Linux's Much Overlooked Calculator -- BC
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: inetd problems
Next: Downloading andLinux
From: Chris Davies on 24 Mar 2010 07:38 Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote: > Actually there are lots of cases when you should not need a mouse. I hated > Microsoft Windows because it required a mouse for almost everything, wheres > prior to that I used mouseless systems. Now we have Linux, we can use > mouseless systems again :-) Strange. I have found that Microsoft software generally has better non-mouse access preconfigured than anything else. Gnome is getting better, but either I haven't found the keyboard shortcuts for it and most of my apps, or else I have to configure them myself. (Configurability is good, but I'd like there first to be working consistency.) > Also remember that we also have touchscreens, trackerballs, joysticks, > light pens and aiming devices, so a mouse should not be requisite. Many of those use a mouse paradigm (or at least, a default computer setup treats them so). > You can use a mouse as a supplementary device, but the interfaces > should not depend on it. Agreed. > The Revolution Against Mouse Requisite Interfaces project is an > accessibility initiative aimed at making software easier to operate > and automate by removing the mouse requisite interface by providing > keyboard navigation and scriptable replication. A mouse (or similar) should never have been a requirement in the first place. At the place where I work, we are starting to replace an old (legacy) green-screen application with one that uses a GUI. Guess which is faster for a trained operative to use. (The context is such that it's unlikely an untrained person could use either application.) Guess which one looks snazzier and is therefore seen as better. Chris
From: TJ on 24 Mar 2010 08:02 On 03/23/2010 11:44 PM, John Hasler wrote: > TJ writes: >> But neither is required for my work as a farmer, so I guess my opinion >> counts for little in this discussion. > > I'm also a farmer. > I should have qualified that. I'm a small farmer. It's not me that's small, it's the farm. >> When I want a browser, I just click on the icon at the bottom of the >> screen and it pops up in a second or two. > > When I want a browser I just control-arrow appropriately or click on the > desktop pane containing it and there it is: no waiting. > Yeah, I never get those seconds back, do I? I don't really care. Life is too short to be so intense. >> No need for it sitting there open, idle, wasting resources. > > It consumes no resources when idle. You also have a multitasking > virtual memory OS. > I have a lot of things that I only use when I want or need them. Don't you? Some of them are even computer apps. >> Makes no more sense than keeping my tractor running because I might >> want it in an hour or two. > > It isn't like leaving the tractor running. It's more like parking the > manure spreader near the machine shed door so that you don't have to > move the baler to get it out. > Why not park the baler so it's out of the way when you're not using it? Oh, wait. You can't do that, because the spreader's in the way, right? Actually, a closer analogy would be to keep the baler connected to a tractor at all times, so you don't have to take those extra two minutes to hook up each time you use it. Then do the same with each machine. That way, all you have to do is jump from tractor to tractor to do your work. No waiting. >> I don't multitask well, either. > > No one does. Computers, however, do it quite well. Let them. > Why, if I don't need the capability to do what I want to do? >> I grew up in the Dark Ages, a time before ADD became popular. > > I grew up in the Dark Ages, a time when computers had thousands of > vacuum tubes and were owned by the government and a few big companies in > the big cities far away. > Then we are contemporaries. >> Consequently, my powers of concentration were developed to their >> fullest, but my ability to divide my attention was neglected. > > We aren't talking about Windows here. While I have a dozen programs > open, only the Gnus instance that I am typing this article into is > visible (and occupies 90% of my screen). Firefox is in the next pane > down, Emacs with some 8th source code is one pane up, Gv is one to the > right, CuteCom is one down and two right, an Emacs instance with Chrony > stuff is on Desk 2 under this one, etc. No icons in sight, though. I > don't need them. I have a memory. So do I. I don't need icons to remember what an app is. I use them more like door handles, a convenient way to obtain access. Right now I have two windows open, both belonging to Thunderbird. The one that is on top is the one I'm typing this into. When I hit "send," this window will close. After that, I will close Thunderbird and go to a clear desktop, which I will then power down because I'm about to get my morning coffee and read the paper. Yes, I still read the local newspaper every morning. Archaic, perhaps, but ever so much more comfortable than reading from a screen. But notice that I *do* multitask, as I take a sip of coffee from time to time while reading. And I still see no reason for *me* to have a bunch of stuff I don't need open all the time. I'm quite willing to admit that YMMV. Why don't you do the same for me? TJ -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
From: John Hasler on 24 Mar 2010 09:04 TJ writes: > Why not park the baler so it's out of the way when you're not using > it? Oh, wait. You can't do that, because the spreader's in the way, > right? I see that you also need a larger machine shed. > Actually, a closer analogy would be to keep the baler connected to a > tractor at all times, so you don't have to take those extra two > minutes to hook up each time you use it. Then do the same with each > machine. It's a lousy analogy. Applications which you have open but are not using do not use any resources. > And I still see no reason for *me* to have a bunch of stuff I don't > need open all the time. I'm quite willing to admit that YMMV. Why > don't you do the same for me? I'm just trying to communicate the fact that you are not conserving any resources by shutting down currently-unused applications. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Jean-David Beyer on 24 Mar 2010 09:13 TJ wrote: > On 03/23/2010 05:33 PM, Michael Black wrote: > >> "FF" is of course your alias for Firefox, as if anyone actually doesn't >> leave a browser running at all times. >> > It's a shock, I know, but there *are* people who don't leave a browser > running at all times. I don't, for one. I usually have one running, but not always. Once I have loaded one in the morning, even if I exit it, it reloads very fast as it tends to be in the cache. I tend to close it if I need more desktop space for something else. > > For those of you who *DO* keep a browser running at all times, somebody > probably has a 12-step program to help cure you of your addiction. The > first step, of course, is admitting you have a problem. > There is probably one on-line. ;-) -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 09:10:01 up 7 days, 1:12, 3 users, load average: 4.37, 4.60, 4.88
From: John Hasler on 24 Mar 2010 10:38
Jean-David Beyer writes: > I usually have one running, but not always. Once I have loaded one in > the morning, even if I exit it, it reloads very fast as it tends to be > in the cache. I tend to close it if I need more desktop space for > something else. That's why I have four desktops with sixteen panes each. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA |