Acoustic Models for HUD
The publicity clause can be considered as a use restriction, and some people also complained about the choice of venue. Those problems have been raised upstream, but (last time I checked) didn't receive a response. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/07/msg00024.html Am Dienstag, 26. Februar 2013 schrieb Colin Watson : On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 03:46:34PM -0600, Ted Gould wrote: On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 19:13 +0100, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals wrote: The English Voxforge models are currently packaged in julius-voxforge. There I did go with the nightly builds there, since in addition to the time and disk size (which IMHO is already enough of a reason), it needed HTK to build, which is not redistributable. It'd also be interested in more opinions though. Yes, thanks for doing that! We found it early on and it created some very good results. But yes, Julius does have redistribution problems. But the library being 4-clause BSD and the tools. 4-clause BSD (i.e. with the advertising clause) isn't a distribution problem in itself; from a brief glance at the copyright file I couldn't work out why it was in multiverse. Does anyone have background on that? However, 4-clause BSD is incompatible with the GPL. We could grant an exception for Canonical-owned code, but we'd then have to make sure we never used any external GPL code. It probably wouldn't be worth the hassle. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- Siegfried -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Acoustic Models for HUD
Am Montag, 25. Februar 2013 schrieb Ted Gould : In the demo images we're using Julius, but we've gotten a lot of help from the Sphinx list this week to make it much better. Aha. So is their performance comparable? (Back when I tried them out Julius worked much better for me, but I didn't look into any kind of tuning -and I didn't even have much of a clue of what I was doing :p-). Here at university Kaldi has been recommended as the open-source implementation of choice, but I haven't got around to looking into it yet. Do you have any experience with it to share? Best, Siegfried -- Siegfried -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Acoustic Models for HUD
Hi Ted, It's great to hear that voice recognition in Ubuntu is finally getting some love :). The English Voxforge models are currently packaged in julius-voxforge. There I did go with the nightly builds there, since in addition to the time and disk size (which IMHO is already enough of a reason), it needed HTK to build, which is not redistributable. It'd also be interested in more opinions though. Out of curiosity, what's the plan for voice recognition in Ubuntu? Sphinx/Julius/Kaldi? Regards, Siegfried Am Montag, 25. Februar 2013 schrieb Ted Gould : ** Howdy, As some folks may have noticed we're working on a voice input feature in HUD. Part of what that requires is acoustic models to be available to understand the speech coming in. Currently in Ubuntu there are a couple of these, but we need to get to the point of providing for various languages and having a way to update these continuously as the data gets better. So that leads to the question: How do we want these to look in Ubuntu? The best open source for training data appears to be Voxforgehttp://www.voxforge.org, a collection of samples based on known text. These samples can then be used to compile the acoustical model that the various libraries need. This takes significant amounts of CPU time. Their most complete language is English, which has about 100 hours of audio, and takes about 10 CPU hours to compile the models that Sphinx needs. While English is the most complete, I think it's important to realize that the best/worst case scenario that supports all languages well could result in easily over a thousand hours of CPU time. So if we think of things in the classic source vs. binary split, it seems like the Voxforge data is the source and we should make a source package that then builds these binary models. But, at some level, we're just exchanging binary data (sound files) for different binary files (acoustic models). Would it make more sense to package something like the Voxforge nightly buildshttp://www.repository.voxforge1.org/downloads/Nightly_Builds/for use in Ubuntu? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this. I'm leaning towards putting the Voxforge data as a source package, as it is our source, but I'm worried about the impact it may have on rebuilding the archive. Thanks, Ted -- Siegfried -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
Hi, 2011/11/1 nick rundy nru...@hotmail.com: And one thing Windows does well is make it easy to find an executable file (i.e., it's in C:\Program Files\). This is a joke, right? Finding an executable file in Ubuntu is frustrating lacks organization that makes sense to users. You may find the whereis command useful. Eg., | $ whereis gedit | gedit: /usr/bin/gedit /usr/lib/gedit /usr/share/gedit /usr/share/man/man1/gedit.1.gz Most (99.99%) binaries should be in /usr/bin. Some core binaries are in /bin (for technical reasons) and some system administration binaries may be in /sbin (for historical reasons). I'd be happy about an unification here, but as you can see it's not a trivial matter. In case you installed some application manually, it may be in /usr/local/bin or somewhere in /opt. This is so you can separate distribution stuff from other random stuff. Hope this helps, -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: ondemand vs conservative
Hey, Google gives me this: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/How_to_make_use_of_Dynamic_Frequency_Scaling The ondemand (available since 2.6.10) and conservative (since 2.6.12) are governors based on in kernel implementations of CPU scaling algorithms: they scale the CPU frequencies according to the needs (like does the userspace frequency scaling daemons, but in kernel). They differs in the way they scale up and down. The ondemand governor switches to the highest frequency immediately when there is load, while the conservative governor increases frequency step by step. Likewise they behave the other way round for stepping down frequency when the CPU is idle. The conservative governor is good for battery powered environments on AMD64 (but may not work on older ThinkPads like the T21). Ondemand may not work on older laptops without Enhanced SpeedStep due to latency reasons. Anyway, for recent enough Intel CPU, ondemand is the one recommended for power efficiency (over userspace, and even over powersave) by the Intel's kernel developer Arjan van de Ven -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Codename for Ubuntu 11.04 announced
Since the mailing lists always seem to be the last place where stuff is announced, here you go in case you haven't seen it yet: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/478 -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Updating from LGPL 2 to LGPL 3
2010/8/8 Henrik Johansson dahankz...@gmail.com: I remember some such discussion about the kernel license a while back and that seemed to be the consensus. The problem with Linux's (kernel) license is that it is GPL version 2, not GPL version 2 *or later* (like most project, and in which case no permission is required from anyone to use/distribute it as GPLv3+, since it already is). Because the license doesn't include the or later fragment, permission from all copyright holders is required to change the license. Now the big problem is that many people who contributed to the Linux kernel are no longer reachable to give their consent to the change. I've recently read somewhere that now Linus is encouraging new contributors to include a sentence in their license header authorizing either himself or another prominent kernel developer (at their choice) to change the license to a later GPL version, to reduce this problem for new code changes. I hope this helps. And, IANAL. Cheers, -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Updating from LGPL 2 to LGPL 3
2010/8/7 Francesco Fumanti francesco.fuma...@gmx.net: However, some files of the package did not change since the last release of the package. Thus I wonder whether it is allowed to also update the files that did not change from LGPL 2 to LGPL 3. Yeah, sure (assuming that you own the copyright of the files or that their license includes the or later). But the change won't have any real effect until the files change (since people can still get them from an older tarball / branch checkout where they still were LGPL 2). -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: aptitude vs. apt
2010/6/14 Anthony Hook anthony.ho...@gmail.com: In addition, I can do: $ sudo aptitude safe-upgrade and as far as I know, apt-get does not have this functionality. $ sudo apt-get upgrade (as opposed to dist-upgrade, which is called full-upgrade in aptitude). -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
