know
>there are people out there who just love to take popular commercial
software
>packages and crack them. Copy protection mechanisms are disabled,
>registration key systems are bypassed or, if not bypassed, a key generator
>program is included so you can make up your own key out of thin air. In
>some cases, the crackers may even have to disable sanity checks built into
>the programs designed to prevent just this sort of happening. Also there
>are programs on the market designed to encrypt executables so they can't be
>cracked so easily. E.G. you write a program that's going to bring in
>millions, run it through an encrypter program before putting it on the
>market so crackers either can't crack it at all or have to do lots of extra
>work to get the job done.
>Also, I'm not saying that by disassembling a program you get the original
>source. You don't. What you'd get is the machine code, probably something
>like assembly language for whatever microprocesser the program was designed
>for. Let's say you took the Apple II Textalker program and disassembled
it.
>You'd most likely get 6502 machine code. Now Textalker may well have been
>written in Assembly, but the original source would probably have meaningful
>label names if not comments, and the developers of the original program
>would know, or would have known, how to make changes to their version.
With
>a disassembled program you wouldn't get the meaningful label names,
comments
>or anything, and you wouldn't have the knowledge of the program's internal
>structure that the original developer had. But still, if you knew what you
>were doing you could probably modify the software, and you could certainly
>find out how certain things were done. In fact, the author of Cider Press
>did disassemble some copy protection code on some old Apple II cassette
>tapes to find out how it worked and how to circumvent it.
>As for the DECtalk software itself, I seem to recall that the DECtalk PC
>uses an 80186 processor and the Express uses an 80386. Both have some type
>of digital to analog convertor. So it might not have been that difficult
>for Digital to modify the software to run under Windows, since I don't
>assume they're emulating an old board.
>Jayson.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tony Baechler" <tony at baechler.net>
>To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>> Hi. I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here. First, the
>> point of compiling a program in the first place is so that the source
>> isn't easily apparent. If it was possible to just randomly
>> disassemble software, we wouldn't need the GPL, BSD, Linux or any
>> other open source project. I could just take the Windows kernel,
>> crack it, invent my own version and release it as the free kernel or
>> something. It obviously doesn't work that way. Also, remember a
>> previous discussion about emulating the Echo on the Apple II? The
>> problem is the same in both cases. The Echo is a chip on a card that
>> goes into the computer. The DEC-Talk is a separate
>> computer. According to the manual, it has its own
>> microprocessor. So, even if they had the firmware, it wouldn't do
>> them much good. It's a nice thought though. Considering that it
>> keeps getting sold, it's no surprise to me that they don't have the
>> 4.40 source, or won't release it if they do. Personally I would like
>> to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer, either using
>> already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or easily programmable
>> software with good speech quality. I'm not interested in what's
>> already out there for free, it all sounds like crap and won't sing
>> very well if at all.
>>
>> At 08:12 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote:
>> >I also don't understand how Fonix could have lost the code. If the only
>> >copy is on a dead hard drive obviously they could send the drive in to a
>> >data recovery company if they still have it, but those places are
>expensive.
>> >I mean, with the move from Digital to Force and then from Force to
Fonix,
>> >you'd think somebody somewhere would have something laying around. I
>have
>> >the firmware version 4.2CD for the Express as well as the DECtalk PC
>drivers
>> >which as I understand it actually contain the DECtalk code which is
>loaded
>> >onto the board at startup. And of course the 4.3 demo is available at
>the
>> >archive. I don't know how to disassemble the software, but bet the
right
>> >person who knew what they were doing could do it and create machine code
>> >from which new equivalent source code for the lost versions could be
>> >recreated.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DECtalk mailing list
>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>DECtalk mailing list
>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
_______________________________________________
DECtalk mailing list
DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
_______________________________________________
DECtalk mailing list
DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
DECtalk mailing list
DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20060227/05ef8fca/attachment.html>
More information about the Dectalk
mailing list