Linux-Advocacy Digest #681, Volume #30 Wed, 6 Dec 00 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Tore Lund)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:07:06 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Nigel Feltham in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000 23:37:56
> >>>rescue disk to boot.
> >>>fschk, on one occasion I stopped it after 5 hours (4GB HD, about 3/4
full).
> >>>The second & third time fschk itself failed to fix the system.
> >
> >Of course if he had installed on a reiserfs partition then fschk will
never need
> >to be used - well worth using reiserfs when machines may be switched off
> >without being shut down properly (or where power failure is common).
>
> Or you're a moron, which includes me, so please tell me more. I've
> never heard of this 'reiserfs'. I'm dying to find out what it stands
> for. What's the downside?
It's supposed to be the new FS to replace ext2.
AFAIK, most linux dist can now use it, but default to ext2.
The downside of it is that it's a new FS, which is the most critical part of
the computer, and has yet to be thourghfully tested and debug.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:11:28 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:06:09
> >> Obviously, these are things to praise, as X has increased its keyboard
> >> support significantly and all apps generally adopt the standard GUI app
> >> layout, MDI interface. (Windows supports many more 'real world'
> >> interfaces that break this method than most Unix systems.)
> >
> >Actually, that is technically incorrect.
>
> I'm sorry, Ayende, but I know for a fact you haven't the ability to
> correct me on what is technically correct or not.
That is obvious, you lack the basic knowledge to understand what I'm
correcting.
> >It's *much* more easier to use Windows' builtin controls to do GUI, then
> >design your own *real world* interfaces.
>
> Yes nevertheless, Windows supports many more 'real world' interfaces
> that break this method than most Unix systems. Perhaps you missed
> understood the verb 'supports' in the context of my statement?
Any GUI can be manipulated to simulate real world objects.
Windows has much more applications, therefor, so would be the real world
interfacecs programs.
I provided an example that this can be done in any OS, which you choose to
ignore.
You lack basic understanding in how to create GUI, apperantely.
> >BTW, there is nothing that prevents you from doing this on any OS that
you
> >want.
> >QT4 is the (sad) proof of that.
>
> Gotta take a cut, eh? You're proving to be a Windroid, Ayende.
How does this has to do with anything?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:24:57 +0200
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:27:01
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:36:39
> >
> >> >Users can of course write to HKCU.
> >> >Please check MS guidelines to programming in windows, you'll see that
it
> >> >states very clearly that user spesifics settings in HKCU.
> >> >Beside, the very same mecanism (HKCU being user spesific) works in
win9x.
> >>
> >> And as I've explained (quoted below), this does cause the kind of
> >> problems you're addressing. And they're *Microsoft's* problems, since
> >> the app isn't supposed to have to be re-written to work on NT.
> >
> >It doesn't need to be re-written for NT.
> >It need to be written correctly the first tim.
>
> Even if it was written for WinDOS? Years before MS shoved NT down
> everyone's throat as a desktop OS?
If it was written to dos, it doesn't use the registry, so yes.
If it was written to win9x, it uses the registry and need to use it
*correctly*.
This guidelines has been published long ago.
> >> Had Microsoft provided some method of setting machine-wide
configuration
> >> settings without running aground of permissions, this problem wouldn't
> >> occur.
> >
> >Pardon?
> >You don't *want* anybody to be able to set a machine wide configuration!
>
> Sorry, charlie. Sometimes you do. Even in a real multi-user system (in
> comparison to NT, which merely pretends).
No, I *don't* want this to happen.
I want only those I autorized to do so, and in this case, I'll delegate
permissions.
I don't want anybody to be able to set machine wide configuration.
> >That is whole *point* in permissions.
> >That nobody except the administrator can set a machine wide
configuration!
>
> No, that's not the point in permissions. The point in permissions is
> that the administrator can determine what is the machine's
> configuration, not the application configuration. This isn't a host
> we're talking about; its a desktop or a workstation or a server, not all
> three or any one, like a Unix system. (:-D I'm just funnin' with ya'.)
NT is a workstation/desktop/server.
And you are wrong, applications configuration is part of the machine's
configuration.
You want a situation where anybody will have access to anything, I fail to
even begin to understand why you want such a situation.
> >> >"allowing all users of the system to share the settings, since they're
> >> >really all the same person" is a silly statement.
> >>
> >> I concur. But that's a failure of WinDOS that you're just going to
have
> >> to deal with.
> >
> >No, it's not.
> [...]
> >If I log on as a different user on purpose, I *expect* to get different
user
> >settings, and that is what I get.
>
> Unless you don't, or you do want to, and don't get it. Whichever.
No, I'll always get this on a properlly written program.
IE, one that uses the HKCU for user spesific settings.
> >No!
> >If it's a user spesific settings, they belong in the HKCU, because they
> >*are* user *spesific*, which mean that each user should have its own.
>
> You do realize that this is entirely correct, but useless, don't you?
> In a desktop environment, it is not a clear call whether any one
> arbitrary application configuration setting should be system-wide or
> user-wide. Yes, often app developers get it wrong. Sometimes the OS
> makes their job tough. Sometimes they botch it on any OS. None of this
> makes the registry make sense, or be the reason the problem isn't more
> easily solved, when it occurs. It hardly ever occurs on Unix, so that's
> pretty much all that needs to be said.
Show me those settings that can't be clearly defined as HKCU or HKLM and
needed to be update by anyone.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:25:46 +0200
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:03:28
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:09:31
> >> [...]
> >> >*Developing* software is what cost money.
> >> >Which you don't get in return if you GPL it.
> >>
> >> But you don't get it in return if you copyright it and wrap it in a
> >> trade secret, either. Whatever it is you do make money on has to cover
> >> the cost of developing, either way. Your argument is specious.
> >
> >Yes you do.
>
> No, you get money selling licenses, not developing software.
Pedantic, you develop software which you later sell licenses to.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:43:06 +0200
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MWgX5.57779$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:48:31 GMT, JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:55:16 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:Bd8X5.4365$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> [snips]
> >>>
> >>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> news:90hs0t$14d3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> >
> >>> > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> > > > > > It's beyond my understanding how MS, a billion+ dollar
> >>> > > > > > company, can ship an OS with such a shit default text
> >>> > > > > > editor. With all their massive resources, they still
> >>> > > > > > haven't ever provided the user with basic text editor
> >>> > > > > > fuctionality.
> >>>
> >>> > what basic functionality is notepad missing?
> >>>
> >>> Apparently, the ability to edit text -
> >>> that would, after all, be "basic text
> >>> editor functionality". From this we can conclude that
> >>> notepad is really a text _viewer_, and does not incorporate
> >>> editing functions. Yeah, that's the
> >>> ticket. :)
> >>
> >>It can most certainly edit text.
> >>Why do you claim that it can't edit text?
> >
> >OK, it can barely edit text, but that's about it. For Christ's sake,
> >there are less than 10 shortcut keys in the whole thing! You can't
> >even use Ctrl+S to save. It's a good job I've got emacs for Windows.
Ctrl+S - Save
Ctrl+N - New
Ctrl+O - Open
Ctrl+P - Print
Ctrl+F - Find
F3 - Find next
Ctrl+H - Replace
Ctrl+G - Go To
Ctrl+A - Select All
F5 - Enter Time & Date
Exactly 10 shortcuts key. :)
> And here the MS advocates may choose to respond: "but the average
> Joe User doesn't need shortcut keys..." or some such drivel.
He does and there are in my notepad (win2000) there aren't on the 9x notepad
.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 10:02:53 GMT
In article <90jtht$1ajp2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You need to get the drivers for your monitor, which should fix it.
That's not the problem. Occaisonally, Windows seems to "forget" that
setting and you have to install the 'driver' for the monitor again.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 11:19:47 +0100
Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> One of the reasons that Wang - one of the early word processor
> manufacturers - had all the function keys on the top of the
> keyboard - and like so many editor have a this - as that it was
> designed for people who used typewriters.
Did they ever try another approach? I doubt that very strongly. They
just dumbed down their user interface in order to play safe.
> Many people have a hard time adjust to modal editors just because
> of this. If I press 'i' I either get 'i' on the screen or
> I'm placed in 'insert' mode if had pressed Escacpe to enter command
> mode.
Some indicator that showed which mode you are in would have been a
help. The lack of things like that in vi is, well, fairly typical of
programmers.
> vi being modal means you never have to remove you keys from the
> keyboard - and that is one argument I hear against vi. Modal
> editors are almost a natural fit for programmers, and go against
> everything a person has ever learned if they came from the
> typewriter school way of thinking.
I am not so sure about that. I went to a typewriter school, and I was
downright furious when the cursor key pad was introduced. Much better
to have a scheme where you did not have to take your hands off the home
rows. I am sure plenty of other touch typists felt the same way.
On the old telex machines we had three bars where the space bar is:
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
| Letters | | Space | | Signs and numbers |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
So we operated these with our thumbs in order to switch between
different "cases". What I wanted to see on electronic keyboards was
something like this:
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
| Alt | | Space | | Alt-Gr |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
I believe the Alt key was not invented at that time, but never mind the
names. It was natural for us to want a keyboard where you would press
Alt-left with your left thumb while doing commands with your right hand
fingers and vice versa for right thumb/left hand fingers. This would
give you a rich command set that did not conflict with the principles of
touch typing.
Even the puny Alt keys introduced by IBM can be operated by the thumbs,
which is what I do in my own editor. I wonder why this has not caught
on.
The old control key to the left of A, on the other hand, can only be
used with right hand commands if you want to stick to the principles of
touch typing. The command sets of Emacs or WordStar with its ^A, ^E,
etc. are crazy and anti-ergonomic as far as I am concerned. And the
same holds for the Microsoft buffer commands: ^Z, ^X, ^C, ^V.
The control key may have been the only way to get things done on earlier
keyboards. Today it lives on mainly due to conservatism. Besides, this
key has MOVED... but Unix programmers have not yet noticed.
--
Tore
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:30:35 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>> 12 years of posting to USENET, and [Tholen is] STILL the biggest
>>>> moron I've ever come across.
>>> Yet another quote for the Tholen archive,
>> Totally devoid of context, as usual.
> All of the context of him declaring you to be the biggest moron is
> contained above.
Incorrect, Glatt; it doesn't show Aaron claiming that "nothing about
computers is intuitive".
>> Why don't you show Aaron claiming that nothing about a computer is
>> intuitive?
> Because all of the context of him declaring you to be the biggest
> moron is contained above.
Incorrect, Glatt; it doesn't show Aaron claiming that "nothing about
computers is intuitive".
>> Why don't you show him
>> relying on invective rather than logical argument?
> Because all of the context of him declaring you to be the biggest
> moron is contained above.
Incorrect, Glatt; it doesn't show Aaron claiming that "nothing about
computers is intuitive".
>>> and yet more evidence that Tholen is widely regarded as a fool among
>>> usenet readers
>> Yet more evidence that Glatt doesn't know what "widely regarded" means.
> Yet more evidence that Tholen is in denial about the fact that he is
> widely regarded as a fool among usenet readers
A repetition of the same evidence.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:34:04 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>>>>>>> Only to those with previous experience with power switches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Put a computer in front of a person from a remote village which
>>>>>>> has no electrical service, and let's see how "intuitive" the
>>>>>>> power switch is.
>>>>>> OK, now you are getting silly. Give those villagers electricity, and
>>>>>> all the usual electrical applicances other than computers, and let them
>>>>>> become comfortable with them, THEN give them a computer. The power switch
>>>>>> on the computer will be intuitive to them.
>>>>> This demonstrates the point, actually. It's "intuative" only
>>>>> because it's similar to what was already learned.
>>>> Why do you say "only"? It's quite sufficient to justify use of the
>>>> term "intuitive".
>>>>> At some point, it *did* have to be learned because it was not
>>>>> intuative *yet*.
>>>> The whole point of designing something that is intuitive is to
>>>> avoid the need to "come up the learning curve". That is, you
>>>> intentionally try to use something familiar, something that has
>>>> already been learned, so that you don't have to learn something
>>>> new. One of the impediments to the adoption of new things is
>>>> the "can't teach an old dog new tricks" syndrome.
>>>>> If you show someone how to use vi who *hasn't* used a different
>>>>> sort of editor yet, it's not as difficult to teach it to them.
>>>> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something not
>>>> intuitive.
>>>>> The difficulty comes from assuming incorrectly that it should
>>>>> behave exactly the same as some other company's editor.
>>>> However, if you've used several screen editors and they all behave
>>>> in such a way that the pressing of a letter key either overwrites
>>>> or inserts that letter into the text, then vi's "every letter is a
>>>> command" approach will not be intuitive.
>>>>> Vi is *different*, which makes it harder to learn,
>>>> It also makes it not intuitive.
>>>>> but this difference is also the source of its incredible speed at
>>>>> the hands of an experienced user (fingers don't lose the home-row
>>>>> keys - everything complex can be done without moving your right
>>>>> hand over to the 'special' keys, and this makes a gigantic
>>>>> difference in typing speed.)
>>>> Power is not the issue here. You'd get greater adoption of the
>>>> editor if there wasn't a steep learning curve. If the only way
>>>> you can get power is to force a steep learning curve, then the
>>>> authors should be prepared to accept slow adoption.
>>>>> There's that, and the powerful commands that only take a
>>>>> few keystrokes, like ">%" to indent a squiggly-brace section, or
>>>>> "d$" to delete to end-of-line, and so on. They are not
>>>>> instinctive to the new user,
>>>> As someone else pointed out, there is a difference betweeen
>>>> instinct and intuition. The discussion is about the latter.
>>>>> but they *are* internally consistent, so picking up new commands
>>>>> is intuative to someone who has the basics.
>>>> Not necessarily. Having learned that every letter key is a command
>>>> won't necessarily help you identify which letter is used for which
>>>> command.
>>>>> (d-something means delete it, and '$' means end-of line,
>>>> It also means end of file. Try :$ and see where it takes you.
>>>>> therefore 'd$' means delete to end-of-line
>>>> Why shouldn't someone think that it could mean delete to the end of
>>>> the file?
>>>>> - it's internally consisent,
>>>> End of line and end of file are not that consistent. At least they
>>>> both mean "end".
>>>>> and thus very fast to build upon your knowlege once you
>>>>> get over the hump of initial contact with it.)
>>>> If you find that some new command is intuitive after having learned
>>>> several other commands, then there is something about computers that
>>>> is intuitive, contrary to Aaron's claim.
>>> You don't have to specifically learn "d$" to synthesize if
>>> from previous knowledge.
>> What previous knowledge tells you the function of "d$"?
> it's similar to "dw" and "dG"
Are you claiming it's intuitive, Aaron, after claiming that nothing
about computers is intuitive?
>>> Conversely, the use of an on/off switch canNOT be intuitive,
>> Incorrect, given that I have personally witnessed first-time users
>> knowing what to do with a power switch, even without consulting a
>> manual.
> Were these first-time electrical-device users?
Irrelevant, given that the topic of discussion is the power switch of
a computer, Aaron. Or did you forget that already?
> A) yes
> B) no
"Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."
>>> as the use of such cannot be synthesized from previous knowledge.
>> Obviously incorrect, given that I've witnessed first-time users
>> knowing what to do with a power switch, even without consulting a
>> manual.
> Was this the first time that they ever used an electrical appliance?
Irrelevant, given that the topic of discussion is the power switch of
a computer, Aaron. Or did you forget that already?
> A) yes
> B) no
"Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:37:22 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>> You shouldn't be. His example doesn't represent proof for a power
>>>> switch not being intuitive.
>>> Then please provide a COGENT differing explanation.
>> The problem with your example is that a similar example can be used to
>> disprove the intuitiveness of pretty much everything except how to turn
>> off an alarm clock.
> Actually not.
On the contrary, it's precisely the problem with your example, Aaron.
> A simple wheeled cart is intuitive.
Not to a six-month-old, Aaron, which is the same sort of reasoning you
used when you trotted out your "primitive tribesman".
> One need merely push or pull it a couple of feet to see how to use it.
Which assumes that it will move when pushed or pulled, Aaron. Suppose
pressure is applied orthogonal to the direction of the wheels?
> An automobile is not.
Is "everything about an automobile" not intuitive, Aaron?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:38:26 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>> You shouldn't be. His example doesn't represent proof for a power
>>>> switch not being intuitive.
>>> Then please provide a COGENT differing explanation.
>> The problem with your example is that a similar example can be used to
>> disprove the intuitiveness of pretty much everything except how to turn
>> off an alarm clock.
> The only 'intuitive' way to turn off an alarm clock is to throw
> it with great velocity against a brick wall.
Is your experience really that limited, Aaron? I'm beginning to see
the root of your problem.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:50:03 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
> (To tholen)
>
> Okay we agree, it seems, that intuativeness is purely relative
> to what is already known. In the case of Vi, it only appears
> unintuative if you are used to some other editor first.
Not just "some" editor, but a wide range of editors. Which screen
editors besides vi use hjkl for cursor movement?
> This I agree with. What you don't seem to get is that it works the
> other way around too - if you learn Vi first, then those other
> editors are the unintuative ones.
I disagree, simply because there are numerous applications besides
editors that move cursors around using the cursor keys.
> This is why it is useless to accuse one product of being "less
> intuative" than another -
Fortunately, I didn't do that. I did note that the use of hjkl for
cursor movement is not intuitive to a first-time vi user. I also
disagreed with Aaron's claim that nothing about computers is
intuitive.
> ESPECIALLY when the whole reason for the alleged non-intuativeness
> is that the products differ from each other, and therefore someone
> familiar with one won't find the other intuative.
But intuitiveness is relative, as you've agreed. That is, what one
person finds intuitive will not necessarily be intuitive to someone
else.
> That type of argument is rather anti-competitive - whichever
> interface is not already more prevalent will be less "intuative"
> merely becuase it is not already prevelant, and for no other
> reason.
Irrelevant to my argument with Aaron.
> You are setting up a situation where the only way for a product to
> be "intuative" is for it to be a copycat of the market leader,
> which automatically stacks the deck against it.
Also irrelevant to my argument with Aaron.
> Another way to look at whether or not an interface is "intuative" is
> to note how similar the different parts of the interface are to
> *each other*. I call this "internal intuativeness". If the way the
> interface has you do task A is drasticly different than the way it has
> you do task B, then it is not internally intuative. An internally
> intuative system is one in which a person who knows some of the
> interface can easily guess at the rest of it.
Also irrelevant to my argument with Aaron.
> In this regard, VI really shines, even though it isn't very similar
> to *other* editors. Once you know part of the VI commands, the rest
> work in similar ways.
I take it that you agree with me that something about computers can
be intuitive, contrary to Aaron's claim.
I've tried to lead by example, but it hasn't worked: I really should
point out now that you're consistently misspelling "intuitive".
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:55:48 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> Bill Vermillion writes:
>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> Vi's only crime here is being unique.
>>>> Uniqueness breeds non-intuitiveness. I haven't said whether that is
>>>> good or bad.
>>> vi was good. Having the ability to see all the lines on the screen
>>> instead of one line, and being able to move onto a word to delete
>>> it instead of .s/old-word/new-word/ was so much better.
>> The "good" thus comes from being a screen editor, not from using hjkl
>> for cursor movement.
> I would disagree strongly. Using the typewriter keys (like hjkl) is
> much, much faster than losing the home-row placement of your fingers
> to go hit the arrow keys, or the 'ins/home/end.etc...' keys, or to
> move the mouse.
Except that while you're typing, if you want to go back and correct an
error, you first have to get out of insert mode by finding that escape
key, which isn't on the home row, and then you have to get back into
insert mode with the i key, which also isn't on the home row.
> Although it is different than other editors, it's the feature that
> makes it very fast.
Not to me. Given the option, I find myself running off to use BRIEF
or some editor with BRIEF key bindings.
> I realize that this was not due to some major plan or anything - it
> was an accidental side effect of the lack of those special keys back
> in the days when vi was being first developed. But it's a GOOD side
> effect.
Making it a screen editor was much more valuable to me than the choice
of keys to use for cursor movement.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:58:24 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something not
>> intuitive.
> By that standard, the only intuative interface is the nipple.
> After that everything is learned.
Incorrect. You're ignoring the second and third and fourth and
fifth and so on instances of an interface.
> The insistency that things should be similar to things that you
> already know, when taken to the extreme, prevents all progress.
Fortunately, I never indicated any such insistence.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
