Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: i/o in linux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: windoze is awful ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:15:43 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I already stated specifically how you disable TCP/IP in NT4 without
> >rebooting, I don't have to say it again.
>
> So I take it you are purposely ignoring the issue? Yes, you can disable
> TCP/IP without rebooting, and then enable it again without rebooting.
> Unfortunately, you cannot disable it and then reboot, and then enable it
> without rebooting. Get it?
You're still wrong.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:21:32 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> reflect's Erik's own argument, that you can't 'remove' TCP/IP, like you
> >> can in Windows. Erik undermined his argument, of course, by pointing
> >> out that 'removing' TCP/IP doesn't remove it, but merely disables it,
> >
> >No I didn't. I said you *CAN* disable it if that's all you want to do.
>
> But you can't! All you can do is remove it, and then take advantage of
> the fact that it fails to do so, and call it "disabled" because even
> though you shouldn't be able to, you can still enable and then continue
> to use it. You have to actually reboot if you really want it removed.
No, Max. Enabling and Disabling is an entirely different process from
removing and adding.
They do different things.
> >Simply click the Disable button rather than the Remove button.
>
> Which version of Windows are you talking about? There is no "disable"
> button for protocols on NT, and I don't recall seeing one on WinDOS,
> either. I think you might be talking about disabling the binding of the
> protocol to the adapter, rather than removing either the protocol or the
> adapter. As you are so fond of saying, that's not what the discussion
> is about.
Yes there is. I already described this in detail, and will do so again.
In NT4, go to network properties. Click the Bindings tab, choose "All
protocols" from the "Show bindings for" drop down. Click on TCP/IP
Protocol, and click the Disable button. Likewise there is an Enable button.
You don't know what you're talking about.
> >And I said
> >that this disables without requireing a reboot. And also clicking the
> >Enable button enables without requiring a reboot. This is different from
> >removing the stack, which does remove it, not just disable it.
>
> No, it doesn't disable the stack at all; it disables the binding of the
> protocol to an adapter.
Or all adapters, disabling TCP/IP. Notice the circle with the slash through
it over the TCP/IP Protocol name.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:04:53 GMT
[snips]
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Bl_X5.40981$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No I need to move four out of 25 text files within the same directory.
> > Some of them have 30-40 character names, so I can't remember their exact
> > names. Using a GUI file manager is at least as effective.
>
> What do you do when you are alternating back and forth between two or
> more long directory paths in a GUI that only remembers one? A cli with
> command recall and edit is faster for me in this common situation.
1) Open a copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the source folder
2) Select the files to copy
3) Right-click, "copy"
4) Open a second copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the target folder
5) Right-click, "paste"
6) Click or alt-tab to switch between the windows as needed for further
operations
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:13:23 GMT
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > The original quote I was responding to: "But even if you're a new user,
it's
> > still worth taking the time to learn how to use the command line."
> >
> > Now, what benefit does the command line offer Grandpappy, as a new user?
>
>
> Which is easier:
>
> a) opening 50 documents, one at a time, trying to find which one
> references a specific peculiar topic...
>
> or
>
> B) grep _keyword_ [*.document_files]
Let's see:
cd /folder
grep ribosome *.doc
grep -? Aha: use -i to ignore case
grep -i ribosome *.doc
grep -? Aha: use -r to recurse!
grep -i -r ribosome *.doc
found: /folder/documents/research/data1.doc
vs:
Start/Search/Files
/folder
ribosome
<click>
found: /folder/documents/research/data1.doc
Note: also shows link to folder containing the document, as well as
double-clickable shortcut to document itself. To use, just click.
Of course, if you use grep often enough, you'll get to memorize all those
command-switches. Note that word, "memorize". Now go have a read of "The
Design of Everyday Things", and see what the author has to say about things
which need to be memorized versus things where the options are right there
in front of you, and it's impact on usability.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: i/o in linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:43:30 GMT
Yes, and correctly too. Apparently you haven't paid attention;
http://www.signalground.com/article/3140273434
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Zl%X5.1038$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Didn't we all say this two years ago?
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, this Mr. Swango is correct, the Linux Kernel is still
"alpha"
> > > testing (because Linux is ALWAYS in beta stages) support for this
style
> of
> > > x86 hardware.
> > >
> > > Innovation and Linux are two terms that DON'T go togather. Your
problem
> is
> > > that the SMP support your application would thrive under doesn't exist
> under
> > > the Linux platform. I suggest you look into the manufacturer of your
> > > mainboard to see what OS they recomend (a commercial UNIX or Windows
> 2000).
> > >
> > > Linux does NOT hold a candle to native SMP support on any platform.
> >
> > Give it 2 years, and lets see.
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> >
> > H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> > premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> > you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> > you are lazy, stupid people"
> >
> > I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> > challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> > between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> > Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
> >
> > J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> > The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> > also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
> >
> > A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
> >
> > B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> > method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> > direction that she doesn't like.
> >
> > C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
> >
> > D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> > ...despite (C) above.
> >
> > E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> > her behavior improves.
> >
> > F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> > adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
> >
> > G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:28:17 GMT
[snips]
"Adam Schuetze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It could be both, but how is that relevant? Do you have a
> point? People who don't even bother to learn about the machines
> they are using are lazy. Like people who drive a car, but don't
> even know where to put oil in.
"Putting oil in" is about on a par with running a defragger or a virus
scanner. Hacking the kernel is more on a par with reboring your cylinders
to crank out some extra power. Some folks seem to think this is important;
others simply want to get in and drive.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:22:07 GMT
[snips]
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > Grandpappy could care less about the command line. From the GUI, he can
do
> > all his work, he can copy, rename, print, delete, backup and restore
files,
> > he can browse the web, he can get e-mail and news, he can do every
single
> > task he actually needs to do. So what benefit is there in learning the
> > command line for him?
>
> How does Grandpappy do an nslookup to find out who is hacking him?
He doesn't. I'm sure he could use nslookup if someone told him about it...
but he wouldn't have the foggiest idea what to do with the information.
Besides... unless you're doing something to attract such attacks in the
first place (running servers, browsing from your terminal at the bank,
whatever) you're not overly likely to _be_ attacked, and when you are, most
such attempts won't get past even the most trivially minimal firewall
setup... which was provided for him.
Besides, if he needs such tools, as I occasionally do, there are decent
GUI-based ones which can scan logs, monitor ports, do whatever you please,
resolve individual items or batches of them, even prepare anti-hacking
e-mails for you complete with the details of the attack. Oh, he can't run
nslookup? So what? There are far better tools available, which do a much
better job, much more easily, so why would he cripple himself with such a
limited tool as that, if he was even worried about the problem in the first
place?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:51:31 GMT
"B. P. Uecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote in <msGX5.2276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >For that matter, with all that funding and development time behind it, NT
> >got its' ass kicked by a Unix clone built by a loosely coordinated band
of
> >hackers and some guy in Finland. Now that is SAD!
>
> Linux is a replacement for Netware in your dreams.
Never said that it was. Read the thread....I said the a bunch of hackers and
a guy in Finland produced an OS that beats NT in stability. Linux does beat
NetWare on many levels, though. NetWare was nothing more than a simple
server. Linux does far more. For that matter, so does NT. The problem I and
others have with NT is that it doesn't do any of those things well.
The whole point of this thread is to illustrate that NT was an abject
failure. Perhaps 2000 finally raises the bar. I doubt it though.
>The problem with
> Linux (aside from the fact that open source development is a black
> hole) is that it tries to be everything to everyone and masters
> nothing. It is basically acceptable as a server platform but beyond
> its circle of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better than parrot
> slashdot) it has no mindshare. Linux on the desktop will never happen
> and on the server end it is mainly a toy for easily distracted geeks
> who will eventually find another bandwagon to hop on. I give it
> another couple of years before it joins OS/2 in the trash heap. And
> I'm a generous man.
Linux will never be a desktop OS - I agree. Those who think this are a bit
deluded.
Linux on the server end - It appears that a massive nuber of geeks were
distracted, doesn't it? This doesn't show any signs of abatement, either.
The next bandwagon will probably be BSD. It certainly won't be a Microsoft
product.
The only way Linux will join OS/2 and NetWare is if they keep trying to
market it as the be all and end all desktop solution. It has already shown a
great deal promise in the dedicated application arena. Personally, I find it
a more than viable embedded soulution. It'll be around for a long time in
one form or another.Best get used to it.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Light Bulb Part 2
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:55:04 GMT
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Gk%X5.10270$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:wm_X5.6221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9uPX5.6696$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [snips]
> > >
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:YP9X5.677$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > A buddy of mine is doing some Windows programming today.
> > > >
> > > > Hack/Crash/Reboot
> > > > Hack/Crash/Reboot
> > > >
> > > > I emailed your little diatribe to him and he told me to tell you to
> fuck
> > > > off.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think he liked it ;)
> > >
> > > Funny; I do Windows development regularly, and I don't have that
> problem.
> >
> > I don't have near the problems he does as I run NT as a development
> > platform. He's sticking with Win98. And don't tell me you haven't had
> > VStudio go up in flames on you before...
>
>
> Sure - VStudio. Not the whole system, not requiring reboots.
Under NT, I seldom have to reboot because of VStudio. Its' crashes under 98,
especially if I'm doing other things in the background, demand reboots.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:41:13 GMT
[snips]
"Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> software is irrelevant. As was previously mentioned, user side software
CANNOT
> cause linux to crash...
So is configuring your soundcard considered "user side"? I've had my
machine lock *dead* - reset switch required - and had it do this
*consistently* - just by trying to use Mandrake's tools for configuring the
sound card. 7.2 seems to have fixed this... or it could be the fact it's
running on a different box... but 7.1 on the old box did it every single
time, without fail.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:05:30 GMT
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nS%X5.10322$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> Of course, if you use grep often enough, you'll get to memorize all those
> command-switches. Note that word, "memorize". Now go have a read of "The
> Design of Everyday Things", and see what the author has to say about
things
> which need to be memorized versus things where the options are right there
> in front of you, and it's impact on usability.
Precisely why configurations should be done in one big text file that
you can see at once instead of hidden behind those annoying
tabbed dialog boxes where you have to keep poking different
tabs until you uncover the thing you wanted.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:55:49 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > It's really about fucking time.
>
> Unix originated on quality equipment.
>
> Windows is aimed at low-quality equipment...which is why, when
> given high-quality hardware to run on....there is no performance
> improvement.
Really? Funny; all my Windows-based apps run a lot faster on my new
machine. I guess I'll have to write an app that does nothing but suck ram
and CPU time, to knock the machine back to the perfomance levels of the old
machine, just so it meets your "no performance improvement". Of course,
having to do all that extra work just to make one of your statements have
some remote semblance of truth seems rather pointless; personally, I'll
stick with the improved performance, whether you want to admit such a thing
is possible or not.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:11:33 GMT
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pK%X5.10318$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Bl_X5.40981$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > No I need to move four out of 25 text files within the same directory.
> > > Some of them have 30-40 character names, so I can't remember their
exact
> > > names. Using a GUI file manager is at least as effective.
> >
> > What do you do when you are alternating back and forth between two or
> > more long directory paths in a GUI that only remembers one? A cli with
> > command recall and edit is faster for me in this common situation.
>
> 1) Open a copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the source folder
> 2) Select the files to copy
> 3) Right-click, "copy"
> 4) Open a second copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the target folder
> 5) Right-click, "paste"
> 6) Click or alt-tab to switch between the windows as needed for further
> operations
And that is supposed to be easier? It looks like a several-minute job if
the directories are large and you have to wait for each to open and
then scroll around to select the files.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:15:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> To hit ESC, you don't have to move your whole arm, just stretch
:> your finger a bit (Especially so on the older keyboards for which
:> VI was designed, which put the escape key at the left edge of the
:> numbers row.)
: To hit cursor keys, you don't have to move your whole arm, just
: stretch your finger a bit.
Wow! So I assume then that your planet is populated by aliens with
sinewy 8-inch long fingers that can bend sideways and splay out
in any direction from the palm? Neato. Meanwhile us poor humans
have fingers that don't bend that way. For us humans, to move the
fingers 8 inches to the left requires that the *wrist* slides over,
which means the the whole forearm is moving too, hinged at the elbow.
:> Not only that, but you use your LEFT hand, while the
:> RIGHT stays by the hjkl keys.
: Not if I want to type yuioopnm, for example.
Huh?
:> To hit 'i', you don't have to move
:> your hand at all. You would have to be a really terrible typist to
:> lose track of the home row just becuase you hit a key on the top row.
:> Now, when you have to move your whole hand by swinging your forearm
:> in order to reach the 'special keys', then you have to look down
:> to find your finger positions.
: Not with the layout on my keyboard.
What type of keyboard is this? The only one I've seen that is on
a PC, and has the arrow keys in reach of the typewriter keys is
a laptop, where you have to use 'modal' thinking to toggle the
editiing keys on and off with some special blue 'fn' key. If so,
then you've got "modal" issues built right into your hardware, and
shouldn't be complaining.
:> The only thing I would change about
:> HJKL would be to have made it be JKL; instead, so that you use all
:> four home-row fingers rather than just three of them with the index
:> finger doing double-duty. But this is a very small difference.
: I've seen some cursor movement implementations that put the 'up'
: key on the row above hjkl and the 'down' key on the row below
: hjkl, presumably because too many people complained about having
: difficulty keeping track of which letter was up and which was down.
Yeah, I admit this confused me for about 30 seconds back when I first
started using vi (which, incedentally was *after* I was already
familiar with Emacs, Notepad, the IBM-designed "CUI" mappings popular
in many old programming editors (Like Turbo Pascal), the Vax's 'edt',
and so on, none of which were modal.) It's easy once you realize that
the outer keys are left/right, and the inner keys are up/down, and
don't think of them by their letters.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:23:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: There's a simple solution to all of this.
: If in doubt, hit the escape key. This puts you in command mode.
: Then hit type "i" to begin inserting at your current location.
: Problem solved.
This is essentially what I do, as do most experienced vi users.
The problem comes from thinking of 'insert' as a mode. Think
of it as an command action (insert the following stuff...), and
then think of 'esc' as the 'done with that action' key. I often
gratuitously hit 'esc' when I come back to the editor after my
attention has been drawn away, and I don't even do it consiously.
What I like about vi is that it lets you mix the activity of
'editing code' with the activity of 'composing code' without
having to look down at the keys to move your hand from one
part of the keyboard to the other. (And any 'clunkiness'
experienced from not being in insert mode by default is more
than made up for by the ultra-powerful commands available that
save shitloads of time when editing already-written code (which
is what programmers spend the majority of their time in an editor
doing. The initial type-a-lot-of-stuff-at-once stage is only the
first sliver of time spent. Then you have to go back and fix all
your mistakes, and for that I insist on the power of vi.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:30:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Thus, EVERY time you changed modes, it would take an average
: of 100 characters to move the cursor to the corner, change
: the mode indicator, and then move the cursor back.
: At 300 baud..that's 3 seconds...assuming that you're actually
: getting full throughput on the line (i.e. if the system is
: heavily loaded, it will be even worse).
This is also one of the reasons the curses library is the fastest
terminal screen code there is. It was borne out of vi, and it
was highly optimized for getting things done with the least number
of characters sent. Even though that isn't as critical today, it's
still nice to know your shell logins are sending the minimal number
of bytes possible over the medium, regardless of whether that medium
is a modem or a LAN. Bandwith is never so large that it is okay to
waste it. Less bandwith usage per user equals more simultaneous
users possible.
When I first looked at the termcap (or terminfo, can't remember
which I encountered first) stuff, to upgrade the settings for a
new terminal, I was vastly amazed by the sheer number of terminals
and terminal emulators supported by the typical Unix installation.
It was mind-boggling.
:>
:> <excessively long sig snipped>
<and re-snipped>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:32:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:>
:> Steve> (To tholen) Okay we agree, it seems, that intuativeness is
:> Steve> purely relative to what is already known. In the case of
:> Steve> Vi, it only appears unintuative if you are used to some
:> Steve> other editor first. This I agree with. What you don't
:> Steve> seem to get is that it works the other way around too - if
:> Steve> you learn Vi first, then those other editors are the
:> Steve> unintuative ones.
:>
:> Yeah, especially when regular expressions have become almost a basic
:> instinct and the other editor doesn't have regular expressions.
: Or repeat counts for everything, including inserts, or ways to describe
: motions or ranges.
I tend to do this a lot for repeating lists of things where I know
I'm going to go back and just change one thing on each line, but
other than that all the lines are the same. I love doing:
50 o {type the line} {esc}
To stick the line in 50 times.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:35:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 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.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:38:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
: enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
: determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
: record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
: intuitive.
Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
off would, you know, actually turn it off.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
