References: <zazed-78...@gated-at.bofh.it> <zagfh-31...@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 2020-02-17 at 06:00:01, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk>
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 <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Du, 16 feb 20, 09:36:16, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:20:01 +0100
>>>> Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> 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 withdrawn because of a GUI replacement.
Not withdrawn, no.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
<andreimpope...@gmail.com> 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.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.