Linux-Advocacy Digest #785, Volume #30 Sun, 10 Dec 00 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review (Curtis)
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (mlw)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Static66)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Richard Storey)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Static66)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: Windows review (JM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:55:16 +0200
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nJJY5.17635$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > >So, you're advocating typing 5 or 15 keystrokes or possibly even more
to
> > >accomplish what can be done in two. How is this an improvement? Oh,
did
> > >you forget that most GUIs have keyboard shortcuts for common tasks?
> >
> > But the key-strokes aren't graphical features, and most functions
> > still require using the mouse
>
> Good God, man! When was the last time you SAW a GUI? At a guess, I'd say
> about '84. Clue-time: Try Windows. See all those menus up there? Notice
> the underlined letters in their names? Try pressing ALT and the
underlined
> letter, see what happens. Oh, my, a MIRACLE. Notice how the menu drops
> down? See all those lovely commands in the menu? Try pressing the
> underlined letter of the function you want. Or cursoring down to it.
> "Require the mouse."
>
> The only time you actually _need_ to use a mouse, at least under Windows,
> appears to be when using a program such as Corel Draw - a vector-based
> editing tool - and that only because trying to faff around with the
> thousands of vectors in a typical drawing, without a mouse, is a hellishly
> annoying process.
And if you *insist* on not doing it with the mouse, there is always
mousekeys, which lets you control the mouse pointer with the keyboard.
They can be useful at times.
Things in windows that *require* the mouse:
Most games.
Graphical programs. (Photoshop, Flash, PSP, and so on)
Anyone can think of other examples?
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:51:43 -0500
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > It's this VERY thing that annoys me about gui's. I am a touch
| > typist, so if I am doing any work with a gui, I'm always going
| > back and forth between mouse and keyboard.
|
| Why? I'm not. Ever heard of keyboard shortcuts?
Feh! If I had to navigate a GUI only with a keyboard it would indeed be
annoying and I'd use a CLI instead. :=)
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:52:25 +0200
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> | > It's this VERY thing that annoys me about gui's. I am a touch
> | > typist, so if I am doing any work with a gui, I'm always going
> | > back and forth between mouse and keyboard.
> |
> | Why? I'm not. Ever heard of keyboard shortcuts?
>
> Feh! If I had to navigate a GUI only with a keyboard it would indeed be
> annoying and I'd use a CLI instead. :=)
Why?
Navigating through GUI with a keyboard is easy once you know the shortcuts.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:08:54 -0500
Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:43:19 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Most of the "best" computer guys I know do not have degrees. I do not
> >put much stock in "degrees" so much as I put stock in people. When I see
> >people using a degree as a status symbol, it simply means, to me, that
> >they have no real love of what they had supposedly gone to school to
>
> Yawwnn.... Sounds like you couldn't make the cut. SOrry to hear that.
I neither confirmed nor denied any such status. You are making
assumptions, but, hey what can we expect from an "ME" you're, like,
qualified to do ... what?
Anyway, it hardly qualifies you to have any opinion (of any importance),
what so ever, on computers. Unless you want to admit that the validity
of ones knowledge is a product of personal experience and a dedication
to learning. In which case, you make my point for me.
If you continue to post about Linux, you confirm my position more and
more with each post. If you go away, I would have to admit that you
believe that you are right.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:33:47 GMT
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 07:37:02 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:15:15 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 01:16:02 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I read that they haven't built a power plant in over 15 years, yet
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> that same time the population of california has basically
>> >> >> doubled...piss poor government planning..
>> >> >
>> >> >How DARE you question the wisdom of the past Republican
>> >> >administrations?
>> >> >CA government has built a *lot* of new jails ... and, in their
>> >> >wisdom,
>> >> >has cut back on building schools and universities because they know
>> >> >that
>> >> >the jail inmates won't be needing the schools. }: )
>> >>
>> >> you don't think the rise in crime is a direct result of the rise in
>> >> population?
>> >
>> >That and a lack of education. Now, the recent drop in the crime rate,
>> >which cannot be attributed to the death penalty because it happened in
>> >all states, might be attributable to legalized abortions.
>>
>> OK
>> >
>> >>I think the jails were in order. then again if they would
>> >> execute the murderers, child molesters and other criminal deviants,
>> >> I'm sure we could use that money for schools instead of jails.
>> >
>> >It costs as much to execute someone as it does to keep him in jail for
>> >the rest of his life. And a frightening number of people on death row
>> >are innocent. Moreover, murder, child molestation, and "criminal
>> >deviance" -- whatever that is -- are not high on the list of violent
>> >crimes that people suffer. Drug abuse, theft, robbery, assault are the
>> >problems. You'd execute pot smokers?
>>
>> So in your mind child molesters should walk?
>
>All or nothing, eh? There are options besides killing someone and
>letting him go free. No, I think that repeat-offender rapists and child
>molesters should undergo subincision. And I don't mean just a short cut
>at the head, but slice the urethra all the way down the shaft, so they
>have to sit to pee. They will never be able to inseminate someone, and
>will also have premature ejaculation.
>
Yes I think so. A person who purpetraits a crime against children
should have their life taken. game over. period. Repeat offenders>??
oohh thats great let em destroy two lives now instead of one. Cutting
their unit off [what about the small # of women who commit these
crimes] is not enough they can still do harm. Just think about what
kind of person it takes to do those horrific things to a child. I am
not an uncompasionate person, I simply refuse to feel sorry for these
people.
I don't see the problem with US as a society standing up and saying NO
WE are not going to tolerate this insane criminal behavior at all. The
criminal deviance I spoke of is simple:
Murder
Rape
Crimes aginst children period.
you commit one of those crimes you should be walked to the gallows
and hung. Or walked to a wall and shot. [no blindfold].
I believe our criminal justice system has grown soft where it should
not have. We allow criminals to hide behind the law. In most cases
they have more rights than their victims.
>> No I think pot is less harmful than alcohol actually.
>> Crack,herion,cocaine, meth thats another story.
>
>I agree with you, but this is beside the point.
>
>> it does not cost more to execute a murderer than to jail him for life.
>> Validate your claim with data...
>
>http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/04/16/deathrow16.shtml
I Think this speaks more for the need to reform the justice system
than to not executed criminals.
>
>
>> >> I think the lack of power is a direct result of the enviro-nazi
>> >> crusade underway in the country. Having worked in california and being
>> >> directly responsible for my companies "Hazmat" operation I think I can
>> >> speak knowledgeably on that.
>> >
>> >Fine. Have it your way: chop down all the trees, dam all the rivers,
>> >suck out all the oil, burn all the coal and fiss all the uranium. Never
>> >mind that you will have a countryside as polluted as Eastern Europe:
>> >we'll all be rich.
>>
>> All or nothing huh?? couldn't possibly build a responsible and safe
>> facility could we..might kill a ladybug in the process. maybe we
>> should outlaw electricity...
>
>These things can be done responsibly ... that's what the ecologists
>want. (Well, they do go annoyingly apeshit at the mere mention of
>"radiation." They need to chill out a bit over that issue and learn the
>facts. Just as an aside, if you had a choice between sitting on a 1kg
>block of some material with a radioactive half-life of, say, fifty years
>and a 1kg block of some material with a radioactive half-life of, say,
>fifty million years, which would you sit on?)
>
>And it's not just the snail darter; it's the whole watershed. It's not
>just the spotted owl; it's the whole forest.
------------------------------
From: Richard Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:35:25 GMT
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:03:12 -0700, "Keith W. Peterson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >. In the
> >two weeks since I have had Linux, I have spent double the time on the
> >Linux system because it just kicks butt!
>
>
> I'll bet you have, it most likely took you that long to figure out how
> to get it to dial the internet.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
I just installed Linux-Mandrake 7.2 last night. It took me circa 3 minutes
to get connected to the internet. That includes typing and swinging my
chair around to get the DNS numbers for Earthlink out of a file drawer.
I've been using MS Wincrapper since 1993, from 3.1 to 98SE (only what comes
on my machines as I'd never go to the store and purchase the crap). If I
am lucky, it will take me circa 15 mins. from start to finish to install
Dialup Networking, configure it, and dial in. Sometimes I've had to get on
the phone with the ISP's tech support and go through the settings in the
networking configs. to find something that wasn't right, which could take
hours to accomplish.
Let's see now:
Linux-Mandrake, 3 mins.
Microsoft Wincrapper, 15 (fast), 3 hours (slow)
I'd say Linux wins here. Wouldn't you? (Oh, you probably weren't serious
about the two weeks part, right? Or did it just take *you* two weeks?)
BTW, and this is a big BTW. I FIND THAT WHEN CONNECTED WITH LINUX I DON'T
GET DROPPED AS MUCH, I CONNECT FASTER, STAY CONNECTED LONGER AND,
SOMETIMES, I CAN DOWLOAD FASTER. I don't know why, but experience, so far,
tells me this. I downloaded from Linux Mandrake's site at a rate 20k/sec.
on a 56k modem connection (I know this must be right because of the
time/MBs ratio--I didn't want to believe it at first, but time-to-file size
confirmed it).
So, just stick to the Wincrapper, if it works for you. Personally, I can't
take all of the crashes. I'm using Linux on a dual-boot basis to
experiment with replacing Wincrapper. Right now, it's a matter of
available applications. I've noticed the gap seems to be closing, though.
For basic office needs Linux is getting closer to Wincrapper each quarter.
--R.S.
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:38:27 GMT
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:17:27 -0800, JFW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:33:47 -0500, Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Static66 wrote:
>>
>>> I read that they haven't built a power plant in over
>>> 15 years, yet in that same time the population of
>>> california has basically doubled...piss poor
>>> government planning..
>>
>>Nobody will ever allow one to be built near their
>>homes; neither Republican nor Democrat, neither
>>black nor white, neither WinTroll nor Maccie.
>
>And of course, in say California, there aren't areas which _aren't_ by
>anyone's homes, right? Sorry, that's a provably false argument.
>Yeesh, there are areas where you could test gigaton thermonuclear
>weapons, and the only impact to humans would be secondary. I think if
>any state can support nuclear development, it's CA.
>
>Not to mention the fact that other states, which have embraced nuclear
>power, like IL, etc. don't seem to the radioactive wastelands the
>arguments of the anti-nuclear folks insist they'd become.
>
>>We can't build them in the cities or in the
>>suburbs. Even when they're proposed for some
>>out-of-the-way spot where very few people live,
>>the proposals meet heavy opposition.
>
>They meet heavy opposition by folks who, quite frankly, will not
>tolerate ANY new power plant construction. I'm sorry, if new plants
>MUST be constructed, the first group of people I'd stop listening to
>is the folks who object to ANY new construction at all.
>
>Power outages kill people. People die from hypothermia, they die from
>the lack of power to provide important medical services, they die from
>the intrinsic breakdowns of communication and regulation (think
>traffic lights) that occur during power outages.
Not to mention the mobs of criminals that seem to crawl out under
cover of darknes to loot without the threat of alarms. Then there is
of course the cost to keep extra police on duty.
>
>"No more, at ALL" is killing people. I'm tired of supporting folks
>who by their actions demonstrate a depraved indifference to the death
>of others. There is NO logically supportable argument which justifies
>"No more, at all."
>
>jfw
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:48:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> >> Actually, the REAL problem is that the ECO-NUTS in California shut
> >> down practically every fission power project that came down the pike
> >> in the 1970's.
>
> Blame the correct cause. Every project under design or planning being canceled
> by the utilities after Three-Mile Island.
>
Not by the utilities, but by State and Federal regulators. The utilities
would like to build more plants : they make more money. In the absence
of more plants, they will just raise prices. That is a dead end for
them, as older plants break down and become obsolete.
> >> If those plants had been built, a lot of oil-fired and coal-fired
> >> plants would have been taken off-line a long time ago AND Cali.
> >> would STILL have surplus capacity.
>
> >Not to mention the growth here. I mean, jesus, we don't have enough power
> >for the people here, yet I've not heard a single official (or SDG&E reps)
> >suggest that perhaps we should slow down the massive home building constantly
> >going on here. What's going to happen in a year, or two when our population
> >grows by that much more?
>
> >I shudder to think.
>
> >--
> >Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
> >Homer Simpson: "To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's
> >problems." -- Simpsons
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:50:21 GMT
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Actually, the REAL problem is that the ECO-NUTS in California shut
> > down practically every fission power project that came down the pike
> > in the 1970's.
> >
> > If those plants had been built, a lot of oil-fired and coal-fired
> > plants would have been taken off-line a long time ago AND Cali.
> > would STILL have surplus capacity.
>
> Not to mention the growth here. I mean, jesus, we don't have enough power for
> the people here, yet I've not heard a single official (or SDG&E reps) suggest
> that perhaps we should slow down the massive home building constantly going on
> here.
Why should they. More people = more money.
>What's going to happen in a year, or two when our population grows by
> that much more?
California is going to try to steal power from the other states. If AL
Gore is president and pushes the California Liberal Agenda, there is a
good chance that there will be enough anger in the other states to cut
the feeds to California.
>
> I shudder to think.
>
> --
> Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
> Homer Simpson: "To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's
> problems." -- Simpsons
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:52:00 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve Mading writes:
> > >
> > > >>>> 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.
> > >
> > > >>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
> > > >>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
> > > >>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
> > >
> > > >> Depends on what you consider "off" to be. When you turn your
> > > >> microwave oven off, do you expect it to lose the time? (Yes,
> > > >> that does presuppose an oven with a clock on the display.
> > > >> Are there any new models that don't have one of those built in?)
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
> > >
> > > Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
> > >
> > > > If they had them, then yeah, I'd expect them to at least turn
> > > > the display off, and go down to a trickle that only serves
> > > > to maintain a few K of RAM (for the clock and maybe some programs)
> > > > (which takes very little power, as evidenced by calculators and
> > > > watches, and could be done by battery like it is for CMOS
> > > > settings on computers.)
> > >
> > > Even with the display on, it could still be a trickle.
> >
> > All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a major
> > problem in California. The issue of all these devices still drawing
> > power is keeping a load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
> > That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is putting
> > a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
> > future. Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
> > to get a lot of people killed.
>
> Actually, the REAL problem is that the ECO-NUTS in California shut
> down practically every fission power project that came down the pike
> in the 1970's.
>
> If those plants had been built, a lot of oil-fired and coal-fired
> plants would have been taken off-line a long time ago AND Cali.
> would STILL have surplus capacity.
>
As supporting evidence : both England and France have gone 100% nuclear
and have no problem.
> > --
> > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not Powered by ActiveX
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:05:52 +0200
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:35:57 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> The difference is, how long does it take to do it? And how easy is it?
>> With a GUI, you have to look constantly at where you're going, moving
>> the mouse to exactly the wright position etc. With a command line,
>> it's just a couple of seconds typing. Also, you don't need to go
>> opening slow programs like Explorer.
>ctrl+shit+E - luanch explorer
Nope: that tries to check my mail.
>F6 - go to adress line
Nope, that flicks between windows.
>"My d" -- write four characters.
Haven't even got there yet.
>Down arrow -- Select "My Documents from the drop down menu.
>Alt+F -- Go to File menu
>Enter -- go to New menu
>Enter -- Select Folder
>"I_am_a_directory" -- Enter new name.
None of them make any sense when I'm not even there yet.
>29 keystrokes.
Whilst waiting for each window/menu to come up.
>compare to:
><win-key>+R -- luanch Run meu.
>cmd -- load CLI
>mkdir "C:\my documents\I_am_a_directory" -- this is how it would work.
Why depends on you already using a GUI. The way I remember it, I was
trying to do it using a CLI. Using a CLI would mean not having to load
the command interpreter in the first place.
Also, you already know what you're going to type, so you don't have to
look where you're going. Also, not every function has a shortcut key.
>better approach in CLI:
>md c:\mydoc~1\I_am_a_directory
>30 keystrokes only for the command, I got one less keystroke using the GUI,
>no mouse involved.
The thing is, most people using a GUI wouldn't know the shorcut
commands, whereas people using CLIs would already know the commands.
Having to use keys whilsts using a GUI sort of defeats one of the main
object of having a GUI, especially in Windows, is so that it is easy
for people to use without having to memorise shortcut keys.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:05:53 +0200
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:48:11 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> >
>> > Click to sort by type, click to select the first, shift-click to select
>the
>> > last, copy... oh, wait, did I create the folder? Nope. Damn. Create
>> > folder. Hmm, let's check free space... yes, okay, lots of free space.
>What
>> > was I doing? Oh, yeah... right-click, paste.
>> >
>> > move *.txt ../newdir^C
>> > mkdir ../newdir
>> > free
>> > move *.txt ../newdir
>> >
>> > Your way accomplishes the same thing... without the flexibility... at
>the
>> > expense of about 30 extra keystrokes, as opposed to about 6 mouse
>clicks.
>> > How is your way better?
>>
>> How many keystrokes equal a mouse click might be a reasonable question.
>> For example, to move to the top of this window to save this message, I
>have
>> to drag the mouse up there, slow down as I approach the File menu, then
>> click. A reasonable typist could type maybe 5 letters in that time.
>> A fast typist might do 15. So you're example could equate the 6 mouse
>clicks
>> with up to 90 keystrokes. And more if you have to wait for
>Windozzzzzzzzzz to
>> look up the code that displays the menu, load it, then load the menu
>itself.
>Get a news reader that support keyboard shortcuts, saves a *lot* of time.
Agent is much better for using the keyboard. However, not all of the
functions have shortcut keys, which is somewhat irritating having to
navigate menus all the time.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:05:54 +0200
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:55:50 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:15:29 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >> How many keystrokes equal a mouse click might be a reasonable question.
>> >> For example, to move to the top of this window to save this message, I
>> >have
>> >> to drag the mouse up there, slow down as I approach the File menu, then
>> >> click.
>>
>> >Or hit CTRL-S to save, ALT-S to send (particulars on the latter may vary
>> >with your client). Two keystrokes.
>>
>> And such things are available for every command?
>Yes, or there should be.
>Marksman of a good GUI program, infact.
But how many actually do?
>> >> A reasonable typist could type maybe 5 letters in that time.
>> >> A fast typist might do 15.
>> >
>> >So, you're advocating typing 5 or 15 keystrokes or possibly even more to
>> >accomplish what can be done in two. How is this an improvement? Oh, did
>> >you forget that most GUIs have keyboard shortcuts for common tasks?
>> But the key-strokes aren't graphical features, and most functions
>> still require using the mouse, whereas CLI based programs always use
>> quick key patterns.
>No, they aren't, you can do practically everything via the keyboard.
No you can't.
>And CLI isn't always better.
When did anybody say it was? When? Can you give us a quote where
anyone has said that a CLI is ALWAYS better? Can you?
>Frex, how do I move all the files above 10MB from directory A to directory B
>using cli?
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
