[DECtalk] new to the list

Dectalk at aol.com Dectalk at aol.com
Mon Feb 27 11:02:04 EST 2006 

 
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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20060227/29778396/attachment.html>

More information about the Dectalk mailing list