[DECtalk] new to the list

tomi geczy at earthlink.net
Mon Feb 27 18:19:35 EST 2006


Hey,

Well if you have the e - mails of some of the people that were on e - voice, we might be able to track them down and ask.  Unfortunately, e - voice is gone! Just like tell me, e - voice is not good.  They don't author free voice mail, all you can have is a number ( not toll free ) for free that can give you fax and voice mail.  The number isn't free though, they charge you for long disstance and all that crap now.  If you want your own toll free number, pay 20 buks a month.

Tell me sucks, it doesn't have those cool features anymore.  The world of communication thrived 2 years ago.

Anyways, you could only track them down if you know the names.  I don't know if Google has a cash of the page of the list, but highly unlikely.  I mean, evoice is gone for 3 years now, surely google erased the page.

Regards:

Tomi



> ----- Original Message -----
>From: Dectalk at aol.com
>To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:10:51 EST
>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





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attachment
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 152 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20060227/e138939f/attachment.obj>


More information about the Dectalk mailing list