Linux-Advocacy Digest #815, Volume #30 Mon, 11 Dec 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) (Marty)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (tom)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: trapping ctrl-alt-del ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:47:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZfAX5.43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:ZRdX5.4296$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:LEyW5.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> > > Eric Meyer wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before
>> >> > complaining.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing
> Office
>> > (or
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > like),
>> >> >> >> > > > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > Em
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > RedHat installation is really easy... at least as easy as
>> > win95/98
>> >> >> >> > > installation... I've never installed any other distros...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Redhat custom install can be hard, because you need to
> repartition
>> >> > your
>> >> >> > HD.
>> >> >> >> > Server install should be avoided at all cost, RedHat somehow
>> > figured
>> >> > out
>> >> >> > if
>> >> >> >> > I choose to install a server, I have no need for information on
> my
>> >> > HDs.
>> >> >> > And
>> >> >> >> > so it deletes them happily without even asking my opinion about
>> > it.
>> >> >> >> > Never installed a workstation RH, can't say anything about it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Just read the guides first.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it is
>> > that
>> >> >> > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the
>> > installation.
>> >> >> > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action,
> you
>> >> > get a
>> >> >> > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most
>> >> > dangerous
>> >> >> > thing that you can do to your computer?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Reminds me of Windows, "are you sure ... " etc on every stupid
> thing.
>> >> >> Now even xcopy whines when you copy over a file. But, just double
>> >> >> click on a .reg file and it merges it into the registry! No
> questions
>> >> >> asked. I remember reading of someone that did this on a .reg file
> from
>> >> >> NT on W9x (or maybe vice versa) and destroyed his system.
>> >>
>> >> > No, if you double click a reg file, it tell you "Are you sure you
> want
>> > to
>> >> > add the information in <file name> to the registry?"
>> >>
>> >> No, it doesn't, it just blithely merges it into the registry.
>>
>> > It asks you, it doesn't merge anything to the registry by default
> without
>> > asking you.
>> > Here is what the path of the default actions ("Merge", in the registry
>> > [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\regfile\Shell\Open\Command\]) is: regedit.exe "%1"
>> > In order for the registry to accept these without giving warning, you
> need
>> > to do this: regedit.exe /y "%1"
>> > So, no, the default is to *ask* you first.
>> > This behaviour is consistent with every windows that I've worked with
>> > starting with 95 and upward.
>>
>> NO IT DOESN'T I have done it. Don't tell me what I know happened
>> didn't.
> I explained to you how this is done by default, I also explained that you
> need to change the default settings in order to make the program accept the
> reg file without prompting you.
You can "explain" all you want. I did _not_ change the registry.
> You changed the defaults, your problem.
Read the above. Don't tell me what I "did" just because it doesn't fit
with your preconceived notions.
> The default is that the regedit will ask you whatever you are sure you want
> to do this.
But it didn't! How many times do I have to repeat myself. Have you
been using GUI's too long?
Jerry
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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! (OT) (humor)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:44:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> David Ogg writes:
>
> > Wow, you three should get a room!
>
> Counting problems?
See what I mean about his illogic?
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:40:24 GMT
And now for another dumb question: What's anti-aliasing?
I haven't gotten far in the Font Deuglification how-to, but I applied
its initial suggestions about changing some lines in one of the config
files and things look better already just from doing that, so there
might be hope after all.
Tom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tom wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's sharp with EVERY windows manager.
> >
> > Can't get much the clearer than that. Then the answer is probably
> > somewhere in that Font Deuglification Mini HowTo. Thanks.
>
> I think you guys are miscommunicating.
>
> What Aaron was saying, I think, is that if you use the indicated video
> cards with a high resolution, you get crisp text for Linux
> out-of-the-box. I can second that, at least for the Millennium
card. I
> am currently using an old Matrox Millennium (circa '96, like his) at
> 1280x1024 resolution, and it looks great. I have definitely seen
> Windows systems that were not nearly so clear. (Unlike what the
> billfans do with Linux, I will not deceitfully generalize that to
*all*
> Windows systems.) I think that whatever system you are going to use,
a
> good video card and a good monitor are going to be prerequisites to a
> fine view. Whenever I build a system, I spend a pretty high
proportion
> of my budget on the video card and monitor; after all, that's the part
> you actually deal with the most. I would even buy a slower CPU if
> that's what it took to get a decent visual on the screen. And I do
some
> very CPU-intensive work.
>
> Try the deuglification if you are not fortunate enough to have a nice
> card. I can't vouch for the howto, because I've never had an
> opportunity to try it. I may try it at work over the winter break,
> unless of course I can wangle a nicer video card.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: 11 Dec 2000 23:46:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
:> Joe Malloy wrote:
:
:>> Tholen tholes:
:>>>> Silly me, I thought I was talking about text editors, not signs.
:>>> Something wrong with a simple analogy to help illustrate a point?
:>> Wattsamatta, Tholen, you don't like being called on the carpet for
:>> an inappropriate "analogy"?
:> No...what he objects to is the fact that ... Steve was right.
: Right about what, allegedly? There were several issues discussed,
: mostly diversions from the original issue, namely your ridiculous
: claim that nothing about computers is intuitive.
Your stance, (which I am getting by simply inverting Aaron's
claim - correct me if I'm wrong here), is that "At least some
things about a computer are intuitive". (This is the negation
of "nothing about a computer is intuitive.) The problem with
this statement is that natural languages like English often
lead to anbiguous statements, especially when the qualifiers
"some" or "all" are left off - because both are often equally valid
ways to interpet the statement, depending on the situation.
There are two ways, both equally valid, of interpeting the
statement "Some things about a computer are intuitive":
A) Some things about a computer are intiutive to all people.
B) Some things about a computer are intiutive to some people.
If your statement is (B), I agree with you. But I think Aaron
is assuming you are meaning (A), since that is often what it means
when someone leaves a qualifier off on a statement like that.
------------------------------
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: 11 Dec 2000 23:48:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The Ghost In The Machine writes:
:> So, to sum up:
:>
:> [1] Nothing is intuitive.
: You need to consult a manual for everything???
Do you consider a small folding card (of the type sometimes
found in O'Rielly books, or of the type published by SCC) to
be a "manual"? That's all I used to learn VI. It was about
10 inches by 11 inches, and I only used one side of it.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:09:03 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Hitting escape merely requires a small wrist and hand strectch,
>>> not a whole arm-swing.
>> Hitting the cursor keys merely requires a small wrist and hand stretch,
>> not a whole arm-swing.
> No, not on the standard 101 (or 104) key keyboard layout.
You're now qualifying your statement. Note that "standard" 101-key
keyboards still have variations among them.
> Maybe you have a different type of keyboard.
I have several keyboards.
> The human wrist doesn't bend 90 degrees,
Irrelevant, given that I never said it does.
> and even if it did, that would put the fingers aimed sideways
> and not at all lined up with the cursor keys. Maybe, just maybe
> you can get one pinkie there that way, but that is insufficient
> to operate the keys painlessly.
Maybe, just maybe you can get one pinkie up to the Esc key, but
that is insufficient to operate the key painlessly.
> The escape key is all by itself, one key, easy to 'whack' without
> needing much accuracy (if you get all 'butterfingers' and slap the
> key on the edge, that's good enough).
With other editors, I don't need to do that.
> The cursor keys require accuracy,
Incorrect; it's easy to undo an incorrect motion operation, and
I have fewer of those than with hjkl.
> and they require the hand to remain there for a while while
> you hit them several times,
Incorrect; my keyboard has autorepeat. I just hold the key down.
> so hitting them with a twisted wrist, using your stretched
> pinkie, doesn't work.
Works just as well as for the Esc key.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:49:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tholen tholes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whoa, this is the pot calling the kettle black! Pedantic to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of silliness, Tholen now turns around and uses pedanticism
>as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an attack. Great going, Tholen, you're really low on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency list now!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a reason why Tholen, in 12 years, has never budged from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TOP of my list as "GODDAMN STUPIDEST FUCKING IDIOT ON USENET"
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has he really been at it for TWELVE YEARS?!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not, Marty. Aaron is simply another in a series of liars.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen nothing that leads me to agree with you.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've seen nothing that leads you to agree with Aaron.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the lack of Aaron's evidence is precisely the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that you've seen nothing that leads you to agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Balderdash, Dave.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh really? Where's Aaron's evidence, allegedly?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>
> >>>>>> How ironic.
>
> >>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >>>> MA] Classic incorrect pontification.
>
> >>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>
> >> It's where the irony is, Marty.
>
> > Classic incorrect pontification.
>
> Incorrect, given that I reproduced the ironic statement, Marty.
Where, allegedly?
> >> Don't you remember what you asked me?
>
> > Certainly, which is why I recognized the inappropriateness of the
> > quotation.
>
> Non sequitur, given that you asked me for the relevance of the quotation,
> Marty.
One can ask a question when one knows the answer to it already. Haven't you
ever been the recipient of a math test in grade school?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Truly amazing that you think you know more about what I've
> >>>>>>>>>>> seen from Aaron than I do.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What's so amazing about knowing that Aaron hasn't presented any
> >>>>>>>>>> evidence to anyone about when I allegedly started posting to
> >>>>>>>>>> USENET, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>
> >>>>>> How ironic.
>
> >>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >>>> MA] Classic incorrect pontification.
>
> >>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>
> >> It's where the irony is, Marty.
>
> > Classic incorrect pontification.
>
> Incorrect, given that I reproduced the ironic statement, Marty.
Where, allegedly?
> >> Don't you remember what you asked me?
>
> > Certainly, which is why I recognized the inappropriateness of the quotation.
>
> Non sequitur, given that you asked me for the relevance of the quotation,
> Marty.
One can ask a question when one knows the answer to it already. Haven't you
ever been the recipient of a math test in grade school?
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Arrogance and stupidity in a single package. How efficient of you."
> >>>>>>>>>>> --Londo Mollari
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Applies to you, Marty. And Aaron.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Applies to you, Dave.
>
> >>>>>>>> What is allegedly arrogant or stupid about knowing when I started
> >>>>>>>> posting to USENET, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Classic pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >> MA] Classic pontification.
>
> > Of what relevance is this quotation?
>
> It's where the irony is, Marty.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if you can find a USENET posting from me that dates back
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1988, feel free to repost it. I know you can't. I know Aaron
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that time
>period.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What would you consider as proof, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's not my problem, now is it?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure it is, Marty, given that you're the one who wants prove that I
> >>>>>>>>>> didn't post anything in that time period.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I want to prove that you didn't post
> >>>>>>>>> anything in that time period.
>
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that
> >>>>>>>> time period."
> >>>>>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>
> >>>>>>> And where is the quote that's supposed to show that I want to prove that you
> >>>>>>> didn't post anything in that time period?
>
> >>>>>> "That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that
> >>>>>> time period."
> >>>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>
> >>>>> Repeating the same inappropriate quotation doesn't make it more appropriate,
> >>>>> Dave.
>
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that the quotation is inappropriate, Marty.
>
> >>> Not at all, Dave.
>
> >> Classic pontification.
>
> > How ironic.
>
> Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
DT] Classic pontification.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm content to believe what Aaron said.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why are you content with a lie, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Classic pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >> MA] Classic pontification.
>
> > Of what relevance is this quotation?
>
> It's where the irony is, Marty.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Truly amazing that both you and Aaron think you know more about when
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I started posting to USENET than I do.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't "think I know" anything about when you started posting. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> simply take Aaron's word over yours,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that he doesn't know what he's talking about, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't accept this weak and unsupported premise.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why don't you accept the truth, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Yet another example of your pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >> MA] Yet another example of your pontification.
>
> > Of what relevance is this quotation?
>
> It's where the irony is, Marty.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>>>>>>>>>> since neither of you can present evidence.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Above you considered it truly amazing that I think I know more about
> >>>>>>>>>> what you've seen from Aaron, Marty,
>
> >>>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>
> >>>>>>>> What is very good about your inconsistency, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> Another non sequitur.
>
> >>>>>> Another incorrect statement.
>
> >>>>> Still another example of your pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >> MA] Still another example of your pontification.
>
> > Of what relevance is this quotation?
>
> It's where the irony is, Marty.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>>>>>>>>> but here you just confirmed what I said about Aaron.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I did no such thing.
>
> >>>>>>>> Reread what you wrote, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Unnecessary.
>
> >>>>>> Then why did you say "I did no such thing", Marty?
>
> >>>>> Because I've done no such thing, Dave.
>
> >>>> Yet you found it necessary to say so.
>
> >>> Would you prefer that I allow you to mislead the readers by suggesting that I
> >>> have done such a thing?
>
> >> On what basis do you claim that I would be misleading the readers, Marty?
>
> > Are you suggesting that you haven't suggested that I have done such a thing?
>
> I've demonstrated that you did such a thing, Marty.
On the contrary, you've demonstrated your prowess with regard to
pontification.
> >>>>>>>>>> Typical inconsistency.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Typical illogical conclusion.
>
> >>>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Oh really? What is allegedly logical about jumping to a conclusion?
>
> >>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I jumped to a conclusion, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Not at all.
>
> >>>> Balderdash, Marty.
>
> >>> Oh really? How is it erroneous to presuppose something which has already
> >>> occurred?
>
> >> By erroneously presupposing that something has already occurred, Marty.
>
> > Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>
> Balderdash, Marty.
Oh really? What is allegedly logical about your circular reasoning?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Arrogance and stupidity in a single package. How efficient of you."
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --Londo Mollari
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where's the alleged irony, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>> See my usage of said quote.
>
> >>>>>>>> I already saw your inappropriate usage, Marty.
>
> >>>>>>> Impossible, given that there was no such inappropriate usage.
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Classic pontification.
>
> >>>> How ironic.
>
> >>> Where is the alleged irony?
>
> >> MA] Classic pontification.
>
> > Of what relevance is this quotation?
>
> It's where the irony is, Marty.
On what basis do you make this claim?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:16:10 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> Neato. Meanwhile us poor humans have fingers that don't bend that
>>>>> way. For us humans, to move the fingers 8 inches to the left
>>>>> requires that the *wrist* slides over, which means the the whole
>>>>> forearm is moving too, hinged at the elbow.
>>>> My keyboard has its cursor keys on the right, at about the same
>>>> distance from the home row as the Esc key.
>>> Then it doesn't look anything like any keyboard I've ever seen.
>> That's not my problem. You were the presumptumous one.
> Yes, I admit that I presumed you were referring to a keyboard that
> is actually out on the market somewhere,
I am.
> rather than some home-made thing,
Hardly.
> or some proprietary laptop one-of-a-kind layout.
Hardly one-of-a-kind. I have no idea whether it's considered
proprietary or not.
> I also presumed you weren't lying.
I'm not.
> Admitedly, those presumptions could have been wrong.
As well as your presumption that the Esc key is closer than the
cursor keys.
>>> The Escape key is close and easily whackable without
>>> looking, and without looking you can get your fingers
>>> right back to the home row without even feeling for the
>>> keys, my kinestetic sense just knows where to go, because
>>> I don't have to move the hand more than about 1/2 an inch,
>>> and that's a stretch-forward motion rather than a swing-
>>> sideways motion.
>> The cursor keys are close and easily whackable without looking,
>> and without looking you can get your fingers right back to the
>> home row without even feeling for the keys, my kinestetic sense
>> just knows where to go, because I don't have to move the hand
>> more than about 1/2 an inch, and that's a stretch-backward motion
>> rather than a swing-sideways motion.
> You enjoy this game of repeating what I say, replacing words with
> a fill-in-the-blank replacement.
There is no enjoyment involved. I'm simply showing that the same
situation applies to the cursor keys.
> But there is one key difference:
> What I said is actually universally true.
Balderdash.
> You are either lying or using some really unique keyboard layout
> and not telling anyone.
You just contradicted your "universally true" claim. Nevertheless,
the layout is hardly "unique".
>>> (Which is why it's easy to find the home row - just relax the
>>>> Those letters aren't on the home row.
>>> Yeah, the 'huh' was wondering how this relates to what I'm
>>> talking about.
>> You were talking about staying by the hjkl keys.
> Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that it is just as
> hard to find home row after stretching single fingers at a time,
> up and down one row (as in "yuiopnm") as it is after moving to
> the arrow keys?
"My kinestetic sense just knows where to go."
> You're daft.
And now you're getting insulting. No surprise there, actually.
It's not uncommon for people to resort to such language when
they have nothing else.
>> Irrelevant, given that I never stated otherwise.
>>> hjkl is the second-most minimal movement pattern you can have (right
>>> after 'jkl;').
>> Except that three letters only provide three motions. You need four
>> for a two-dimensional screen.
> Learn to count.
You're erroneously presupposing that I don't already know how to count.
> How many characters are there in "hjkl" and "jkl;" ?
jkl is only three letters.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: trapping ctrl-alt-del
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:09:08 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: "craig nellist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: trapping ctrl-alt-del
>
> > I'm still banking on Microsoft's habit of leaving holes. Even if I can't
> > find them, I know they exist - they always do.
>
> Well, maybe a hole does exist (it wouldn't surprise me), but it's probably
> not worth the time trying to find it :)
Nope, breaking a personal vow to the contrary, I've hitched myself up to a
software company doing some really wild stuff for several platforms. I
haven't had time for sleep (A 20 minute nap over the last 52 hours) let
alone play. I'm cruising COLA until the double vision eases up and the Kona
coffee kicks in. <g>
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
