Linux-Advocacy Digest #691, Volume #30 Wed, 6 Dec 00 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swango)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Jon Davis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (.)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Dec 2000 20:48:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And what about case differences in vi between a,A or o,O and
: p,P. Definatetly not intuitive - but I like it for the speed.
I don't see it as any different than noting that, say, F4 and shift-F4
are two different things.
: You wind up with cases like this:
: Woops. Missed the O and hit the 0. Now why did my cursor jump
: all the way to first of the line?
Because you hit the wrong key. This isn's a modal vs non-modal thing.
The same sort of "problem", if you can call it that, exists in other
editors if you for example hit 'home' instead of 'insert', which are
also right next to each other.
:>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.
: vi will sometimes suprise you - as it does me. Get out of sync
: and go to insert a number and find that the number preceded a
: commands. So I just wait until it finishes duplicating that
: one paragraphs 100 times :-( - and then hit U.
This isn't a case of being inconsistant, though. It's a case of not
having enough context information to tell you what you are doing
until its too late. Vi is extremely consistent here - you told
it to do the following action 100 times, and that action was to
insert the big paragraph you just finished typing. The problem was
in having no visual cues that you were in "do this 100 times" mode.
(I think that should be something that appears on the status line
at the bottom: "Composing action to repeat N times".)
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[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 20:55:50 -0000
>You're kidding, right? The amount of effort it would take to reduce a
>particular template to a simple template which still breaks is so
>herculean as to be incredible. Go with the evolutionary approach; its
>too complex to try to be empirical. Dump the monopoly crapware first
>change you get, and wait for the illegal behavior to be rectified.
>
If the problem is the same one I have with openoffice then any simple
template with multipage tables will cause problem to occur so it is not
so hard to do. The alternative would be to take the complex template and
replace any text containing company info with dummy text and send the
developers this (the simple template idea was only to avoid personal
info being sent with the sample).
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Dec 2000 20:57:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In order to launch vi you hit the 'v' key and then the 'i' key. The
: result is that you see a 'v' appear on the screen, the cursor moves
: one space to the right, followed by an 'i' appearing and the cursor
: giving a repeat performance.
: Try doing the same thing a second later after vi has been launched.
: It doesn't work.
: Forget about any GUI based editors. Vi is counter-intuitive when
: presented in its natural environment. It would be counter-intuitive
: to any person who has had frequent exposure to a command prompt. Your
: average Unix user is an example of this.
Not if your shell is ksh, which edits exactly like 'vi' does.
------------------------------
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 21:03:12 GMT
Bill Vermillion writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> The ATX power _switch_, on the other hand, is counter-intuitive.
>>> How do you switch OFF the computer? Is that really OFF (i.e.
>>> disconnected from the main sockets electrically)?
>> I'm not familiar with the ATX.
> ATX is a board form factor. ATX power supplies are normally not
> really off. There is a trickle so that the system 'goes to sleep'
> with minimal power until you press a keyboard, it is accessed via a
> network [wake on LAN feature] or a modem dial in [wake on Modem].
>
> The latter two typically have a jumper so that the Lan card or the
> modem tickles the computer, the power supply and computer fires up
> in full mode. It's an always-on system but in doze mode power
> consumption is very low. In the single digit percentage ranges.
Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
intuitive.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:05:29 +1300
In article <TulX5.2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> No, Binding a protocol to an adapter is not the same thing as adding an IP
> to that adapter. And removing the bindings is not the same thing as
> removing it.
Binding TCP/IP to an adapter is effectively the same as giving that
adapter an IP, because you will need to (or set DHCP, which in my opinion
is similar enough... you are still specifying IP settings).
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Dec 2000 21:05:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:>>> Everyone has to "consult the manual" (or a friend, or the
:>>> on-line help) at some point early in their learning process.
:>> I know some first-time computer users that did not need to
:>> consult the manual or a friend to know what to do with the
:>> power cord, for example.
:> That's because they're already familiar with how to handle a power
:> cord when they dealt with hundreds (if not thousands) of other
:> electrical appliances.
: Precisely what helps to make something intuitive, contrary to Aaron's
: claim.
Something being similar to itself isn't the kind of intuitive you've
been talking about though, as you pointed out when I tried bringing
up vi's internal consistency. So you seem to be talking about
things being similar to *other* things. Pointing out that power cords
are similar to power cords isn't going to prove your point then.
You've got to show how power cords are similar to things that aren't
power cords.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Dec 2000 21:01:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 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?
Lots. This is irrelevant. Intuitiveness isn't a popularity contest,
since, as you have already admitted, it's all relative to what
the user is already familiar with. You are assuming a user who
learned another text editor first, and then learned vi. I'm not.
This renders everything else you said in your post moot (except
for pointing out how to spell 'intuitive').
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If intuitiveness is all
relative then blanket statements such as "vi is not intuitive" are
deceptive.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Dec 2000 21:07:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 5 Dec 2000 23:58:34 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: Cursor movement in vi really isn't unique. HJKL for cursor movement was
:>: popular in CRT games.
:>
:>True, but that's *because* of the popularity of vi. Remember that
:>those CRT games were driven by curses, which was originally derived
:>*from* the screen routines in the vi code. In other words, vi
:>predated those games, and they had vi as an indirect ancestor in
:>their code.
: I'm pretty sure that I recall HJKL being popular on games well before
: vi, e.g., I think I played several games on TOPS-10 systems that used
: that scheme.
Ah, then I'm not familiar with the games you are talking about. I
thought you were talking about the various stuff typically found
in /usr/games on a UNIX system - like rouge, nethack, worms, etc.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:11:59 +1300
> Here's a tip in return: In Word 2000, avoid turning on change
> tracking in a large document that has a table of contents.
> It is so slow it's like your system froze.
Here's a tip in return: When working with Office 2000, it is so slow
it's like your system froze.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 03:20:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:11:28
>"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.
Ha. Sorry, kid. Try again.
>> >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.
This constant inductive error you engage in is really starting to get
annoying. Whenever Windows is shown to have a higher *proportion* of
failures of an arbitrary kind, you insist its because there are more
implementations, so obviously there would be more instances, entirely
ignoring the fact that your assumption that the sample size is somehow
related to the population size is a fatal flaw in your reasoning.
Windows supports more crap because it has more crap, not because it is
popular.
>I provided an example that this can be done in any OS, which you choose to
>ignore.
I didn't ignore it; I recognized it as irrelevant.
>You lack basic understanding in how to create GUI, apperantely.
Sure, right. And you have your head up your ass.
>> >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?
I don't know. I'm not the one that brought it up. What *does* QT4 have
to do with anything? Yes, there are real world interfaces on Mac. One
would expect that that platform would have many more, proportionally,
than any other. Yet Windows still beats it, handily. Must be because
its more popular, eh? Or maybe because such a crappy platform prevents
the competitive forces in the free market from rejecting crappy
application developments. Kind of like that registry permissions thing
you've been ranting about.
Have a nice day, kid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Dec 2000 21:17:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 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.
No, you merely imply it by making such a big deal over it.
If you don't consider intuitiveness so important, it wouldn't
matter to you whether or not vi is intuitive, and you wouldn't
care.
And incendentally, my only objection here is in your two-facedness
when you say intuitiveness is all relative (to which I agree), and
yet insist on making blanket statements about intuitiveness without
the appropriate qualifiers. You can't say, for example, "Foo is
not intuitive" and just end the sentence there, unless you like
lying.
There is no such thing as *universal* intuitiveness - its all relative.
You admit this when talking to me, yet not when talking to Aaron. (As
evidenced by your insistence that it is possible for a part of a computer
to be "intuitive" to all.)
------------------------------
From: Swango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 21:20:20 GMT
Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one. I
tried Redhat and took the server install option and it promptly wiped
out my entire hard disk. Fortunately I had a backup but what if I
didn't?
Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
memory.
Windows 2000 is so much better and from what I have seen Whistler is
going to be even better than Windows 2000.
To it's credit, at least Linux didn't ruin any of my hardware, quite
possibly because it doesn't support any of my hardware.
Back to Windows for me and maybe I will look at Linux sometime down
the road, but for now it's a coaster.
I can see why Linux is free, because they would never get out of court
if they charged people for this tripe.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Jon Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 21:20:34 GMT
Four months of uptime. Wow! Tell me that isn't good. I don't give a shit
if Solaris can stay up for a year, four months is a LONG TIME.....
... on the other hand, if a service cannot start up where it left off when
the reboot occurs, you run into problems. But then, that would just be piss
poor programming, wouldn't it.....
Jon
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90dr8a$b7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > False.
> > A properly configured Win2K has no problems staying up for as long as
you
> > like.
> > The only reason it's not up for years is because it's less than a year
in
> > the market.
>
> I have to disagree with you here. My 2 cents, from my experience.
>
> I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5
2000
> Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I
was
> on their Y2K project).
>
> Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks. Actually, that's not
> true, one SQL Server remained up for 3 months but had to be moved. So I
> guess kudos for whomever set up that machine. Some of the rest of the
> machines had scheduled reboots anywhere from every night to every couple
of
> weeks. This was to prevent them crashing in the middle of the day. Most
of
> the time, they didn't crash, though, it's just that a service died and
> couldn't be restarted. I shook with fear everytime I clicked 'Stop' in
the
> Services Control Panel.
>
> The 2000 Servers fared better, though, I think that on has been up for
about
> 4 months. I'm not really sure, I'm not with that company anymore. But
most
> of them have had to be rebooted for the same 'dead service' reason. It
may
> be stable if you NEVER EVER EVER TOUCH IT, but that just doesn' t happen
in
> the real world.
>
> The Linux Servers are another matter entirely. Never has one of them
> crashed. The 1st server I set up has been up for 192 days now. And I've
> upgraded the database server, the web server, the ssh server, the dns
> server, and the mail server. Nary a reboot. The only times the other's
> have been down is to be moved, or someone uplugged them, or a hardware
> failure.
>
> Anyway, that's my 'real world' experience. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Adam Ruth
>
>
------------------------------
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 21:18:31 GMT
Bill Vermillion writes:
>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>> Bill Vermillion writes:
>>> 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.
> I've used keyboards where the Escape key was next to the 1.
Which is still not on the home row.
> Those were quick.
Not quick enough for my tastes. I still had to issue two extra
keystrokes to get out of insert mode and into command mode so
that I could move the cursor to the location of the error and
then back to where I had been typing, and then back into insert
mode.
> It is reach to the Esc with it's typical replacement.
> But the 'i' is directly above the 'k'. If the requirement is to
> keep your fingers on the home row then we'd have a very small
> alphabet.
Seems like a lot of people have been touting that home-row placement.
> You are assuming I'll always hit 'i' after I type
> xp, or x, or some other key. Often I'll type 'a' which is on the
> home row. :-)
With other editors, I don't need to hit anything. Nothing is faster
than something, regardless of whether it is on the home row or not.
>>> 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.
> Well when I learned vi, you had your choice of vi or ed in the
> disribution. If you wanted to import some other editor like emacs,
> you'd have to build it yourself. On Unix systems with 256K that
> was pretty big. vi on this system is a bit over 256K. The first
> vi I used was quite small, but then the kernels were in the 70K
> range too.
When I first learned a UNIX editor, it was em (editor for mortals; was
that out of the Wollongong group?), which I had incorrectly assumed
was part of the standard UNIX distribution. I later found out the
hard way that it was not, and I had to learn survival vi. Note that
em didn't use the "every key is a command" approach of vi, which
really inhibited the learning of vi.
>>> 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.
> Correct. But you didn't have a lot of choices for cursor movement
> in 'the olden dayze'. I just pulled a genyoowine digital VT101
> manaul from the shelf yesterday = printed in 1981. It really makes
> me appreciate what we have today. [entire messsage - and for that
> fact all my usenet stuff - composed in vi - in character mode - on
> an 80x24 display]. You can speed read those. :-)
I didn't have any choices for screen editors in the old days. I just
typed my code, and if there was an error, I'd specify the line that
needed to be replaced by a new one, and then retyped it. Not too
dissimilar from repunching a card. It's easy for me to imagine that
the development of screen editors encouraged the inclusion of
dedicated cursor keys, quite possibly because of the objections over
using hjkl for cursor movement.
I will say one thing for vi, however. It tends to be the one editor
that works over telnet sessions. (Proper emulation of cursor keys
seems to be frequently lacking.)
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:23:31 +1300
In article <90ll4g$a6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 10.45 days uptime average ove 90 days! The best barns and noble can do with
> W2K since MARCH!
>
> Even the US senate can do better than that usning UNIX:
Proof that a good tool in the hands of a monkey can still do better than
a broken tool in the hands of intelligent humans (I obviously don't think
much of the US government...)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Dec 2000 21:22:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>> That's the problem with Aaron's argument. It can be used to claim that
:>> nothing is intuitive. You're quite right to note that intuitiveness is
:>> not an absolute.
:> If you really admitted that intuativeness was not an abosulte, you
:> would refrain from making such blanket statments as "vi is not
:> intuative".
: Fortunately, I didn't make such a blanket statement. I did indicate that
: the use of hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive to the first-time vi
: user. That's a rather small subset of vi.
Okay, I take it back. You did qualify it - but with entirely the wrong
group. It only looks unintuitive to users who have familiarity with
other text editors first. This is not the same as the set of all
first-time vi users. You didn't qualify it down far enough.
------------------------------
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 21:31:48 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> 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.
> To hit ESC, you don't have to move your whole arm, just stretch
> your finger a bit (Especially so on the older keyboards for which
> VI was designed, which put the escape key at the left edge of the
> numbers row.)
To hit cursor keys, you don't have to move your whole arm, just
stretch your finger a bit.
> Not only that, but you use your LEFT hand, while the
> RIGHT stays by the hjkl keys.
Not if I want to type yuioopnm, for example.
> To hit 'i', you don't have to move
> your hand at all. You would have to be a really terrible typist to
> lose track of the home row just becuase you hit a key on the top row.
> Now, when you have to move your whole hand by swinging your forearm
> in order to reach the 'special keys', then you have to look down
> to find your finger positions.
Not with the layout on my keyboard.
> The only thing I would change about
> HJKL would be to have made it be JKL; instead, so that you use all
> four home-row fingers rather than just three of them with the index
> finger doing double-duty. But this is a very small difference.
I've seen some cursor movement implementations that put the 'up'
key on the row above hjkl and the 'down' key on the row below
hjkl, presumably because too many people complained about having
difficulty keeping track of which letter was up and which was down.
------------------------------
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 21:37:27 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>>> Everyone has to "consult the manual" (or a friend, or the
>>>>> on-line help) at some point early in their learning process.
>>>> I know some first-time computer users that did not need to
>>>> consult the manual or a friend to know what to do with the
>>>> power cord, for example.
>>> That's because they're already familiar with how to handle a power
>>> cord when they dealt with hundreds (if not thousands) of other
>>> electrical appliances.
>> Precisely what helps to make something intuitive, contrary to Aaron's
>> claim.
> Something being similar to itself isn't the kind of intuitive you've
> been talking about though,
But we weren't talking about "similar to itself". We were talking
about "thousands of OTHER electrical appliances" (emphasis added).
> as you pointed out when I tried bringing
> up vi's internal consistency. So you seem to be talking about
> things being similar to *other* things.
Perfectly consistent with "OTHER electrical appliances" (emphasis
added).
> Pointing out that power cords are similar to power cords isn't
> going to prove your point then.
Sure it can, when "OTHER electrical appliances" are involved
(emphasis added).
> You've got to show how power cords are similar to things that aren't
> power cords.
No I don't. That's like saying I have to show how buttons are
similar to things that aren't buttons, like knobs or sliders.
Or how keyboards are similar to things that aren't keyboards,
like microphones (note both can be used for input).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
