[DECtalk] new to the list

Jayson Smith ratguy at bellsouth.net
Wed Mar 1 02:13:33 EST 2006


Hi,
Sorry to hear this.  Have you looked at later DECtalk demos to see if the
result is the same?  Surely there must be some way to run the program and
see what part of the program is executing at any given moment, or how the
execution flows, for example, when you hit Play?
Now, on a different topic, they came out with DECtalk 5 a while ago, but
recently some more 4.6.X versions came out.  Do you think Fonix is now
trying, however unsuccessfully, to reverse the damage that Force did to the
4.X versions and market them as new 4.X versions, separate from DECtalk 5?
Jayson.

----- Original Message -----
From: "GUI Access" <guiaccess at covad.net>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list


> >Hi,
> >The other night I ran speak43, from DECtalk 4.3 demo, through a
> >disassembler.  I do have to say that the output does have loads of
probably
> >useful symbol names, so it isn't as totally devoid of meaningful info as
I
> >would have initially thought.  The actual code is way beyond my ability
to
> >comprehend, being machine code.  I will not be putting the disassembly up
on
> >my website since Fonix owns the software and giving out the source like
that
> >without their permission would just be wrong.  But Snoopy, if you want to
> >contact me off-list and get it or if you can get someone from Fonix to
> >subscribe to this list or something, I'd be glad to provide a copy of the
> >disassembly to the right person, along with a copy of the disassembler I
> >used to generate the output, as well as the original speak43 executable
if
> >they don't already have it, for reference purposes.
>
>
> Unfortunately the symbols that are present in the 4.3 demo aren't
> sufficient to re-create a higher-level language version of the
> software.  *Many* symbols that should probably be there are missing.
> I have analyzed the contents of this file more than probably anyone
> on this list, to little avail.
>
> If you look at a description of the PE (.exe) format, the way the
> symbols are in the 4.3 demo don't make sense.  They're not consistent
> with standard debugging symbols and gdb and other debuggers can't
> "see" them, even though they are obviously there.
>
> The only conclusion is either (1) the debug info is specific to a
> certain compile from the 1996 era or (2) the info is literally
> garbage, that just happens to have a trace of some of the symbols of
> the original source.
>
> I.e.  For some symbols you can work out the offsets into the code at
> which the routine or data for that symbol begins; for other symbols
> this is not possible.
>
> GUI Access
>
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <Dectalk at aol.com>
> >To: <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> >Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:29 AM
> >Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> >
> >
> >>
> >>  Man I wish someone would crack version 5.40.   Fonix doesn't have the
> >>  uncompressed files for the Dectalk versions that we all  know and
love.
> >Ed somehow
> >>  has bad files of some newer version that has  problems and has been
trying
> >to
> >>  duplicate 4.40.  Don't ask me what happened  to the files, I've been
> >trying to
> >>  figure that out for 2  years.
> >>
> >>  If anyone could crack version 4.40 and unconpile it,  you'd be helping
in
> >>  ways you can't imagine!  What puzzles me is why Fonix  can't crack it.
> >They
> >>  bought it, they own it, so I'll never understand why  they say they
can't
> >crack it.
> >>
> >>  I have a friend that could crack it, and I tried to  talk him into
doing
> >it.
> >>  He wouldn't because he was scared of getting into  trouble.  If I had
the
> >>  skills I'd do it myself and then give it to Ed so we  can all get back
on
> >track.
> >>
> >>  Man I wish someone would do it.
> >>
> >>
> >>  SNOOPI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:20:16 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> >>  ratguy at bellsouth.net writes:
> >>
> >>  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




More information about the Dectalk mailing list