* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
I see a topic far in the distance and rapidly dwindling...
Topic? What's a topic?
A London.pm thread topic is like a non-alchoholic ingredient in a cocktail,
its only there
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:55:46AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
I see a topic far in the distance and rapidly dwindling...
Topic? What's a topic?
:-)
--
David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Six course banquet of nothing, with a scoop of sod-all for a palate
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If your terminal has flow control enabled it will eat ^Q and ^S for you.
stty -ixon
removes this problem.
But then how do you pause that long ls listing when your
less,more,pg,sed,awkperl binaries are all fscked? :-)
-Dom
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If your terminal has flow control enabled it will eat ^Q
and ^S for you.
stty -ixon
removes this problem.
But then how do you pause that long ls listing when your
less,more,pg,sed,awkperl
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:10:13AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If your terminal has flow control enabled it will eat ^Q
and ^S for you.
stty -ixon
removes this problem.
But then how do you
Dominic Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If your terminal has flow control enabled it will eat ^Q and ^S for you.
stty -ixon
removes this problem.
But then how do you pause that long ls listing when your
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
assuming you can get into a bourne shell, you can
still do things like write cat(1) in sh, as well.
This is not going to help you pause output.
Although it'd be hard to control without ^S and ^Q,
...which was what the original post was all about.
Cheers,
Philip
--
On Thu, 10 May 2001 22:25:00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
(Someone has a quote about the only safe thing to send down a serial line
being a break, because emacs interprets every character)
You mean this?
On a normal ascii line, the only safe condition to detect is a 'BREAK'
- everything else
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:41:20AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
assuming you can get into a bourne shell, you can
still do things like write cat(1) in sh, as well.
This is not going to help you pause output.
Although it'd be hard to control without ^S and ^Q,
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:41:20AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
assuming you can get into a bourne shell, you can
still do things like write cat(1) in sh, as well.
This is not going to help you pause output.
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:14:08AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:41:20AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
assuming you can get into a bourne shell, you can
still do things like write
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
That breaks if the line is longer than the width of your screen.
So do a lot of cheap pager routines.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
At 10:32 11/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
Dominic Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If your terminal has flow control enabled it will eat ^Q and ^S for you.
stty -ixon
removes this problem.
But then how do you pause that
On or about Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:48:41AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson typed:
You know, from the outside, Unix looks so well designed and clean and modern...
From the outside, Windows looks as if it works.
ObRant: computers and OSes in their current state are not consumer devices.
They're not
* at 11/05 11:32 +0100 Roger Burton West said:
On or about Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:48:41AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson typed:
You know, from the outside, Unix looks so well designed and clean and modern...
From the outside, Windows looks as if it works.
ObRant: computers and OSes in their
Roger Burton West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ObRant: computers and OSes in their current state are not consumer devices.
They're not sufficiently reliable or intuitive. Bad marketing has made
people think they need the things; most of them are wrong...
OK, so what does it take?
For me, the
On or about Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:37:20AM +0100, Struan Donald typed:
but then any reasonably flexible multi-purpose device is always going
to have a hard time being a consumer device as by it's nature it's
complex and trying to make complex things appear simple is very very
hard.
Yes.
On or about Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:32:33AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson typed:
Roger Burton West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ObRant: computers and OSes in their current state are not consumer devices.
They're not sufficiently reliable or intuitive. Bad marketing has made
people think they need the
At 11:37 11/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
but then any reasonably flexible multi-purpose device is always going
to have a hard time being a consumer device as by it's nature it's
complex and trying to make complex things appear simple is very very
hard.
I can never work out if life is getting
Roger Burton West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Putting pretty interfaces on existing unstable systems does not
help to make them simpler...
That's part of it. Landing a thudding great book of what the thing
_can_ do, rather than a cookbook of what you _want_ it to do is very
offputting.
There's
* at 11/05 11:49 +0100 Dave Hodgkinson said:
Roger Burton West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Putting pretty interfaces on existing unstable systems does not
help to make them simpler...
That's part of it. Landing a thudding great book of what the thing
_can_ do, rather than a cookbook of
Struan Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a very real argument for devices that do one thing and one
thing only but do it in a very simple way without all the flimflam
that accompanies most modern computers. Donald Norman has quite a few
good books on this.
Agreed, but they MUST talk
* at 11/05 12:07 +0100 Dave Hodgkinson said:
Struan Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a very real argument for devices that do one thing and one
thing only but do it in a very simple way without all the flimflam
that accompanies most modern computers. Donald Norman has quite a
At 10:05 AM 2001.05.11 +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If your terminal has flow control enabled it will eat ^Q and ^S
for you. stty -ixon removes this problem.
But then how do you pause that long ls listing when your
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:32:15AM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote:
ObRant: computers and OSes in their current state are not consumer devices.
ObRantContinuation:
It goes a little further than that. Cars are now consumer devices; but
if you were deploying a fleet of new company vans, you
At 15:42 11/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
It goes a little further than that. Cars are now consumer devices; but
if you were deploying a fleet of new company vans, you wouldn't expect
the random office guy who'd read a dummies book to maintain them - you'd
hire a mechanic.
Hmmm.. You're suggesting
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 04:05:21PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
The average bottom rung mechanic knows as much about cars as the average
bottom rung tech support guy knows about computers.
Okay. I know very little of the vehicle maintenance industry, so it was
a poor choice of analogy,
At 16:31 11/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
there are too
many organisations (notably schools, as well as companies) pushing
excessive technical responsibilities onto unqualified and inexperienced
staff.
That's actually a really good point (about the schools). You hear about all
these 'computers for
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:14:08AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:41:20AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
assuming you can get into a bourne shell, you can
still do things like write
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:35:29PM +0100, Struan Donald wrote:
kind of off topic but how do you get things like ^M and such like into
a file for, say, writing vi macros?
i've had a look through some docs but i'm beggining to suspect it's
one of those bit of unix aracana know to a chosen
On or about Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:35:29PM +0100, Struan Donald typed:
kind of off topic but how do you get things like ^M and such like into
a file for, say, writing vi macros?
ctrl-x 0 d
but using it in a search/replace pattern is harder.
Roger
* at 10/05 16:37 +0100 Dominic Mitchell said:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:35:29PM +0100, Struan Donald wrote:
kind of off topic but how do you get things like ^M and such like into
a file for, say, writing vi macros?
i've had a look through some docs but i'm beggining to suspect it's
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:35:29PM +0100, Struan Donald wrote:
kind of off topic but how do you get things like ^M and such like into
a file for, say, writing vi macros?
perl -e 'print \cM' my-file
;-)
.robin.
ps. Dominic's already given a proper answer...
--
Flee to me, remote elf!
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Struan Donald wrote:
In Emacs, it's ^Q, then the character you want.
only ^Q? that's not like emacs :)
Well, it's assuming that nobody's fiddled with the keymaps. You could
alternatively do:
M-x quoted-insert RET RET
-Dom
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Struan Donald wrote:
* at 10/05 16:37 +0100 Dominic Mitchell said:
Generally you can enter a control character into vi and most Unix shells
by pressing ^V and then the character you want.
ah, thanks
In Emacs, it's ^Q, then the character you
35 matches
Mail list logo
