> The places where they put "unimportant" things like @, [, ], {, }, \,
> etc. Face it: German keyboards may be suitable for secretaries or poets,
> but they are a royal pain for technical stuff like programming.If you look back in history (damn, I'm not that old) keyboards _have_ been designed first and foremost for typewriters and secretaries. Programming came ages later. But dont be a sissy, I am a developer myself (http://pauker.sourceforge.net/) and the German keyboard never troubled me while programming. > But thats quite OT, because switching to a saner keyboard layout is not an > option for fgfs users having problems to start engine no. 2. It is not OT because different keyboard layouts are a problem for both FlightGear developers and users. Btw, every keyboard layout is more or less "sane" for the people in the respective countries. The solution for FlightGear could be to interpret keystrokes instead of characters. This way you dont have the problem that suddenly the keys for controlling FlightGear are hard to reach. It always bugs me if a program tells me to use "A" & "Z" to control some velocity and I have to grab over the whole keyboard. The big plus you get ("sane" mapping of controls to keyboard) gets a small dent because in your user manual you have to decribe the position of the key instead of just saying "use X"... Hope to have sparked some discussion... Ronny _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
