Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #219202 > unrolled thread

Re: *nix

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Re: *nix Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> - 2020-02-16 22:30 +0100
    Re: *nix Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-02-16 23:00 +0100
      Re: *nix Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2020-02-17 04:30 +0100
        Re: *nix Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-02-17 09:50 +0100
          Re: *nix Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-02-17 16:10 +0100
            Re: *nix Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2020-02-17 21:20 +0100
        Re: *nix Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-02-17 17:40 +0100
          Re: *nix mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-02-17 20:00 +0100
            Re: *nix Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2020-02-17 21:30 +0100
              Re: *nix mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-02-17 23:20 +0100
                Re: *nix David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-02-18 00:40 +0100
            Re: *nix Martin Smith <tech@smithproductions.co.uk> - 2020-02-17 22:40 +0100
    Re: *nix David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-02-17 06:00 +0100

#219202 — Re: *nix

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU 
<andreimpopescu@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
 >> <andreimpopescu@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.

 > 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.
\ /  <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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#219203

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 13:03:05 -0800
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> 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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219206

On 2/16/20 4:30 PM, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 13:03:05 -0800
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219214

On 2020-02-17, Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219220

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Feb 17, 2020, Curt wrote:
> On 2020-02-17, Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219232

On 2/17/20 10:03 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2020, Curt wrote:
>> On 2020-02-17, Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219228

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:07:59 -0500
Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> 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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219230

On 2020-02-17 16:29, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:07:59 -0500
> Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> 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 ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219233

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 <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219235

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 ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219237

On Mon 17 Feb 2020 at 22:10:48 (+0000), 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219234

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 <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#219207

On Sun 16 Feb 2020 at 13:03:05 (-0800), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:10:01 +0100 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@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 <andreimpopescu@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.

> > 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 <andreimpopescu@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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web