Linux-Advocacy Digest #838, Volume #30           Wed, 13 Dec 00 05:13:03 EST

Contents:
  Linux doesn't support P4 (Pete Goodwin)
  Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Paul Colquhoun)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Matthew Soltysiak)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT ("craig nellist")
  Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (mitch)
  Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (mitch)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
  Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:32:06 GMT

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/15416.html

--
---
Pete


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: no.alt.arkiv,tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:47:03 GMT

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:55:41 +0800, Jackal Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|Paul Colquhoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|wrote:
|> That report is 18 months old. Here is a more recent report
|> where Linux outperforms Windows by about 3 to 1
|>
|> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-07-05-001-04-OP
|>
|> 18 months is a long time in the computer industry.
|
|The two machines have DIFFERENT hardware configurations. There is no base
|for comparision. This report does not show that Linux outperforms Windows in
|any sense... :-|


OK, here are the hardware differences, as listed on the above web site:

    Both machines are Dell PowerEdge 6400/700, one running Red Hat Tux 1.0 and
    the other running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. Both were running with 4 CPU's
    (700MHz Pentium III Xeon), 4 Network Controllers and 8GB of RAM. 

    There were a few differences in the hardware: the W2K machine had 7 9GB
    10kRPM hard drives with a Dell PERC2 Disk Controllers and the Tux 1.0
    machine had 5 9GB 10kRPM hard drives with an Adaptec AIC-7899 SCSI Disk
    Controller. In addition, the Client machines, while being very similar in
    configuration, had the same brand of Network Controller (Alteon) but a
    different model number for the W2K test (AceNIC PCI) than the one for the
    Tux 1.0 test (AceNIC 1000SX).

Looking at the full disclosure config information, the server's disks
were configured as

IIS : One 9GB 10KRPM disk for OS and paging, 2 for logs, and 4 striped for web pages.
TUX : 1 disk for OS and logs, 4 disk software RAID0 stripe, using 2MB chunk size, for 
fileset.


Now this is starting to look weighted *towards* IIS !

The PERC2 is a hardware RAID controller, the TUX box was using software RAID.
The IIS server has 2 seperate disks dedicated to logs, the TUX box was logging
to the OS disk.

Both of these should have given the IIS server an edge in performance.

Or perhaps those client network cards are the cause? The network performance would need
to be abysmal to account for a factor of 2.6 in the results.

The results are listed on this page
( http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2 ) and reproduced here
without the hyperlinks.

The exact configurations for the Dell 6400/700 servers are at:

IIS 5.0 : http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000501-00028.html
TUX 1.0 : http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000626-00054.html


Company              System Name        Result  HTTP Version  CPU #
Compaq Alphaserver   DS20 6/667           1050   Zeus 3.3.5    2
Dell                 PowerEdge 2400/667    732   IIS 5.0       1   ******
Dell                 PowerEdge 2400/667   1270   TUX 1.0       1   ******
Dell                 PowerEdge 4400/800   2200   TUX 1.0       2
Dell                 PowerEdge 6400/700   1598   IIS 5.0       4   ******
Dell                 PowerEdge 6400/700   4200   TUX 1.0       4   ******
Hewlett-Packard      HP 9000 Model A500     NC   Zeus 3.3.6    1
Hewlett-Packard      HP NetServer LT6000  1155   IIS 5.0       2
Hewlett-Packard      HP NetServer LT6000   925   IIS 5.0       2
IBM                  Netfinity 5600        788   IIS 5.0       1
IBM                  Netfinity 7600        968   IIS 5.0       1
IBM                  Netfinity 7600       1182   IIS 5.0       2
IBM                  Netfinity 7600       1570   IIS 5.0       4
IBM                  Netfinity 5100        746   IIS 5.0       1
IBM                  Netfinity 5100       1001   IIS 5.0       2
IBM                  Netfinity 7600        690   IIS 5.0       1
IBM                  Netfinity 6000R      1182   IIS 5.0       2
IBM                  Netfinity 6000R      1582   IIS 5.0       4
IBM                  RS/6000 7026-H80     2200   Zeus 3.3.5    6
IBM                  RS/6000 7026-M80     3216   Zeus 3.3.5    8


And the *REALLY* fun figures are the PowerEdge 2400/667 results.

Not only did TUX beat IIS (again) for this configuration, by almost 1.73 to 1,
but the single CPU TUX server posted a score that is only 79.5% of the 4 CPU IIS
score!


-- 
Reverend Paul Colquhoun,      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church    http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
            a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.

------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 08:36:21 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 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.

False.

:> 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.

Yeah I know - more precision is needed.

:> The cursor keys require accuracy,

: Incorrect; it's easy to undo an incorrect motion operation, and
: I have fewer of those than with hjkl.

Okay, they only require accuracy if you don't want to waste your
time.

:> 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.

Notice the plural in the phrase "hit them several times".  Note I
did not say, "hit it several times".  Autorepeat doesn't help much
when you hit something like "up/up/left/left"

:> so hitting them with a twisted wrist, using your stretched
:> pinkie, doesn't work.

: Works just as well as for the Esc key.

I will never agree to that premise without a demonstration.  It
doesn't seem possible if you are a human being using a standard
keyboard.


------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 08:44:57 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:

:> Admitedly, those presumptions could have been wrong.

: As well as your presumption that the Esc key is closer than the
: cursor keys.

A. Measure the distance from 'a' to escape.  (left pinkie)
B. Measure the distance from 'j' to left-arrow, or 'k' to up
and down arrows, or 'l' to right arrow. (right-hand's three
fingers that operate the arrows).

Roughly, 2*A = B.  Sure some keyboards differ a bit, but not
enough to make A > B (the only exception I'm aware of being
some laptop keyboard layouts).

Unless B>A on your keyboard, stop making this absurd assertion.

------------------------------

From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 13 Dec 2000 08:47:43 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In article <KmcZ5.23080$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> Steve Mading writes:

: -- snip --

:> > 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.

: Or when they are dealing with someone as pedantic as you are, and
: realize the futility of trying to have a decent conversation with
: someone so pedantic. the irony is that, while you whine about being
: insulted, your pedanticism equally insulting.

You're giving him too much credit.  Pendanticism is when you
get really picky about the details to say things that are
technically true, but only if you split hairs.  Tholen isn't
even right on the details he's mentioning.  The cursor keys are
not closer to their home fingers than the escape key.


------------------------------

From: Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:53:17 GMT

Chad C. Mulligan wrote:

> 
> "Matthew Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > > Open source is dying. It is being hijacked by the Corporate big wigs.
> Sun,
> > > Corel, Redhat and IBM are doing everyone a favor by destroying the
> anarchy
> > > that is open source software.
> >
> > Ok????   That's the first time i've heard of that.  Open source that's
> > anarchy.  Hmm.
> >
> > > I just started a download of StarOffice 5.2.
> > > (no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year ago)
> > > and
> had
> > > to submit a lengthy registration document and license agreement with
> Sun.
> > > Free software indeed.  Now I have an additional, largely useless,
> > > office
> > > application, but I'll be bombarded by advertising from Sun.  I'd
> > > rather
> pay
> > > and not have these intrusions into my life.
> >
> > You don't have to provide your personal information to them.  Just fill
> > in
> > their fields with garbage information.  Geez.
> >
> 
> Wrong Answer.  It ran a check on the street address and zipcode.
> 
> > --
> > Matthew Soltysiak
> > Comp Sci/Soft Eng
> > ICQ: 3063118
> >
> >
> 
> 
That's where you have to be tricky.  Fill in an address of your neighbour's 
address, along with the same ZIP code, etc.  Or any other address in your 
neighbourhood.  That will sufice.
-- 
Matthew Soltysiak
Carleton U
Comp Sci/Soft Eng.
icq: 3063118

------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 08:49:16 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

: What I said is also actually true.  Where is the alleged difference?

The only possible answer to this is to merely repeat what I've already
said, that you deny.  Repeating it again is pointless.


------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 09:03:23 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:

:> There I go being presumptuous again.

: More like a reading comprehension problem on your part.  You also thought
: that Aaron wrote that nothing is intuitive.

No, I didn't, Mr Pendantic.  I just forgot to type it in one reply
of many.


------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 09:05:30 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


: My statement wasn't applied to "at the time".  I'm talking about now.

You didn't say so.  (See I can be a pendantic pain too.  Your game is
fun.)


------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 09:01:45 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:

:>>>> And that somehow makes the use of hjkl for cursor movement intuitive?

:>>> It is neither intuitive nor non-intuitive, since the term is so
:>>> relative that you've have to spend a long time detailing all the
:>>> user's previous circumstances before you can make a statement
:>>> either way on it.

:>> How many users have previous editor experience where the cursor is
:>> controlled by the hjkl keys?

: Note:  no response.

I don't have the timne to repeat the same fucking thing over and over.
You play a game where he with the most free time wins the debate (just
keep denying what the opponent says, and keep repeating the same
questions until the other guy quits.)


: Why make an irrelevant point?  If you'd been paying attention, you'd
: already know that I've said that intuition is not an absolute.

Yes, *And* you have made statements like "hjkl is not intuitive",
which CANNOT be made bare like that if intuitiveness is not absolute.
You aren't being consistent.

: I disagree.  Just because it isn't an absolute doesn't necessarily
: make it "vague and slippery".

:> Unless you feel like getting pendantic enough to list zillions of
:> criteria, the term won't mean anything.

: Funny how so many people make valid use of it without listing zillions
: of criteria.

:> (This is not the same as what Aaron was saying, that nothing can be
:> intuitive.

: That's not what he said.  He said that nothing about computers is
: intuitive.  He distinctly called a wagon intuitive.  It's now quite
: clear where the problem is:  you don't pay attention to what you
: read.

Why assume reading comprehension problems?  The problem in this
case was typing too quickly.  I left off the phrase "about computers"
accidentally.

Lay off the double-standard.  You constantly use shorthand and
leave off the qualifiers when you discuss intuitiveness.

:> Things can be intuitive, but in a way that is not nearly
:> as universally applicable as the user interface designers trick
:> themselves into thinking.

: Who said anything about "universally applicable"?

You, every time you make a statement about intuitiveness
without qualifiers.  Now, if you weren't so fucking pendantic
with everyone else, I'd be more willing to cut you some slack
and not be pendantic with you.

------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 09:13:59 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:

:> For the same reason lots of other totally relative terms with no
:> concrete meaning exist - we are emotional creatures, and have lots
:> of vague words that have no place in a logical discussion.

: So, you're arguing that anything that isn't an absolute has no place
: in a logical discussion?

There isn't a concrete cutoff line, since everything in natural
languages is at least slightly relative.  I put "intuitive" way
out there as much more realative than words like "twist" or
"stretch", which describe specific types of motion.  Yes, I do
see it as vague and fuzzy as words like "nice".  This is the main
point of the article Aaron was citing way back at the start of
this - the word isn't as concrete as people have tricked themselves
into thinking it is, and as such, things that have been labelled as
"intuitive" interfaces are much less so than we thought.


------------------------------

From: "craig nellist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:35:58 +1100


"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Yes.  Develop your proprietary Windows gui client interface using
> GCC.  Works great for linux and X but is a poor tool for Windows
> and further, nobody's really using it anyway.

Really? That's funny -- I've created gui Win32 apps using free compilers. If
you knew anything about writing gui win32 apps, you'd know it's quite easy
with free tools. Have a look at vide (& weditres especially).

[snip'd useless insults]

> Business's don't use GCC for anything Fukenbush.

Surveyed every business developing for Windows have you? I'm just one
'business' developer who regularly uses GCC / lcc-win32 / etc. I'm sure I'm
not the only one.

> Your so stupid it's absolutely funny.

You're so wrong it's scary.

> Charlie

Cheers,
 Craig.



------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:33:16 GMT

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:56:49 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>But INFERIOR OPERATING SYSTEMS ==> Inferior applicatoins.
>
>There's no getting around this.


Utter pish.

It is entirely possible for an application on an inferior operating
system to be far better than the equivalent application on a superior
operating system.

-- 
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
 - Geoff Miller

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:41:46 GMT

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:47:40 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>>
>> Better operating systems != Better applications.
>
>This is patently false. A non-multithreading OS will not support a
>multithreaded application.
>An OS which does not support virtual memory will not allow an application to
>allocate things which are bigger than RAM.
>Better operating systems make better software easier to write.
>[snip]
>

Hehe. Multithreading and Virtual memory does not instrinsically endow
a poor application with greatness.  The lack of these properties of
the OS, if the application is used productively and without problems,
is irrelevant.  

>> Basically, linux isn`t soooo much better than windows, such that it is
>> going to persuade developers to cross-over, yet.  That day will come,
>> I`m sure, but until it does, I`ll stick with the apps I use on
>> windows.
>
>Linux is amazingly better than Windows. It is the fact that you use Windows
>and are used to rebooting, crashing, and poor performance that you accept it.
>

I`m no Windows/Microsoft zealot.  Please don`t assume that I am,
simply because I use it.  I am a huge fan of linux, but liking
something, and actually using it to be productive are two entirely
different water boiling utensils containing water dwelling life forms.

-- 
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
 - Geoff Miller

------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 09:40:58 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:

:> That's hilarious - yo do realize that more uses hjkl too, right?

: You do realize that you don't need to use hjkl to view a document
: using more either?

Big deal.  You don't *need* to use hjkl either.  It's just one
of several mappings, just like it is in vi.  I was just commenting
on the fact that you picked 'more' as an example of a non-vi-like
viewer when it shares so many keymappings with vi.

:> Sure, you can go down a line with 'return', but that's the same
:> as in 'vi'.

: You can go down a screen with the space bar.

You mean it doesn't go one character forward?  Gee, I guess that
makes more less intuitive than vi in that regard, using similar
logic to your own.

:>> There is no need to move a cursor around in an unmodified document.

:> Not true.  What if you want to look for something ("Please find the
:> word "goose" in this document")?

: You don't use hjkl.

So what?  Your exact verbatim statement was that there was "no need to
move a cursor around in an unmmodified document."  The /pattern
search is all that is sufficient to make that statement false.  How do
you like it when people get pendantic with you, huh?

: Finding an occurrence of a string is a rather different matter from
: simply viewing a document.  The latter was what he brought up.

Why?  By that logic, I could say that inserting text is a different
matter than moving the cursor, and therefore it doesn't matter if
you have to switch modes between those two tasks.

:>>>>> d/foo<enter> = delete until the pattern "foo"

:>>>> As opposed to "delete the pattern 'foo'".

:>>> Yes, /foo positions you to the beginning, not the end of the
:>>> matched pattern.

:>> My point is that its action isn't intuitive.

:> To whom?

: To someone who hasn't used it before.  Who else?  Intuition

NO - To someone who has NOT seen d/foo before, but HAS
used the 'd' command, and the /foo mover, it is intuitive
how they go together.

: You have a peculiar notion of intuition.  Needing to know a bunch
: of things suddenly makes something intuitive.

There you go leaving off the qualifiers again.  To someone who KNOWS
those other things already, they can INTUIT the way they can be
combined to make the d/foo command.  I thought you claimed you
never used "intuitive" unqualified.  Here you just did it again.


: Thus the symbol is overloaded, and not consistent.

<sarcasm>
Yeah, let's stop using all those overloaded keys like "ctrl',
and 'return' (does it break a line or does it pick a menu
option from a drop-down, or does it select the "ok" of an
ok/cancel dialog? Oh, crap it does three different things
depending on context! Oh, no, how un-intuitive!)
</sarcasm>

:>>>>> 4dj = delete current and 4 lines going down

:>>>> Assuming you remember which letter is for up and down.

:>>> Which you don't have to consider a special case.

:>> Is 4dk a special case?

:> It fits the generic pattern: {number}{command}{movement}

: I see you missed my point.

What?  You asked if it was a special case.  I showed that it isn't.
I'm sorry if "no" wasn't the answer you were looking for.

:> Ctrl-V is common in many other unix interactive tools.

: Backslash is common in many other UNIX applications.

Yeah.  And?  Now are you trying to assert that something needs to be
universally used in every other context on the computer to be
intuitive?  That leads right into Aaron's conclusion, since it
sets to bar too high for anything to ever achieve it.

:> I use it at the shell all the time.

: Do you consider yourself a UNIX novice?

Irrelevant.  This is about mapping knowlege outside vi to
knowlege inside vi.  (ctrl-V).  

:> It's mnemonic is "verbatim", as in, "Do this next character verbatim,
:> ignoring any special meaning it may have."

: And do you consider the mnemonic intuitive?

Of course not.  NO mnemonic is intuitive, since the English language
has so many synonyms it isn't obvious which one to use for a function.
(Is this operation called delete, or remove, or throw away, or destroy,
etc.)  Mnemonics are for remembering things after the first time, not
for intuiting them the first time.

I fail to see how this is relevant, since all I was pointing out is
that vi is not the only application to use ctrl-V for literalizing
verbatim special characters.

------------------------------

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: 13 Dec 2000 09:51:47 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

: I suggest you learn the definition of intuition.  Knowing how to
: brush your teeth in the morning because you've been doing it for
: years doesn't mean it's now intuitive.

I suggest you pay attention to what we are saying.  We aren't
talking about someone repeating the *same* command, but
someone coming up with a NEW command that is built by putting
together previously known information - as with this d/foo
example.  It could be intuitive to someone who had NEVER done
it before but HAD done other d-something commands, and had
done other /something searches.

: I learned to use Alt-C to mark a block column; vi doesn't let me
: re-use that.  I learned to use Alt-W to write a buffer to disk;
: vi doesn't let me re-use that.  I learned to use Alt-X to exit
: the editor; vi doesn't let me re-use that.  I learned to use the
: Home key to go to the top of the screen; vi doesn't let me re-use
: that.  Need I go on?

No, it's already clear you like taking statements out of context.
It was blatantly obvious he meant that Vi lets you use stuff you
learned *about Vi* in new ways.


:>> I see you missed my point.

:> I did as well.

: Glad you agree.

It's easy to miss points that are unstated, or not there.


------------------------------


** 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
******************************

Reply via email to