[DECtalk] new to the list
Jayson Smith
ratguy at bellsouth.net
Tue Feb 28 20:19:01 EST 2006
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.
Jayson.
----- 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
>
More information about the Dectalk
mailing list