[DECtalk] new to the list

shaun everiss shaun.e at xtra.co.nz
Mon Feb 27 05:31:06 EST 2006


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





More information about the Dectalk mailing list