Linux's Much Overlooked Calculator -- BC
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: inetd problems
Next: Downloading andLinux
From: Michael Black on 24 Mar 2010 15:53 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, 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. > > 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. > First, we're talking about Sidney. I could have just as easily said "FF" is of course your alias for Firefox, as if anyone actually couldn't remember and type out the full name every time they invoked a browser. I'm sure I've said something in the past along similar lines. If someone so badly needs to shorten "firefox" to "ff" then they really should be thinking about leaving a browser open all the time. But yes, I do keep browsers open all the time. The one thing I probably use the most is lynx, not just for webpages but for dealing with files. I used it via the shell at my ISP for five years before I started running Linux, so it made sense to keep using the familiar. It's as useful as MC for dealing with files, I can invoke an editor, I can invoke a utility to display a graphic file, for much of the time it beats starting up other programs directly. I don't run from a GUI, but I keep one going all the time, so I might as well keep a graphic browser going under that GUI since much of the time when I move to a GUI I'll want a browser. When I ran with 32megs of RAM back in 2001, there was sense to only start things up when I needed them, but I didn't need to worry as I got more RAM and a better computer. Yes, the graphic browser is mostly waiting for me to use it, but I'm constantly using multiple copies of Lynx. Michael
From: Sidney Lambe on 24 Mar 2010 16:02 On comp.os.linux.misc, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sidney Lambe wrote: What he snipped, his words: >>> It's as easy to fire up programs such as Octave and Maxima than >>> it is to run bc, which doesn't make bc very competitive. >> Well, that's probably because you don't type well. > > That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by that? Before you've even opened the app with your mouse I'll be done with bc. I just hit Ctrl-z to suspend the app I'm working on (background it) and enter "bc", do my calculation and hit Ctrl-c to exit bc and enter "fg" to bring the app I'm working with back up. And both hands never leave the keyboard so I can get right back to it. This is because I can type well. Why hassle with opening some graphical app with a mouse that requires a mouse to use that will take longer to do the job? I just want to do a little math. Sid
From: Sidney Lambe on 24 Mar 2010 16:02 On comp.os.linux.misc, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-03-24, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> On comp.os.linux.misc, Sidney Lambe >> <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On comp.os.linux.misc, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> That's absurd and isn't anything but showmanship. To impress >>> the ignorant. > > ??? Showmanship for whom? I work on my machine by myself. I do > not show it to anyone else. If I open a window for something I > tend not to shut it, because I am likely to want it again in a > little while. So what? 64 windows? Please. No one could even remember what was on all of them. > Why waste my time shutting windows that do not need to be shut. > They just sit there doing nothing when not used. What time? I can do it in a fraction of a second. If you ran Linux from the commandline you wouldn't be wasting your time playing with a mouse. And I can usually do what I want to do without even opening a new window. They are using a little system resources. Check the output of ps and free and then shut them down and check again. I prefer not to use system resources for anything that isn't necessary. My computers and peripherals last a very long time because of this practice. And I never run out of resources when I am, for example, doing some major compiling and downloading a lot of large files. It isn't slowed down by processes that aren't being used. >>> Useless eye-candy. No one needs 64 windows open at a time. >>> >>> I have 7, full-screen windows open. There's nothing on the >>> screen but the app and a narrow strip, one character high, >>> at the bottom of the screen which tells me the number and >>> name of each window and which one I was at last and where I >>> am now. The strip is also used to display brief and short >>> messages like "mail on the foo account". If I need to I can >>> split the screen in various ways so I can view the output of >>> two or more apps at the same time. >>> >>> These uncluttered screens make working and playing very >>> pleasant. > > Fine, do whatever you want. Your are probably one of those > people that believe a clean desktop indicates some obscure > virtue as well. I do not. You said that, I didn't. Why try to put words in my mouth for the sake of a petty insult? Why are you bothered by people who don't run Linux just like you? Why have your screen cluttered up with stuff you don't need? [delete] Sid
From: unruh on 24 Mar 2010 16:27 On 2010-03-24, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > On comp.os.linux.misc, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> > wrote: > >> On 2010-03-24, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On comp.os.linux.misc, Sidney Lambe >>> <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On comp.os.linux.misc, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That's absurd and isn't anything but showmanship. To impress >>>> the ignorant. >> >> ??? Showmanship for whom? I work on my machine by myself. I do >> not show it to anyone else. If I open a window for something I >> tend not to shut it, because I am likely to want it again in a >> little while. So what? > > 64 windows? Please. > No one could even remember what was on all of them. I look at them. > >> Why waste my time shutting windows that do not need to be shut. >> They just sit there doing nothing when not used. > > What time? I can do it in a fraction of a second. If you ran > Linux from the commandline you wouldn't be wasting your time > playing with a mouse. And I can usually do what I want to do > without even opening a new window. > > They are using a little system resources. Check the output > of ps and free and then shut them down and check again. So what if they are using "a little system resources". I have enough. > > I prefer not to use system resources for anything that isn't > necessary. My computers and peripherals last a very long > time because of this practice. ???? They last a shorter time because you need to keep reloading programs and reading the disk. > > And I never run out of resources when I am, for example, > doing some major compiling and downloading a lot of > large files. It isn't slowed down by processes > that aren't being used. Nor do I. > >>>> Useless eye-candy. No one needs 64 windows open at a time. >>>> >>>> I have 7, full-screen windows open. There's nothing on the >>>> screen but the app and a narrow strip, one character high, >>>> at the bottom of the screen which tells me the number and >>>> name of each window and which one I was at last and where I >>>> am now. The strip is also used to display brief and short >>>> messages like "mail on the foo account". If I need to I can >>>> split the screen in various ways so I can view the output of >>>> two or more apps at the same time. >>>> >>>> These uncluttered screens make working and playing very >>>> pleasant. >> >> Fine, do whatever you want. Your are probably one of those >> people that believe a clean desktop indicates some obscure >> virtue as well. I do not. > > You said that, I didn't. Why try to put words in my mouth > for the sake of a petty insult? Because you said that people operated with many open windows for "That's absurd and isn't anything but showmanship. To impress the ignorant". Or is that not a petty insult in your eyes. > > Why are you bothered by people who don't run Linux just > like you? It is you that is bothered by people who do not run Linux just like you. You are the one that starting throwing around insults. > > Why have your screen cluttered up with stuff you don't need? Because I like it that way. It reminds me of what I am working on.
From: Sidney Lambe on 24 Mar 2010 16:44
On comp.os.linux.misc, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-03-24, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> On comp.os.linux.misc, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-03-24, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On comp.os.linux.misc, Sidney Lambe >>>> <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On comp.os.linux.misc, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> That's absurd and isn't anything but showmanship. To impress >>>>> the ignorant. >>> >>> ??? Showmanship for whom? I work on my machine by myself. I do >>> not show it to anyone else. If I open a window for something I >>> tend not to shut it, because I am likely to want it again in a >>> little while. So what? >> >> 64 windows? Please. >> No one could even remember what was on all of them. > > I look at them. Of course you do. [delete] Sid |