Linux-Advocacy Digest #868, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (mitch)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:10:46 GMT
On 14 Dec 2000 05:01:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
>Only if you have no concept of logic, and/or the meanings of the words
>you have just used
>
>For instance, both aplications are 'equivalent',
>
>Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
>Equivalent \E*quiv"a*lent\, v. t.
> To make the equivalent to; to equal; equivalence. [R.]
>
>However one operating system is 'superior', therefore it is NOT possible
>for an application on an inferior operating system to be far better than
>the equivalent application on a superior operating system.
>
>inferior os + application != superior os + applicatio
>
>Therefore this is not true either:-
>
>inferior os + application > superior os + application.
>
LOL! OK, for the retentives out there, I maybe should have said,
rather than equivalence, something like "application with the same
purpose, and similar functionality". Happy now? BTW, that dictionary
needs updating... 1913? Jeez. (BTW, Equivalence is commonly used,
in English speaking countries, to mean 'peer','analogue', and
'approximation' amongst other things. It has never been used as far
as I know to mean *identical* in all respects. This has been a
public service broadcast for the dictionary demons on usenet...)
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:35:02 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:919g33$t46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Even cooler, they've already spent that much already. IBM has 1500
> Linux developers on the payroll now. That's committment.
Wow... 1500 developers... doing what? They don't seem to have contributed
much of anything back into the source pool.
------------------------------
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: Caifornia power shortage...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:10:34 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>> Russ Lyttle writes:
>>>>> All this from an simple intuitive power cord.
>>>> Incorrect; Aaron's claim that nothing about a computer is intuitive
>>>> preceded that.
>>> Which has been amply demonstrated in this thread.
>> On the contrary, nobody else has amply demonstrated the sequence of
>> claims in this thread.
>>> Tholen...
>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>> Once again, lacking a logical argument, you turn to invective. No
>> surprise there.
>> Kulkis, once you finally realize how insecure you are, maybe you'll
>> come back here an apologize some day.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, once you finally realize how insecure you are, maybe you'll
come back here an apologize some day.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:37:06 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Still, the point is mute seeing how Intel has recalled
> the CPU.
Just for your future reference, the word is "moot" (deprived of
practical significance) not "mute" (unable to speak.) Mind you, we
could do with some of the points being made round here rendered
mute... :^P
Donal.
--
"Understanding leads to tolerance, which in turn leads to acceptance. And from
there, it's just a quick hop to speeding in Ohio, chewing peyote, and
frottage in the woods with a family of moose. And I just want to claim my
part of the credit." -- bunnythor <[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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:29:05 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>> David Ogg wrote:
>>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>>>>> PS: Thanks for providing the new "seed" for another "logical debate".
>>>>> The old one was pretty-much spent.
>>>> More like a new "infantile game" of yours, Marty.
>>> Or more accurately, another opportunity for you to spew invective with
>>> impunity.
>> What alleged "invective", Marty?
> DT] More like a new "infantile game" of yours, Marty.
Where is the alleged invective, Marty? I'm simply using your own
description for your own behavior.
>>>> But you don't need any seed for that.
>>> On the contrary, I do, given that I have no idea how to play this
>>> alleged "infantile game".
>> Illogical, given that you described your behavior that way.
> Prove that I have described my current behavior this way, if you think
> you can.
You're presupposing your ability to comprehend proof, Marty. For
example, I proved that the subject of another discussion was
"one-liners", and yet you insisted that the subject was the
example of a one-liner.
------------------------------
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! (OT) (humor)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:32:39 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>> David Ogg writes:
>>>>>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>>>>>>>> Counting problems?
>>>>>>> See what I mean about his illogic?
>>>>>> What alleged illogic, Marty?
>>>>> Are you suggesting that a counting problem is an attribute indicative
>>>>> of being logical?
>>>> I wasn't suggesting anything, Marty; I was asking a question.
>>> Then why use the word "alleged"?
>> Because you alleged illogic on my part, Marty.
> I see that you are having more reading comprehension problems.
How ironic.
> Why would I respond to you and refer to you in the third person?
Why would you claim that the subject in another thread was not one-liners
when it clearly was, Marty? Your odd behavior isn't always explainable.
>> I see that you still haven't substantiated your claim.
> I haven't made such a claim in this discussion.
MA] See what I mean about his illogic?
------------------------------
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! (OT) (humor)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:33:29 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>> David Ogg writes:
>>>>>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>>>>>>>> Counting problems?
>>>>>>> See what I mean about his illogic?
>>>>>> What alleged illogic, Marty?
>>>>> Are you suggesting that a counting problem is an attribute indicative
>>>>> of being logical?
>>>> I wasn't suggesting anything, Marty; I was asking a question.
>>> Tholen...
>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
>> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Tholen...
>
> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
Typical invective, as expected from someone who doesn't have a logical
argument.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:34:08 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>> Or they might have used ksh with the vi edit mode, or less (an enhanced
>>>>> more that uses vi-like keystrokes to browse through files).
>>>> UNIX users are in the minority.
>>> How many MS-windows users were there in 1976 when the vi commands
>>> were chosen?
>> Irrelevant to the issue.
>>>> The ABDick was also tall and narrow (portrait mode) and displayed a
>>>> full screen of text, but it might have been a green screen. Come to
>>>> think of it, we may have replaced our ABDick machines with the CPT
>>>> machines. Never did catch on.
>>> The price of the dedicated WP machines was what killed them when
>>> PC clones running DOS Wordperfect 4.2 came around with equivalent
>>> functionality at less than half the price and network capability. There
>>> was nothing intuitive about WP's keystrokes but people used it anyway.
>> Earlier than that. We had word processors on CP/M. Take Magic Wand,
>> for example.
>>>>>> Of course, according to Aaron, nothing about a computer is intuitive.
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>> But do you or do you not agree with him?
>>> I'm not sure what he meant, but there is nothing that would make any
>>> sense without relating to some prior knowledge.
>> What's unclear about the claim that "nothing about a computer is
>> intuitive"?
>>>>> Many younger people have probably never seen a typewriter
>>>>> and would be very confused by the fact that you scroll down
>>>>> to get the page to the right position on the typing line instead of
>>>>> moving a cursor (which they probably have seen) up to the
>>>>> the text in question.
>>>> Younger people seem to be less confused by computers than older
>>>> people with exposure to typewriters.
>>> Young people are often more open to new things than older people
>>> in general - after all, if you are young enough everything is new.
>>> However in this case I would say it has more to do with the millions
>>> MS and Apple have spent trying to brainwash you, errr.. promote their
>>> products.
>> You would say lots of things that don't answer the original questin.
>>>>>> Fortunately, I don't think otherwise. Remember, my statement was
>>>>>> that to use hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive.
>>>>> It is no more or less intuitive than any other keys might be, especially
>>>>> given that at the time most keyboards did not have any special cursor
>>>>> control keys.
>>>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
>>> How can it apply to any time other than when the choice was made?
>> Simple: there are new users all the time.
>>> And anytime afterwards prior experience would make it intuitive when
>>> encountered in ksh, more, and an assortment of other programs that
>>> copied the scheme to some extent.
>> And if you don't know the extent, then you might wind up using something
>> that doesn't work.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:35:10 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>> 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 is, to repeat your pontification.
>>> that you deny.
>> With good reason.
>>> Repeating it again is pointless.
>> Especially without any supporting evidence.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:34:40 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> 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.
>> Independent of keybaord?
>>>>> 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.
>> How would more precision be needed to NOT strike a key (because it is
>> unnecesary)?
>>>>> 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.
>> Waste your time? You mean like changing modes?
>>>>> 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"
>> It can; it can cut the number of keystrokes in half.
>>>>> 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.
>> Yet you expect me to agree to your premise without a demonstration.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:36:03 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> 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.
>> How ironic, considering your last posting.
>>> I just forgot to type it in one reply of many.
>> Forgetting to type it doesn't change the fact that you thought Aaron
>> wrote something that he didn't write, Steve. That's an example of a
>> reading comprehension problem.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:35:37 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
>>> You didn't say so.
>> I shouldn't need to say so for those who understand context.
>>> (See I can be a pendantic pain too. Your game is fun.)
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game, Steve.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:37:51 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>> I've adjusted my statement, to, "Okay, it does require a puny amount
>>>>>>> of movment of the arm to get the pinkie up to the esc key, but it's
>>>>>>> so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my consious thought,
>>>>>>> and it doesn't fucking matter, since it it's merely a 'stretch'
>>>>>>> motion, which doesn't make you lose your place, like a 'swing' motion
>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>> I'll adjust my statement as well: "Okay, it does require a puny amount
>>>>>> of movement of the arm to get the pinkie down to the cursor keys, but
>>>>>> it's so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my conscious thought,
>>>>>> and it doesn't matter, since it it's merely a 'stretch' motion, which
>>>>>> doesn't make you lose your place, like a 'swing' motion does.
>>>>> You enjoy this game of replacing what I say fill-in-the-blank style,
>>>> Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. I'm simply noting that whatever
>>>> you can say about Esc can be applied equally well to the cursor keys.
>>>>> but the difference is that what I said was actually true.
>>>> What I said is also actually true. Where is the alleged difference?
>>> Tholen...
>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
>> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Tholen...
>
> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
Or maybe you can learn to develop a civil tongue. I won't hold my breath.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:36:59 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> 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.
>> But you do have the time to repeat the same erroneous argument over and
>> over. Interesting.
>>> You play a game where he with the most free time wins the debate
>> Balderdash. You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game.
>>> (just keep denying what the opponent says, and keep repeating the same
>>> questions until the other guy quits.)
>> Is that what you're trying to do?
>>>> 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.
>> I have *not* made any statement like "hjkl is not intuitive".
>>> You aren't being consistent.
>> You aren't comprehending what I've written. No surprise there, as
>> you've also failed to comprehend what Aaron wrote.
>>>> 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.
>> Note: no response.
>>>>> (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?
>> Because there is a difference between what people have written and
>> what you have claimed they have written.
>>> The problem in this case was typing too quickly. I left off the
>>> phrase "about computers" accidentally.
>> How convenient.
>>> Lay off the double-standard.
>> What alleged double standard?
>>> You constantly use shorthand and leave off the qualifiers when
>>> you discuss intuitiveness.
>> I rely on context. Quite a different thing.
>>>>> 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.
>> So, if I tell someone it's going to be windy tomorrow, you would
>> take that as a claim that it will be windy everywhere in the
>> Universe? Context, Steve.
>>> 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.
>> You're presupposing that I've been pedantic.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Or...since you're in Hawaii....maybe you can offer yourself to the
> volcano god.
Maybe you can learn to develop a civil tongue. I won't hold my breath.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:38:32 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I didn't make such a blanket statement. My comment
>>>>>>>>>> was restricted to the use of hjkl for cursor movement. That's a
>>>>>>>>>> rather small subset of vi.
>>>>>>>>> Well, then we'll just have to disagree then. I don't think
>>>>>>>>> that's true for the first time user who hasn't gotten any
>>>>>>>>> preconcieved notions from using other editors first. You think
>>>>>>>>> it is.
>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the first-time user *will* know that hjkl
>>>>>>>> moves the cursor around???
>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>> Then where did your "You think it is" come from?
>>>>> Sorry, I assumed that when you write things, you mean them.
>>>> What did I allegedly write that made you say "You think it is"?
>>>>> 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.
>>> Tholen...
>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
>> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Tholen...
>
> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
Or maybe you can learn to develop a civil tongue. I won't hold my breath.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:40:08 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>> Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the first-time user *will* know that hjkl
>>>>>>>> moves the cursor around???
>>>>>>> The first time user won't have a concept of what a cursor is
>>>>>>> or why you would want to move it around.
>>>>>> On the contrary, the first-time vi user could have experience with
>>>>>> other editors.
>>>>> Yes, but they might not have a cursor that moves up or down.
>>>> If it's a screen editor, chances are they do.
>>>>> Or they might have used ksh with the vi edit mode, or less (an enhanced
>>>>> more that uses vi-like keystrokes to browse through files).
>>>> UNIX users are in the minority.
>>>>>>> In the 70's and 80's, CPT dedicated wordprocessors were a big thing
>>>>>>> and they represented a sheet of paper advancing past a typing line
>>>>>>> on the screen so it looked and worked exactly like a typewriter.
>>>>>> Were those the ABDick portrait mode machines?
>>>>> I never saw an ABDick machine, but the CPT screen was tall
>>>>> and narrow and displayed a full page of text, black characters
>>>>> on a white page that moved up as you typed.
>>>> The ABDick was also tall and narrow (portrait mode) and displayed a
>>>> full screen of text, but it might have been a green screen. Come to
>>>> think of it, we may have replaced our ABDick machines with the CPT
>>>> machines. Never did catch on.
>>>>>>> Literally, a white page scrolled up the screen as you typed. If you
>>>>>>> needed to correct something you moved the page back down to the
>>>>>>> typing line instead of moving the cursor to the text. Their claim
>>>>>>> (of course) was that this was 'intuitive' to anyone who had seen a
>>>>>>> typewriter.
>>>>>> Of course, according to Aaron, nothing about a computer is intuitive.
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>> But do you or do you not agree with him?
>>>>> Many younger people have probably never seen a typewriter
>>>>> and would be very confused by the fact that you scroll down
>>>>> to get the page to the right position on the typing line instead of
>>>>> moving a cursor (which they probably have seen) up to the
>>>>> the text in question.
>>>> Younger people seem to be less confused by computers than older
>>>> people with exposure to typewriters.
>>>>>>> So, not even the direction of motion can be taken as something
>>>>>>> you could guess, let alone the key that would invoke it. If you
>>>>>>> think otherwise then you should admit that you have been
>>>>>>> brainwashed into it.
>>>>>> Fortunately, I don't think otherwise. Remember, my statement was
>>>>>> that to use hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive.
>>>>> It is no more or less intuitive than any other keys might be, especially
>>>>> given that at the time most keyboards did not have any special cursor
>>>>> control keys.
>>>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
>>> Tholen...
>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
>> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Tholen...
>
> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
Or maybe you can learn to develop a civil tongue. I won't hold my breath.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
