Re: *nix

[0...@caiway.net]

> I don't see how gpicview is a keyboard-friendly program. For example,
> I can't even see a way of navigating round a large image with the
> cursor keys. The only way I found of stepping through a number of
> files is to use the OpenFile dialog box as a thumbnail viewer.
> What have I missed? (There seems to be almost no documentation.)

When you right click on an image you will see the list of shortcuts.
a way of navigating round a large image with the cursor keys I did not
find either.

> Despite its limitations (eg no movies, and zooming is crude), I find
> xzgv a most satisfactory keyboard-friendly viewer.
> 
> Cheers,
> David.
> 

Re: *nix

[Curt]

On 2020-02-19, David Anthony  wrote:
>
> I have been trying to install Debian (and Mint) on an HP Pavilion Desktop.
> The installation goes smoothly until "Grub" begins to install.  At that
> point the entire system freezes.  I have tried the install multiple times
> with the same result each time.  Has anyone else had a similar problem and
> if so what did you do to work around it?  Thanks for any help you can
> provide.
>

Some HP grub-efi-bios-related workarounds in this thread:

https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Desktop-Wireless-and-Networking/Grub-problem/td-p/5949710

-- 
"J'ai pour me guérir du jugement des autres toute la distance qui me sépare de
moi." Antonin Artaud

Re: *nix

[David Anthony]

I have been trying to install Debian (and Mint) on an HP Pavilion Desktop.
The installation goes smoothly until "Grub" begins to install.  At that
point the entire system freezes.  I have tried the install multiple times
with the same result each time.  Has anyone else had a similar problem and
if so what did you do to work around it?  Thanks for any help you can
provide.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:53 AM Greg Wooledge  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:39:29AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > In Debian I think that xv fell by the wayside between woody and sarge.
> > It seemed to get stuck at 3.10a. IIRC it was always in non-free
> > because of its licence, so I can only check via my   dpkg -l
> > listings. So I haven't used it for 15 years, moving on to xzgv.
> > xv is really an editor, isn't it?
>
> It was a pretty ubiquitous image display/modification tool in
> previous decades.  So much so, that I still use it today -- of course,
> not from an official Debian package, as those stopped being produced
> ages ago.  But it's still possible to compile it, with a bit of extra
> flaming-hoop-jumping.
>
> wooledg:~$ dpkg -s xv | grep Depends
> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.14), libjpeg62-turbo (>= 1.3.1), libpng12-0 (>=
> 1.2.13-4), libtiff5 (>= 4.0.3), libx11-6, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)
>
> The flaming-est hoop here is the PNG library, because someone decided
> that the PNG library should completely break compatibility, not just at
> the ABI level, but at the API level, a few years ago.
>
> You can get libpng12* packages from older Debian releases.  Some assembly
> required.
>
>

-- 
*David Anthony*

Church Service Missionary
33 Centerville Commons Way
Centerville, UT 84014
Cell-801-360-4 <801-709-9430>950

Re: *nix

[David Wright]

On Tue 18 Feb 2020 at 03:48:49 (+0100), 0...@caiway.net wrote:
>  
> > I also tend to use programs that allow me to use the keyboard.
> > mplayer - and its successor, mpv - work great with the keyboard.
> > xv works great for displaying GIFs and JPEGs.  (At least older
> > ones - some newer JPEGs contain codes that xv can't handle.  At
> > that point I reluctantly fall back to ristretto.  No doubt there
> > are programs that would suit my needs better, but I haven't been
> > willing to take the time to find them.)
> 
> You might like gpicview.

I don't see how gpicview is a keyboard-friendly program. For example,
I can't even see a way of navigating round a large image with the
cursor keys. The only way I found of stepping through a number of
files is to use the OpenFile dialog box as a thumbnail viewer.
What have I missed? (There seems to be almost no documentation.)

Despite its limitations (eg no movies, and zooming is crude), I find
xzgv a most satisfactory keyboard-friendly viewer.

Cheers,
David.

Re: *nix

[Greg Wooledge]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:39:29AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> In Debian I think that xv fell by the wayside between woody and sarge.
> It seemed to get stuck at 3.10a. IIRC it was always in non-free
> because of its licence, so I can only check via my   dpkg -l
> listings. So I haven't used it for 15 years, moving on to xzgv.
> xv is really an editor, isn't it?

It was a pretty ubiquitous image display/modification tool in
previous decades.  So much so, that I still use it today -- of course,
not from an official Debian package, as those stopped being produced
ages ago.  But it's still possible to compile it, with a bit of extra
flaming-hoop-jumping.

wooledg:~$ dpkg -s xv | grep Depends
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.14), libjpeg62-turbo (>= 1.3.1), libpng12-0 (>= 1.2.13-4), 
libtiff5 (>= 4.0.3), libx11-6, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)

The flaming-est hoop here is the PNG library, because someone decided
that the PNG library should completely break compatibility, not just at
the ABI level, but at the API level, a few years ago.

You can get libpng12* packages from older Debian releases.  Some assembly
required.

Re: *nix

[David Wright]

On Mon 17 Feb 2020 at 17:06:01 (-0800), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2020-02-17 at 06:00:01, David Wright  wrote:
> > On Sun 16 Feb 2020 at 13:03:05 (-0800), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
> >>  wrote:
> >>> On Du, 16 feb 20, 09:36:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>  On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:20:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
>   wrote:
> 
> > Just use whatever works for you.
> 
>  If you can.  I really resent the increasing amount of coercion
>  toward using GUIs (no keyboard equivalents for menus, etc.) that
>  I'm seeing in modern software.
> >>>
> >>> Coercion is a strong word. It seems to me it's rather a form of
> >>> demand and supply.
> >>
> >> They're demanding you use what they supply.
> >
> > I can understand that on systems where you don't have a choice;
> > for example, Hulu on Roku, where they introduced a new interface
> > to much disapproval. Many TV interfaces now look as though they
> > were designed for mobile phones, and I suspect they are.
> >
> > But with Debian, you have choices. I prefer a GUI for browsing,
> > and obviously for graphics processing, but one or two other
> > programs bridge the gap, like gnumeric and xpdf, where I almost
> > entirely use the keyboard, but a few operations are easier with
> > a mouse, like copying text out of xpdf, or adjusting column widths
> > in gnumeric, for example.
> >
> > And I can't think of any software that has been deliberately
> > withdrawn because of a GUI replacement.
> 
> Not withdrawn, no.  But newer software tends to neglect the keyboard
> in favour of pointy-clicky stuff.  Note that I'm not just talking
> about Linux, which really isn't that bad.  On other OSes, however,
> the situation is much worse.

Sorry, I can't speak for other OSes. 

> >>> With touchscreen technology becoming the standard even for laptops
> >>> and desktop monitors the demand for keyboard oriented interaction
> >>> decreases so the developers must create interfaces that are better
> >>> suited for tap / swipe.
> >>
> >> Fine.  But the keyboard should still be an option.  All I'm asking
> >> is that I be allowed to choose.  I'm not insisting that everyone
> >> use a keyboard, and likewise people should not insist that I
> >> _not_ use a keyboard.
> >
> > Perhaps you're not choosing your software with sufficient discernment.
> > I gravitate towards applications that have keyboard shortcuts/functions
> > and allow you to define more of them.
> >
> > Where that's not straightforward, then I try to coerce some other
> > application to do the job. So, for example, I define keys in my
> > window manager, fvwm, to do such things as control audio levels
> > (amixer), take screenshots (scrot) and capture movies (ffmpeg),
> > rotate the screen (xrandr), and even emulate Left and Right
> > Mouse Clicks, as well as all the usual window functions (raise,
> > lower, resize, move, etc).
> 
> I also tend to use programs that allow me to use the keyboard.
> mplayer - and its successor, mpv - work great with the keyboard.
> xv works great for displaying GIFs and JPEGs.  (At least older
> ones - some newer JPEGs contain codes that xv can't handle.

In Debian I think that xv fell by the wayside between woody and sarge.
It seemed to get stuck at 3.10a. IIRC it was always in non-free
because of its licence, so I can only check via my   dpkg -l
listings. So I haven't used it for 15 years, moving on to xzgv.
xv is really an editor, isn't it?

> At
> that point I reluctantly fall back to ristretto.  No doubt there
> are programs that would suit my needs better, but I haven't been
> willing to take the time to find them.)
> 
> > So my mouse gets very little exercise, and most of the time it's
> > just used to set which window has focus.
> 
> What, you don't use alt-tab?  :-)

No, because that's not the way I lay things out in fvwm.
(There's a hint in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/01/msg00478.html)
When windows overlap each other, Raise and Lower usually suffice.
Otherwise I nudge the mouse or finger the touchpad.
(More important to me than avoiding the mouse at all costs is
reducing the occasions on which it has to be used with any
precision, because that's what can cause mobility issues.)

I don't know which WM you use, but I think it's true that knowing
someone uses fvwm gives almost no indication of what their screen
looks like or how they work. It's more of a toolkit than an
application, which might explain why its man page runs to over 7000
lines. I suspect most people who start using it have grabbed someone
else's configuration file off the web and then modified it. It would
be a steep learning curve to start writing one from scratch.

Cheers,
David.

Re: *nix

[deloptes]

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> Not withdrawn, no.  But newer software tends to neglect the keyboard
> in favour of pointy-clicky stuff.  Note that I'm not just talking
> about Linux, which really isn't that bad.  On other OSes, however,
> the situation is much worse.

The smartphone generation do not know how to write anyway :) (generalization
I know) but the situation is scary.

I also think that before may be things were overcomplicated and now are
oversimplified. 

However I stick to Trinity Desktop - it is sometimes complicated, but stable
and gives you the option to control much more.

regards

Re: *nix

[0...@caiway.net]

 
> I also tend to use programs that allow me to use the keyboard.
> mplayer - and its successor, mpv - work great with the keyboard.
> xv works great for displaying GIFs and JPEGs.  (At least older
> ones - some newer JPEGs contain codes that xv can't handle.  At
> that point I reluctantly fall back to ristretto.  No doubt there
> are programs that would suit my needs better, but I haven't been
> willing to take the time to find them.)

You might like gpicview.

I do.

sudo apt install gpicview
copy paste :-)

Re: *nix

[Charlie Gibbs]

References:  

On 2020-02-17 at 06:00:01, David Wright 
wrote:

> On Sun 16 Feb 2020 at 13:03:05 (-0800), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100
>> Andrei POPESCU  wrote:
>>
>>> On Du, 16 feb 20, 09:36:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:20:01 +0100
 Andrei POPESCU  wrote:

> Just use whatever works for you.

 If you can.  I really resent the increasing amount of coercion
 toward using GUIs (no keyboard equivalents for menus, etc.) that
 I'm seeing in modern software.
>>>
>>> Coercion is a strong word. It seems to me it's rather a form of
>>> demand and supply.
>>
>> They're demanding you use what they supply.
>
> I can understand that on systems where you don't have a choice;
> for example, Hulu on Roku, where they introduced a new interface
> to much disapproval. Many TV interfaces now look as though they
> were designed for mobile phones, and I suspect they are.
>
> But with Debian, you have choices. I prefer a GUI for browsing,
> and obviously for graphics processing, but one or two other
> programs bridge the gap, like gnumeric and xpdf, where I almost
> entirely use the keyboard, but a few operations are easier with
> a mouse, like copying text out of xpdf, or adjusting column widths
> in gnumeric, for example.
>
> And I can't think of any software that has been deliberately
> withdrawn because of a GUI replacement.

Not withdrawn, no.  But newer software tends to neglect the keyboard
in favour of pointy-clicky stuff.  Note that I'm not just talking
about Linux, which really isn't that bad.  On other OSes, however,
the situation is much worse.

>>> With touchscreen technology becoming the standard even for laptops
>>> and desktop monitors the demand for keyboard oriented interaction
>>> decreases so the developers must create interfaces that are better
>>> suited for tap / swipe.
>>
>> Fine.  But the keyboard should still be an option.  All I'm asking
>> is that I be allowed to choose.  I'm not insisting that everyone
>> use a keyboard, and likewise people should not insist that I
>> _not_ use a keyboard.
>
> Perhaps you're not choosing your software with sufficient discernment.
> I gravitate towards applications that have keyboard shortcuts/functions
> and allow you to define more of them.
>
> Where that's not straightforward, then I try to coerce some other
> application to do the job. So, for example, I define keys in my
> window manager, fvwm, to do such things as control audio levels
> (amixer), take screenshots (scrot) and capture movies (ffmpeg),
> rotate the screen (xrandr), and even emulate Left and Right
> Mouse Clicks, as well as all the usual window functions (raise,
> lower, resize, move, etc).

I also tend to use programs that allow me to use the keyboard.
mplayer - and its successor, mpv - work great with the keyboard.
xv works great for displaying GIFs and JPEGs.  (At least older
ones - some newer JPEGs contain codes that xv can't handle.  At
that point I reluctantly fall back to ristretto.  No doubt there
are programs that would suit my needs better, but I haven't been
willing to take the time to find them.)

> So my mouse gets very little exercise, and most of the time it's
> just used to set which window has focus.

What, you don't use alt-tab?  :-)

>>> The keyboard will soon be used exclusively for text entry and will
>>> probably disappear as soon as we have something better,
>>
>> FSVO "better"
>
> Well, screens don't seem to have killed off keyboards, as people
> furiously type away with their thumbs on faked ones.
>
>>> like voice dictation,
>>
>> Good luck if you have a cold.
>
> Or want any privacy. Or want to carry on a conversation at the same time.
>
>>> direct neural interface, whatever.
>>
>> Now _that_ might be interesting...
>
> Alarming. Now there would be justification for thought police.

Depends on how it's implemented.  It does seem less attractive now
than prior to, say, 1984.

> BTW Because your email client seems unable to cope with threading,
> I sometimes link posts manually with mutt's & key; which means
> I look at your quoting attribution text (to link it the correct
> parent). I find its text curious.
>
> For example, the post I'm replying to has
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
 wrote:

> but the email from Andrei POPESCU quoted is timestamped
> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:50:52 +0200
>
> Apart from any timezone mixups (I prefer my attributions to be given
> in the timezone of the post quoted), where does a time of ten minutes
> and one second past the hour—past any hour—come from? I can't see a
> time resembling that anywhere in the header.

OK, you caught me.  I actually read this list via Usenet, so if I want
to post I have to save the text, build a new message with it, and post
it from scratch.  On the plus side, slrn doesn't need a mouse.  :-)

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /|  Apple is a cult.
 X   I

Re: *nix

[David Wright]

On Mon 17 Feb 2020 at 22:10:48 (+), mick crane wrote:
> On 2020-02-17 20:18, Doug McGarrett wrote:
> 
> > > In the 50s I heard that you could tap out the number on the
> > > cradle in the public phone boxes and connect without inserting
> > > coins.

In the mid- to late-60s, there were codes that I believe the engineers
used to bypass putting in money. We discovered that they appeared to be
chosen systematically: in a city, you would dial the 3-digit code for
calling an outlying village, then the 9 they would use to call said
city, then the number you wanted.

> thinking back it was 60's. after that I heard a whistle you got in
> cornflake packets worked for a bit

By the time phone phreaking (requiring tone-dialling) reached the UK,
I had a phone at work. I know people played with it, but I don't recall
how long their window of opportunity was open.

The marginal cost of the odd evening call was swamped by daytime use
of modems/acoustic couplers. At one time, they were logging £200/month
of calls from my office.

Cheers,
David.

Re: *nix

[mick crane]

On 2020-02-17 20:18, Doug McGarrett wrote:

In the 50s I heard that you could tap out the number on the cradle in 
the public phone boxes and connect without inserting coins.


mick


Now you tell me!   --doug


thinking back it was 60's. after that I heard a whistle you got in 
cornflake packets worked for a bit


mick

--
Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: *nix

[Martin Smith]

On 17/02/2020 18:52, mick crane wrote:

On 2020-02-17 16:29, Charles Curley wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:07:59 -0500
Doug McGarrett  wrote:


(I fell off the stoop
after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July,
1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)
Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.


I suspect that you find having to dial a phone a step backwards in
user interface technology.

For the young whippersnappers in the audience, telephone technology in
1915 required that one pick up the ear piece, wait for the operator to
acknowledge you, and tell her (it was usually a woman) to whom you
wished to speak. She would then connect you by re-arranging physical
patch cords to make physical connections.

And hope it wasn't a long distance call, which could take hours to set
up.


In the 50s I heard that you could tap out the number on the cradle in 
the public phone boxes and connect without inserting coins.
yes we discovered that and did it for a few months, not every day of 
course, until one day after tapping the number the operator came on the 
line and said please insert 4 pennies, that was the cost of a call in 
those days, so that was the end of it.


mick



--
Martin

Re: *nix

[Doug McGarrett]

On 2/17/20 1:52 PM, mick crane wrote:

On 2020-02-17 16:29, Charles Curley wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:07:59 -0500
Doug McGarrett  wrote:


(I fell off the stoop
after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July,
1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)
Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.


I suspect that you find having to dial a phone a step backwards in
user interface technology.

For the young whippersnappers in the audience, telephone technology in
1915 required that one pick up the ear piece, wait for the operator to
acknowledge you, and tell her (it was usually a woman) to whom you
wished to speak. She would then connect you by re-arranging physical
patch cords to make physical connections.

And hope it wasn't a long distance call, which could take hours to set
up.


In the 50s I heard that you could tap out the number on the cradle in 
the public phone boxes and connect without inserting coins.


mick


Now you tell me!   --doug

Re: *nix

[Doug McGarrett]

On 2/17/20 10:03 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

On Feb 17, 2020, Curt wrote:

On 2020-02-17, Doug McGarrett  wrote:






[...] I hope I never have to do so again. (I fell off the stoop
after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July,
1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)
Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.


I'm sure you must've recovered by now and greatly admire (and remain
somewhat astounded by) your longevity.


Not to mention the fact he had a working mobile phone some 60 years
before they were invented!


OK, 2015. I just reread the post, and I didn't catch it then, either!
--doug

Re: *nix

[mick crane]

On 2020-02-17 16:29, Charles Curley wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:07:59 -0500
Doug McGarrett  wrote:


(I fell off the stoop
after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July,
1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)
Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.


I suspect that you find having to dial a phone a step backwards in
user interface technology.

For the young whippersnappers in the audience, telephone technology in
1915 required that one pick up the ear piece, wait for the operator to
acknowledge you, and tell her (it was usually a woman) to whom you
wished to speak. She would then connect you by re-arranging physical
patch cords to make physical connections.

And hope it wasn't a long distance call, which could take hours to set
up.


In the 50s I heard that you could tap out the number on the cradle in 
the public phone boxes and connect without inserting coins.


mick

--
Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: *nix

[Charles Curley]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:07:59 -0500
Doug McGarrett  wrote:

> (I fell off the stoop
> after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July, 
> 1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)
> Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.

I suspect that you find having to dial a phone a step backwards in
user interface technology.

For the young whippersnappers in the audience, telephone technology in
1915 required that one pick up the ear piece, wait for the operator to
acknowledge you, and tell her (it was usually a woman) to whom you
wished to speak. She would then connect you by re-arranging physical
patch cords to make physical connections.

And hope it wasn't a long distance call, which could take hours to set
up.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: *nix

[Dan Purgert]

On Feb 17, 2020, Curt wrote:
> On 2020-02-17, Doug McGarrett  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 
>> [...] I hope I never have to do so again. (I fell off the stoop
>> after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July, 
>> 1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)
>> Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.
> 
> I'm sure you must've recovered by now and greatly admire (and remain
> somewhat astounded by) your longevity.

Not to mention the fact he had a working mobile phone some 60 years
before they were invented! 

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: *nix

[Curt]

On 2020-02-17, Doug McGarrett  wrote:
>
>
>> 
> Finally some common sense. I HATE touchscreen "technology" as they like 
> to call it. I want to use my keyboard and my trackball, and I do not 
> even try to communicate by touch-screen phone. A phone is a voice
> communications device, as far as I'm concerned. Good for calling 911 if 
> you have to. I hope I never have to do so again. (I fell off the stoop
> after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July, 
> 1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)
> Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.

I'm sure you must've recovered by now and greatly admire (and remain
somewhat astounded by) your longevity.

> --doug
>
>


-- 
"J'ai pour me guérir du jugement des autres toute la distance qui me sépare de
moi." Antonin Artaud

Re: *nix

[tomas]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 05:37:57PM -0500, Felmon Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, Curt wrote:
> 
> >On 2020-02-15, John Kaufmann  wrote:

[...]

> plus I suppose a lot of generalists are specialists in something or
> other.

...in generality, at least.

> also from the balcony.

Now I fell down from it *poof!*

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: *nix

[David Wright]

On Sun 16 Feb 2020 at 13:03:05 (-0800), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU  
> wrote:
> > On Du, 16 feb 20, 09:36:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:20:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just use whatever works for you.
> >>
> >> If you can.  I really resent the increasing amount of coercion
> >> toward using GUIs (no keyboard equivalents for menus, etc.) that
> >> I'm seeing in modern software.
> >
> > Coercion is a strong word. It seems to me it's rather a form of
> > demand and supply.
> 
> They're demanding you use what they supply.

I can understand that on systems where you don't have a choice;
for example, Hulu on Roku, where they introduced a new interface
to much disapproval. Many TV interfaces now look as though they
were designed for mobile phones, and I suspect they are.

But with Debian, you have choices. I prefer a GUI for browsing,
and obviously for graphics processing, but one or two other
programs bridge the gap, like gnumeric and xpdf, where I almost
entirely use the keyboard, but a few operations are easier with
a mouse, like copying text out of xpdf, or adjusting column widths
in gnumeric, for example.

And I can't think of any software that has been deliberately
withdrawn because of a GUI replacement.

> > With touchscreen technology becoming the standard even for laptops
> > and desktop monitors the demand for keyboard oriented interaction
> > decreases so the developers must create interfaces that are better
> > suited for tap / swipe.
> 
> Fine.  But the keyboard should still be an option.  All I'm asking
> is that I be allowed to choose.  I'm not insisting that everyone
> use a keyboard, and likewise people should not insist that I
> _not_ use a keyboard.

Perhaps you're not choosing your software with sufficient discernment.
I gravitate towards applications that have keyboard shortcuts/functions
and allow you to define more of them.

Where that's not straightforward, then I try to coerce some other
application to do the job. So, for example, I define keys in my
window manager, fvwm, to do such things as control audio levels
(amixer), take screenshots (scrot) and capture movies (ffmpeg),
rotate the screen (xrandr), and even emulate Left and Right
Mouse Clicks, as well as all the usual window functions (raise,
lower, resize, move, etc).

So my mouse gets very little exercise, and most of the time it's
just used to set which window has focus.

> > The keyboard will soon be used exclusively for text entry and will
> > probably disappear as soon as we have something better,
> 
> FSVO "better"

Well, screens don't seem to have killed off keyboards, as people
furiously type away with their thumbs on faked ones.

> > like voice dictation,
> 
> Good luck if you have a cold.

Or want any privacy. Or want to carry on a conversation at the same time.

> > direct neural interface, whatever.
> 
> Now _that_ might be interesting...

Alarming. Now there would be justification for thought police.

Cheers,
David.

BTW Because your email client seems unable to cope with threading,
I sometimes link posts manually with mutt's & key; which means
I look at your quoting attribution text (to link it the correct
parent). I find its text curious.

For example, the post I'm replying to has
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
 wrote:
but the email from Andrei POPESCU quoted is timestamped
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:50:52 +0200

Apart from any timezone mixups (I prefer my attributions to be given
in the timezone of the post quoted), where does a time of ten minutes
and one second past the hour—past any hour—come from? I can't see a
time resembling that anywhere in the header.

Re: *nix

[Doug McGarrett]

On 2/16/20 4:30 PM, Charles Curley wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 13:03:05 -0800
Charlie Gibbs  wrote:


  > With touchscreen technology becoming the standard even for laptops
  > and desktop monitors the demand for keyboard oriented interaction
  > decreases so the developers must create interfaces that are better
  > suited for tap / swipe.

Fine.  But the keyboard should still be an option.  All I'm asking
is that I be allowed to choose.  I'm not insisting that everyone
use a keyboard, and likewise people should not insist that I
_not_ use a keyboard.


Feel free to contribute code.

Finally some common sense. I HATE touchscreen "technology" as they like 
to call it. I want to use my keyboard and my trackball, and I do not 
even try to communicate by touch-screen phone. A phone is a voice
communications device, as far as I'm concerned. Good for calling 911 if 
you have to. I hope I never have to do so again. (I fell off the stoop
after tripping over my dog's tether in the dark on the 4th of July, 
1915, and spent most of the summer in various stages of recovery.)

Maybe some day I'll figure out how to dial a number on the phone.

--doug

Re: *nix

[Felmon Davis]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, Curt wrote:


On 2020-02-15, John Kaufmann  wrote:


Just so. At what point does a small and natural generalization of "one
thing" become more complex than a new thing? Simplicity is the friend,
complexity the enemy; order the friend, entropy the enemy. It takes a
lifetime of design to see where to draw those lines, and we never stop
learning.


That members of the most generalist species on earth should extol the
merits of the most extreme form of specialisation is something of an
ironic puzzlement here in the balcony seats.


makes me think of the fallacy of composition - a big wall of bricks 
doesn't need to be composed of big bricks.


plus I suppose a lot of generalists are specialists in something or 
other.


also from the balcony.


--
Felmon
Pronouns: It / Them / Something

Re: *nix

[Charles Curley]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 13:03:05 -0800
Charlie Gibbs  wrote:

>  > With touchscreen technology becoming the standard even for laptops
>  > and desktop monitors the demand for keyboard oriented interaction
>  > decreases so the developers must create interfaces that are better
>  > suited for tap / swipe.  
> 
> Fine.  But the keyboard should still be an option.  All I'm asking
> is that I be allowed to choose.  I'm not insisting that everyone
> use a keyboard, and likewise people should not insist that I
> _not_ use a keyboard.

Feel free to contribute code.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: *nix

[Charlie Gibbs]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
 wrote:


> On Du, 16 feb 20, 09:36:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:20:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Just use whatever works for you.
>>
>> If you can.  I really resent the increasing amount of coercion
>> toward using GUIs (no keyboard equivalents for menus, etc.) that
>> I'm seeing in modern software.
>
> Coercion is a strong word. It seems to me it's rather a form of
> demand and supply.

They're demanding you use what they supply.

> With touchscreen technology becoming the standard even for laptops
> and desktop monitors the demand for keyboard oriented interaction
> decreases so the developers must create interfaces that are better
> suited for tap / swipe.

Fine.  But the keyboard should still be an option.  All I'm asking
is that I be allowed to choose.  I'm not insisting that everyone
use a keyboard, and likewise people should not insist that I
_not_ use a keyboard.

> The keyboard will soon be used exclusively for text entry and will
> probably disappear as soon as we have something better,

FSVO "better"

> like voice dictation,

Good luck if you have a cold.

> direct neural interface, whatever.

Now _that_ might be interesting...

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /|  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

Re: *nix

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Du, 16 feb 20, 09:36:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:20:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
> wrote:
> >
> > Just use whatever works for you.
> 
> If you can.  I really resent the increasing amount of coercion
> toward using GUIs (no keyboard equivalents for menus, etc.) that
> I'm seeing in modern software. 

Coercion is a strong word. It seems to me it's rather a form of demand 
and supply. 

With touchscreen technology becoming the standard even for laptops and 
desktop monitors the demand for keyboard oriented interaction decreases 
so the developers must create interfaces that are better suited for tap 
/ swipe.

The keyboard will soon be used exclusively for text entry and will 
probably disappear as soon as we have something better, like voice 
dictation, direct neural interface, whatever.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: *nix

[Charlie Gibbs]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:20:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
 wrote:


> On Du, 16 feb 20, 03:36:44, ghe wrote:
>
>> Complexity of the software is for us programmers to deal with.
>> Making the programs useful for a user can be one of the problems
>> in our writing and design. That, I think, is what they meant by
>> "One program doing the job well" -- users have a collection of
>> reasonably straightforward and simple tools to do things, and
>> the tools work. The screwdrivers and cork screws and knife blades
>> can be piped together, you know. Or called in a script.
>
> To find out how many items I have in my mpd playlist I would run
> something like 'mpc playlist | wc -l'. In order to rearrange the
> playlist I would rather use a GUI client so I can just drag and
> drop songs around.
>
> Sure it's possible to do either task with the other tool (TIMTOWTDI),
> it's just that one is more efficient than the other for the
> specific user, situation and / or environment (e.g. I might
> prefer a TUI interface if I don't have a mouse connected).
>
> None of the approaches will be able to solve all use cases and the
> line between loose | tight integration is very much personal opinion.
>
> Just use whatever works for you.

If you can.  I really resent the increasing amount of coercion
toward using GUIs (no keyboard equivalents for menus, etc.) that
I'm seeing in modern software.  Even in Linux, many window managers'
file requesters don't provide a place where you can type a file
specification, requiring you to point and click your way up and
down directory trees to get to where you want to go.

I am a skilled touch typist, and not being allowed to use my keyboard
cripples me.  Any designer who does this to me deliberately is on my
enemies list.

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /|  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

Re: *nix

[Charles Curley]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 12:31:30 - (UTC)
Curt  wrote:

> That members of the most generalist species on earth should extol the
> merits of the most extreme form of specialisation is something of an
> ironic puzzlement here in the balcony seats.

"Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein

All those specialized tools are useless without generalists to write
them and then use them. Had honey on your toast lately? :-)

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: *nix

[Stefan Monnier]

> That members of the most generalist species on earth should extol the
> merits of the most extreme form of specialisation is something of an
> ironic puzzlement here in the balcony seats.

If you want to stay on top, you have to impose on others different rules
than those you impose on yourself.


Stefan

Re: *nix

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Du, 16 feb 20, 03:36:44, ghe wrote:
> 
> Complexity of the software is for us programmers to deal with. Making 
> the programs useful for a user can be one of the problems in our 
> writing and design. That, I think, is what they meant by "One program 
> doing the job well" -- users have a collection of reasonably 
> straightforward and simple tools to do things, and the tools work. The 
> screwdrivers and cork screws and knife blades can be piped together, 
> you know. Or called in a script.

To find out how many items I have in my mpd playlist I would run 
something like 'mpc playlist | wc -l'. In order to rearrange the 
playlist I would rather use a GUI client so I can just drag and drop 
songs around.

Sure it's possible to do either task with the other tool (TIMTOWTDI), 
it's just that one is more efficient than the other for the specific 
user, situation and / or environment (e.g. I might prefer a TUI 
interface if I don't have a mouse connected).

None of the approaches will be able to solve all use cases and the line 
between loose | tight integration is very much personal opinion.

Just use whatever works for you.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: *nix

[Curt]

On 2020-02-15, John Kaufmann  wrote:
>
> Just so. At what point does a small and natural generalization of "one
> thing" become more complex than a new thing? Simplicity is the friend,
> complexity the enemy; order the friend, entropy the enemy. It takes a
> lifetime of design to see where to draw those lines, and we never stop
> learning.

That members of the most generalist species on earth should extol the
merits of the most extreme form of specialisation is something of an
ironic puzzlement here in the balcony seats.

> [But it was nice to be reminded of a time when programming was often
> seen as a generalization of list processing.]
>
>


-- 
"J'ai pour me guérir du jugement des autres toute la distance qui me sépare de
moi." Antonin Artaud

Re: *nix

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

On 16/02/2020 05:52, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 15 feb 20, 20:17:07, Charles Curley wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:03:02 -0700
>> ghe  wrote:
>>
>>> Until recently, the *nix communities have stuck pretty well to these
>>> recommendations -- they're just descriptions of competent programming,
>>> after all. There may be some discussion over the definitions of "one
>>> thing" and "well" but there is software in our Linux that, I think,
>>> doesn't conform to anybody's understanding of these maxims.
>> And then there are the exceptions that illustrate the rule. Emacs,
>> LibreOffice and systemd (all of which I use, not necessarily
>> enthusiastically) come to mind.
> ... as well as Linux (the kernel), grub, u-boot, busybox, GCC, vim, 
> apache / nginx, mc, (neo)mutt, etc. and that is not even including GUI 
> programs.
>
> If you truly believe in this principle without any exception throw away 
> your Swiss army knife / Leatherman now.
And how about cat, at least the gnu version? From the man page it can
also number lines, show non-printing characters, indicate line ends and
suppress repeated blank lines.


-- 
 anyone around?
 no, we're all irregular polygons

Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br

Re: *nix

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Sb, 15 feb 20, 20:17:07, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:03:02 -0700
> ghe  wrote:
> 
> > Until recently, the *nix communities have stuck pretty well to these
> > recommendations -- they're just descriptions of competent programming,
> > after all. There may be some discussion over the definitions of "one
> > thing" and "well" but there is software in our Linux that, I think,
> > doesn't conform to anybody's understanding of these maxims.
> 
> And then there are the exceptions that illustrate the rule. Emacs,
> LibreOffice and systemd (all of which I use, not necessarily
> enthusiastically) come to mind.

... as well as Linux (the kernel), grub, u-boot, busybox, GCC, vim, 
apache / nginx, mc, (neo)mutt, etc. and that is not even including GUI 
programs.

If you truly believe in this principle without any exception throw away 
your Swiss army knife / Leatherman now.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: *nix

[Charles Curley]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:03:02 -0700
ghe  wrote:

> Until recently, the *nix communities have stuck pretty well to these
> recommendations -- they're just descriptions of competent programming,
> after all. There may be some discussion over the definitions of "one
> thing" and "well" but there is software in our Linux that, I think,
> doesn't conform to anybody's understanding of these maxims.

And then there are the exceptions that illustrate the rule. Emacs,
LibreOffice and systemd (all of which I use, not necessarily
enthusiastically) come to mind.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: *nix

[Charlie Gibbs]

> On 2020-02-15 16:16, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:03:02PM -0700, ghe wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, fogies, in the Jul-Aug, 1978 Bellsystem Technical Journal,
>>> announcing Unix, in the Style section of the Foreward is a list of
>>> "maxims...gained currency among the builders and users..." The first
>>> sentence of the first maxim in the list is, "Make each program do
>>> one thing well."
>>>
>>> The second sentence is "To do a new job, build afresh rather than
>>> complicate old programs by adding new 'features.'"
>>>
>>> Until recently, the *nix communities have stuck pretty well to
>>> these recommendations -- they're just descriptions of competent
>>> programming, after all. There may be some discussion over the
>>> definitions of "one thing" and "well" but there is software in
>>> our Linux that, I think, doesn't conform to anybody's understanding
>>> of these maxims.
>>
>> While I tend to those maxims, two points:
>>
>>   - I usually subsume them under "complexity is your enemy"
>>
>> and then
>>
>>   - all generalizations suck.
>>
>> So, to each her own, YMMV, etc.
>
> Just so. At what point does a small and natural generalization of
> "one thing" become more complex than a new thing? Simplicity is the
> friend, complexity the enemy; order the friend, entropy the enemy.
> It takes a lifetime of design to see where to draw those lines, and
> we never stop learning.
>
> [But it was nice to be reminded of a time when programming was often
> seen as a generalization of list processing.]

Complexity is a weapon.  The KISS principle is a countermeasure.

Never forget that many people have a vested interest in complexity.
Empire-building politicians (corporate and otherwise) want larger
kingdoms to rule, and monopolistic corporations want nothing more
than to make systems so complicated that users can't use them
without becoming dependent on the latest app.

Simplify, simplify.
  -- Thoreau

--
cgi...@surfnaked.ca (Charlie Gibbs)

Re: *nix

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 15 February 2020 16:03:02 ghe wrote:

> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 10:56 PM, Gene Heskett
>
>  wrote:
> > On Friday 14 February 2020 22:56:11 Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > On 02/14/2020 12:52 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> FYI, fogies, in the Jul-Aug, 1978 Bellsystem Technical Journal,
> announcing Unix, in the Style section of the Foreward is a list of
> "maxims...gained currency among the builders and users..." The first
> sentence of the first maxim in the list is, "Make each program do one
> thing well."
>
> The second sentence is "To do a new job, build afresh rather than
> complicate old programs by adding new 'features.'"
>
> Until recently, the *nix communities have stuck pretty well to these
> recommendations -- they're just descriptions of competent programming,
> after all. There may be some discussion over the definitions of "one
> thing" and "well" but there is software in our Linux that, I think,
> doesn't conform to anybody's understanding of these maxims.

No, it hasn't been anything resembling recent,  Glenn. Remember that in 
1978, the 6809, z80 were in the future, and the then current crop of 
smart sand was things like the 8085, the cdp-1802, and possibly the 
ti9900 were state of the art, memory was still gawdauful expensive and 
Dynax was the king of disk drives spinning a 14" disk with the head 
positioning done by a very recalcitrantly driven voice coil about 4" in 
diameter Disk capacity of such a monster was 5 megabytes. The tv station 
I was the ACE at the time had a to9900 based mainframe with 2 or 3 
terminals in traffic had an uptime of maybe 12 hours a week because one 
of its 2 disk drives needed a recalibration that took 6 to 12 hours to 
do. The 9900 had a multitasking os that was also used in the ti-99/4 
home computer, an interesting software approach to how to do 
multitasking, not by stacking its registers but by switching its one 
memory pointer that pointed at its register images in memory, so an 
interrupt was handled by pointing the register at the memory occupied by 
the interrupt handler. All this wasn't unix but it outran the unix of 
the day by a fair margin. But it eventually lost that battle as unix got 
better at running multiple copies of cpu's tp gain thruput. My first 
intro to unix was the AT&T 3B2. A moto 68000 based this that was 
basically a fire starter looking for a place to burn up as it did so 
several times while serving as the first email server dedicated to 
receive messages from CBS about programming data. After the first smoke 
party we put it on a metal table. But in those days unix only ran on 
those moto cpu's.

Fast fwd from 78-84 to 2020 and our linux is running on the darndest 
collection of cpu and machine architecture, whose variations to run on 
whatever is in the box, variations that seem to be approaching the 
famous !69 test of good ti calculators. It is in some circles built from 
src and runs only on that motherboard, or its built to run on certain 
families of similar architectures, but every driver today has to have a 
lookup table to determine how to run on this variation. But in becoming 
the universal operating system also means the average install has a 
couple gigabytes in the boot files that never see an execution because 
its not built to run on his hardware. But today, gigabytes of memory are 
cheap, I just pair about half of what I paid for 4k of static ram I had 
to solder up on an s-100 card, that 4k of static ram cost $400 then but 
a couple months back I bought 32GIGs of memory forthis machine after a 
fire in a usb2 port on the mainboard put it out of business.  Just how 
effective is this run on what you find today?

This HD I'm booting from has an install from the old board with debian 9 
on it, but when this drive found it was not running on a 4 core phenom, 
it never even had to clear its throat to boot up on a new Asus 
motherboard with an 9th generation core i5 6 core cpu.

I think thats doing pretty good and I wouldn't change it w/o a fight.

Right now I've in the last week, I've built and installed a new 
preempt-rt kernel on that rpi4, needed to run any moving machinery, then 
git cloned linuxcnc-master from github, to that rpi4's added ssd's, set 
a couple environment vars, and half an hour later I have debs that 
install LinuxCNC on this rpi4 and its running a 75 yo 11x54 Sheldon 
lathe I converted to cnc, making it do tricks the original could not do 
in 75 years of trying.

And I could take both src trees to x86 hardware and build and run it just 
as sweet.

I have built 3 other machines that are doing exactly that. But why bother 
when I can get those from the buidbot.linuxcnc.org site. x86 hardware is 
available for peanuts at just about any yard sale.

Its progress and light years ahead of the situation in 1978 when I had to 
solder every part to make a dumb little computer run a u-matic tape deck 
to reduce the aired commercial by one dub level and impr

Re: *nix

[John Kaufmann]

On 2020-02-15 16:16, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:03:02PM -0700, ghe wrote:

...
FYI, fogies, in the Jul-Aug, 1978 Bellsystem Technical Journal,
announcing Unix, in the Style section of the Foreward is a list of
"maxims...gained currency among the builders and users..." The first
sentence of the first maxim in the list is, "Make each program do one
thing well."

The second sentence is "To do a new job, build afresh rather than
complicate old programs by adding new 'features.'"

Until recently, the *nix communities have stuck pretty well to these
recommendations -- they're just descriptions of competent programming,
after all. There may be some discussion over the definitions of "one
thing" and "well" but there is software in our Linux that, I think,
doesn't conform to anybody's understanding of these maxims.


While I tend to those maxims, two points:

  - I usually subsume them under "complexity is your enemy"

and then

  - all generalizations suck.

So, to each her own, YMMV, etc.


Just so. At what point does a small and natural generalization of "one thing" 
become more complex than a new thing? Simplicity is the friend, complexity the enemy; 
order the friend, entropy the enemy. It takes a lifetime of design to see where to draw 
those lines, and we never stop learning.

[But it was nice to be reminded of a time when programming was often seen as a 
generalization of list processing.]

Re: *nix

[tomas]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:03:02PM -0700, ghe wrote:
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 10:56 PM, Gene Heskett
>  wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 14 February 2020 22:56:11 Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/14/2020 12:52 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
> FYI, fogies, in the Jul-Aug, 1978 Bellsystem Technical Journal,
> announcing Unix, in the Style section of the Foreward is a list of
> "maxims...gained currency among the builders and users..." The first
> sentence of the first maxim in the list is, "Make each program do one
> thing well."
> 
> The second sentence is "To do a new job, build afresh rather than
> complicate old programs by adding new 'features.'"
> 
> Until recently, the *nix communities have stuck pretty well to these
> recommendations -- they're just descriptions of competent programming,
> after all. There may be some discussion over the definitions of "one
> thing" and "well" but there is software in our Linux that, I think,
> doesn't conform to anybody's understanding of these maxims.

While I tend to those maxims, two points:

 - I usually subsume them under "complexity is your enemy"

and then

 - all generalizations suck.

So, to each her own, YMMV, etc.

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: *nix cert

[Nate Bargmann]

* Andrew Cady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Dec 09 21:32 -0600]:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:01:50PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> 
> > LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
> > you once you've a proven track record.
> 
> Do either of these actually mean anything to anyone?

Do they mean more or less than CompTIA's Linux+ certification?

- Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  |  Successfully Microsoft
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | free since January 1998.
 http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   |  "Debian, the choice of
 My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/   |   http://www.debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Alvin Oga]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Andrew Cady wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:01:50PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> 
> > LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
> > you once you've a proven track record.
> 
> Do either of these actually mean anything to anyone?

if you mean lpi/rhce...  than those certs doesn't matter
to you either :-)
- some certs are designed to pass everybody,

while other certs are meant to "mean something"
and not all will pass no matter how many times
you take the tests

bs/ms/phd sometimes have "universal meanings"
since not everybody will pass ... some folks
are easier than other folks' to get "certs/degrees"

if you mean stump and/or proven track record ...
- some folks are ez to stump

and others will always be able to fix things or get around
"the stump"

- "proven track record" takes years to get established

- simple test of a "dumb track record" ?? ...
search for anything ... and see who shows up on the 1st page 
of the search results ( without paying to being listed )

- din-din time.. i'm done babbling :-)

c ya
alvin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Andrew Cady]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:01:50PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

> LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
> you once you've a proven track record.

Do either of these actually mean anything to anyone?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Andrey Andreev]

Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Alvin Oga wrote:
>> - get a 4yr college degree ... $1200 for certs or a year of
>> college tuition(?)
> When was the last time YOU looked at the cost of college tuition?  Then
> there is the cost of textbooks.  CS textbooks are not cheap.

USD 1200 for 1 year worth of CS books? How about college libraries and
copy machines? 1200 sounds completely out off the range of what I would
pay for CS books per year, and, thrust me, they are even more expensive
around here.

Andro

-- 
Andrey Andreev
University of Helsinki
Dept. of Computer Science


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Justin Gallardo]

Oh, I agree with getting a degree will put you much better off. If I  
didn't...I wouldn't be here ;-)

On Dec 9, 2005, at 1:26 AM, Rogério Brito wrote:


On Dec 08 2005, Justin Gallardo wrote:

Haha, funny enough. I am currently a student at a four year, and a
term of tuition, including my housing costs (3 terms a year) was
$4600, for in-state tuition. I would say that a few good certs would
be much more cost effective.


Well, but a Computer Science course, if done right (i.e., with  
theorems,

proofs and a solid background on theoretical foundations of Computer
Science) would be much more illuminating.

Getting a certification would be just like studying for another  
subject
(perhaps much easier than studying for some course---again, such  
courses
are done right, since much of Computer Science deals with problems  
that

are simple to state, yet utterly hard to solve).

And a graduate degree is even more mind-opening, I can assure you.


Regards, Rogério Brito.

--
Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat:  http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Justin Gallardo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Rogério Brito]

On Dec 08 2005, Justin Gallardo wrote:
> Haha, funny enough. I am currently a student at a four year, and a  
> term of tuition, including my housing costs (3 terms a year) was  
> $4600, for in-state tuition. I would say that a few good certs would  
> be much more cost effective.

Well, but a Computer Science course, if done right (i.e., with theorems,
proofs and a solid background on theoretical foundations of Computer
Science) would be much more illuminating.

Getting a certification would be just like studying for another subject
(perhaps much easier than studying for some course---again, such courses
are done right, since much of Computer Science deals with problems that
are simple to state, yet utterly hard to solve).

And a graduate degree is even more mind-opening, I can assure you.


Regards, Rogério Brito.

-- 
Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat:  http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Alvin Oga]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Justin Gallardo wrote:

> Haha, funny enough. I am currently a student at a four year, and a  
> term of tuition, including my housing costs (3 terms a year) was  
> $4600, for in-state tuition. I would say that a few good certs would  
> be much more cost effective.

costwize, i was just using costs of "per-unit class time" and
excluding housing/food/transportation/etc/etc/etc/ beer and pizza $$ too
and if you want .. stanford starts at about $25K per quarter
as does all them big-name private schools

cost bene of a 4yr degree is ez to figure out ...

just compare salaries for folks with BS/MS/PhDs
and salaries for those with just certs 

the problem is some folks with bs/ms/phD tend to also have certs
which can skew the results to what you want to see


folks with 4yr degree tend to make 50% or 2x or more than those with just
certs or 2 yr degrees ... and gazillion time more if you make it to 
founder shareholders


---

for me .. just having certs won't cut it, to get that ph interview call
to get to the next step .. 

c ya
alvn


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Alvin Oga]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Tony Godshall wrote:

> > > > > What cert would people recomend to do at home ? (This my own money 
> > > > > here so cant afford corporate rates)  
> 
> > LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
> > you once you've a proven track record.
> 
> nice tip, for a Debian list ;-/

maybe there is a DCE ??

c ya
alvin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Justin Gallardo]

Haha, funny enough. I am currently a student at a four year, and a  
term of tuition, including my housing costs (3 terms a year) was  
$4600, for in-state tuition. I would say that a few good certs would  
be much more cost effective.

On Dec 8, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:


On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:25:53AM +0100, arden wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, arden wrote:


Slightly off topic sorry

but Im trying to brake out of my hardware suppport role and into  
a more sys admin role


My company will not support this so im doing this off my own back

What cert would people recomend to do at home ? (This my own  
money here so cant afford corporate rates)



LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
you once you've a proven track record.

Andy


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Justin Gallardo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Marc Shapiro]

Alvin Oga wrote:


- get a 4yr college degree ... 
	$1200 for certs or a year of college tuition(?)




When was the last time YOU looked at the cost of college tuition?  Then 
there is the cost of textbooks.  CS textbooks are not cheap.


--
Marc Shapiro
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:14:55PM -0800, Tony Godshall wrote:
> > > > > What cert would people recomend to do at home ? (This my own money 
> > > > > here so cant afford corporate rates)  
> 
> > LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
> > you once you've a proven track record.
> 
> nice tip, for a Debian list ;-/
> 
Yes, but both certifications are complementary. In an environment
at work where "if it isn't Red Hat, it isn't" - it's quite useful
to be able to prove RH competence.

12 years of Linux experience doesn't really count for much at times :(

Andy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Tony Godshall]

> > > > What cert would people recomend to do at home ? (This my own money here 
> > > > so cant afford corporate rates)  

> LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
> you once you've a proven track record.

nice tip, for a Debian list ;-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:25:53AM +0100, arden wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:01:58 -0800 (PST)
> Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, arden wrote:
> > 
> > > Slightly off topic sorry 
> > > 
> > > but Im trying to brake out of my hardware suppport role and into a more 
> > > sys admin role 
> > > 
> > > My company will not support this so im doing this off my own back 
> > > 
> > > What cert would people recomend to do at home ? (This my own money here 
> > > so cant afford corporate rates)  
> > > 
LPI - then, potentially, RHCE if you can find someone to stump up for
you once you've a proven track record.

Andy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Alvin Oga]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, arden wrote:

> I know I can do it been using linux at home for years no windoze boxes here, 
> need to prove it to closed minded Managers 

most hiring and managing managers knows .. "what you do at home" has
nothing to do with "how you do stuff at work"

there's a lot more to it .. say 10x more stuff to do at work
for the same task of swapping out say the dead disk drive

- policies, proceedures, prototcol, purchasing, accounting, etc,
etc

- more importantly.. documentation ... cover your butt with
hopefully your boss covering for you .. otherwise you'd be
standing naked and alone in front of the boss's bosses

corp sysadmin is way way different than admining at home ...
- if someone came to me and said they do this stuff at home,
i'd probably start ending the interview ( it's a big red flag )

- maybe, i'd put a broken machine in front of them, and say 
"here fix it in 3 minutes" and you got a job
( fix the hw or fix the kernel or fix the app or fix whatever 
  it is you say on your resume you "can fix" )

ie .. don't say you do stuff at home, even if you do .. everybody knows
that, been there, done that .. ( usually had bad experiences with 
folks that only did stuff at home vs doing sys admin for a 24x7 living )

what corp folks want to hear is you know about corp world
policies and proceedures because if you/somebody doesn't
tell somebody else the firewall will go offline at 12:00-1:00
and everybody will be disconnected, they all want to know
ahead of time..preferably days ahead of time 

( scheduled maintenance and preventative and all that stuff )

- most people do not have a 2nd hot spare either so if
you do change things and it breaks... your hot spare will be
helpful to "get your ass out of jail" 

- lots of planning/what if's ... to do the simplest tasks

either way .. having a cert will not help you with corp world admin'ing
depending on who the hiring manager is 
- 5 yrs or 10yrs or 20 yrs of "doing it" will help :-)

"security clearances" is a whole other ball game ... that will be
semi-required to get the job
- go after that ... it doesn't cost as much as "certs"

fun stuff ... with or without certs

c ya
alvin



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[arden]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, arden wrote:
> 
> > Slightly off topic sorry 
> > 
> > but Im trying to brake out of my hardware suppport role and into a more sys 
> > admin role 
> > 
> > My company will not support this so im doing this off my own back 
> > 
> > What cert would people recomend to do at home ? (This my own money here so 
> > cant afford corporate rates)  
> > 
> > I have a small home network running x86 machines So Aix is out unless can 
> > find a p-series box cheap 
> 
> take apart your machines ... and put it back together
>   - buy/get/beg for spare sparts from everybody that is
>   throwing out their old junk and make it work ..
> 
> when you see people post problems in mailing lists, that xxx doesn't work
> .. see if you can make it work on your boxes
> 
> certs are meaningless in most cases, but experiences in
> being to fix problems far outweigh any cert and PhD
> 
> if you can't fix "the problem", having a cert that says you're
> a level-5 sage sys admin expert won't help you
> 
> "the problem" is the one that your boss cares about
> that helped him get all the other monkeys off his back too
> 
> but some folks won't give you the time of day unless oyu
> do have a cert... ( seems odd to me, that it's in their requirements 
> for qualifications, and at the same time lists 5-10 yrs exp
> and BS or MS preferred )
> 
>   but if you have a BS/MS/PhD, you're over qualified to 
>   be doing "sys admin" but you will do that in either case
>   whether you want to or not ...
> 
>   why people treat sys admin so badly, i donno ..
>   esp when it is the sysamdin who they turn to when the computer
>   breaks
> 
> - get a 4yr college degree ... 
>   $1200 for certs or a year of college tuition(?)
> 
> c ya
> alvin


Thanks for the reply 

Taking stuff apart and fixing it is not a prob I fix everything at work IBM 
x-p-i and even z series 

plus sun  dec and hp kit

Its proving I can move out of the screwdriver hands Job on and move onto 
supporting the OS

I know I can do it been using linux at home for years no windoze boxes here, 
need to prove it to closed minded Managers 

Arden 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: *nix cert

[Alvin Oga]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, arden wrote:

> Slightly off topic sorry 
> 
> but Im trying to brake out of my hardware suppport role and into a more sys 
> admin role 
> 
> My company will not support this so im doing this off my own back 
> 
> What cert would people recomend to do at home ? (This my own money here so 
> cant afford corporate rates)  
> 
> I have a small home network running x86 machines So Aix is out unless can 
> find a p-series box cheap 

take apart your machines ... and put it back together
- buy/get/beg for spare sparts from everybody that is
throwing out their old junk and make it work ..

when you see people post problems in mailing lists, that xxx doesn't work
.. see if you can make it work on your boxes

certs are meaningless in most cases, but experiences in
being to fix problems far outweigh any cert and PhD

if you can't fix "the problem", having a cert that says you're
a level-5 sage sys admin expert won't help you

"the problem" is the one that your boss cares about
that helped him get all the other monkeys off his back too

but some folks won't give you the time of day unless oyu
do have a cert... ( seems odd to me, that it's in their requirements 
for qualifications, and at the same time lists 5-10 yrs exp
and BS or MS preferred )

but if you have a BS/MS/PhD, you're over qualified to 
be doing "sys admin" but you will do that in either case
whether you want to or not ...

why people treat sys admin so badly, i donno ..
esp when it is the sysamdin who they turn to when the computer
breaks

- get a 4yr college degree ... 
$1200 for certs or a year of college tuition(?)

c ya
alvin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: nix für ungut: rofl

[Jens Müller]

Dixit "Carsten Hohmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> du wirst dieses problem nicht sauber lösen können. die deutsche sprache
> beisteht zwar auch aus formalen regeln, aber auch aus unmengen von
> ausnahmen.
>

Wohingegen die Regeln fürs Quoten unter  recht
eindeutig beschrieben sind.
-- 
"Nein, junger Freund, mäßigen Sie sich bitte,//denn übers Faustrecht
sind wir längst hinaus.//So was ist heutzutage nicht mehr Sitte,//
und es ist auch gefährlich, selbst zu richten!"
Cléante zu Damis in Molière: Tartuffe