command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz on 23 Nov 2005 09:50 In <3uirn1F11j50mU1(a)individual.net>, on 11/23/2005 at 09:39 AM, blmblm(a)myrealbox.com (blmblm(a)myrealbox.com) said: >>Possibly OpenDoc, had it not been stillborn. After I posted that I realized that it was ambiguous. I was not referring to the markup format but to the joint Apple-IBM project a decade earlier. >Might I respectfully suggest that you're being a little too >aggressive in snipping quoted material Perhaps. If so, it's a reaction to those who quote huge amounts of extraneous material instead of trimming it to what is relevant :-( In <3uj516F11l3jeU1(a)individual.net>, on 11/23/2005 at 12:18 PM, blmblm(a)myrealbox.com (blmblm(a)myrealbox.com) said: >(If so, it would be interesting to know on >what basis you chose my post as the one you would reply to with this, >um, interesting mix of hostility and CLI advocacy. Google for "Alan Connor" and draw your own conclusions :-( -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: blmblm@myrealbox.com on 23 Nov 2005 11:01 In article <slrndo8oog.2t2.i3x9mdw(a)b29x3m.invalid>, Alan Connor <i3x9mdw(a)j9n35c.invalid> wrote: >On comp.os.linux.misc, in <3uj516F11l3jeU1(a)individual.net>, >"blmblm(a)myrealbox.com" wrote: > >Running a commandline newsreader does not mean you can run linux >from the commandline. That's just one application, and it can >be run in an xterm in X. Duh. True. As it happens, when I first started using trn, it was from a text terminal connected to the Internet by way of a dial-up connection to the university with which I was associated. You may or may not choose to believe this, though it's true. > >If you really do: Anyone can paste any user-agent string they >want in their headers, and people who post through individual.net >are usually trolls, because that nsp doesn't include _any_ >identifiers usable by ordinary Usenet denizens. > >And you don't even have a name in your From header... > No, but I did change the From header to conform to one of the two syntactic forms you requested in a previous post (I believe it was in comp.editors). What additional information would you get if I added a name? Would you believe it was more valid than the name in my signature? (Since you seem skeptical that I really am posting with trn: Does it make the claim more convincing if I mention that I made the requested change by editing $HOME/.trn/trnrc and changing the value given to the FROM environment variable?) > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >+ + >+ TROLLS: Ignorant, motor-mouthed, and cowardly + >+ punks (often mentally ill) that run around + >+ the Usenet posting (usually abusive) garbage + >+ under multiple aliases. Usenet vermin. + >+ + >+ + >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > You are welcome to cite evidence that any of my posts match this description. I've been posting from News.Individual.Net with this identification since mid-2002, so there's a record to examine. > ><body not downloaded> > Once again: Does this mean you're not reading my posts? If so, then I will not bother to reply further, and I will know that the (modest, but nonzero) effort I put into changing that trnrc file was a waste of my time. (Of course, if he's not reading my posts, then this whole post was a waste of my time and Usenet bandwidth. I thought I'd give it one more try.) -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: blmblm@myrealbox.com on 23 Nov 2005 11:09 In article <438481b8$19$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net>, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: >In <3uirn1F11j50mU1(a)individual.net>, on 11/23/2005 > at 09:39 AM, blmblm(a)myrealbox.com (blmblm(a)myrealbox.com) said: [ snip ] > >In <3uj516F11l3jeU1(a)individual.net>, on 11/23/2005 > at 12:18 PM, blmblm(a)myrealbox.com (blmblm(a)myrealbox.com) said: > >>(If so, it would be interesting to know on >>what basis you chose my post as the one you would reply to with this, >>um, interesting mix of hostility and CLI advocacy. > >Google for "Alan Connor" and draw your own conclusions :-( > Yeah. I first became aware of him as someone even more fanatical about the command line than I am, so I may be more inclined to cut him slack than is entirely warranted. I'm getting a different impression from recent posts, but thanks for the reminder .... which alas I came across just *after* spending too much time typing a reply to another of his posts. I have no idea whether he even reads any of my posts (do *you* know what he means by that "<body not downloaded>"?), but yeah, probably best to disengage. -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: news on 24 Nov 2005 11:41 Robert Heller wrote: > Right. For some commands (such as find), there is no real chance of > ANY viable 'graphical' interface. Perhaps that's because 'find' is an unstructured mess ? Menues and 'forms' are a disciplining method of imposing structure. > And for others a CLI interface might > make no sense. The only sort of 'best of both worlds' is a GUI desktop > that includes an 'shell window' (xterm+shell). > > The only sort of 'unifying' interface is going to be an *intelligent* > voice-recognition / natural-language type of interface, ala Star Trek. > That's the ultimate absurd garbage !. Progress is acheived by disciplined structure, not reverting to ape behaviour ! Mans 'highest' acheivments require methods that have evolved over thousands of years. You can't do eg. mathematics and 'lasting' music by sitting around the camp-fire talking. > One way of thinking about the differences between a GUI (aka > 'point-and-click') and a CLI and how they relate to how effectively one > can communicate with one's computer to get stuff done is to consider > that a GUI interface is not really much different than a pre-lingual > communication system. One can replace 'point-and-click' with > 'point-and-grunt' (ala proto-humans) or 'point-and-scream' (ala > infants). In all of these cases, the communication is limited to the > choices at hand, literally (the finite and *limited* set of things > available on the screen). The measure of increased knowledge is usually the very reduction of choices. At the extreme of ignorance and chaos there is no classification ie. maximum entropy. As knowledge increases we are able to classify [and build ontologies], and replace the mass of 'GOTOs' by a few structured constructs. Being against "the finite and *limited* set of" selections is promoting chaos/entropy. > A CLI interface is not so limited. It has > all of the advantages of a full blown language and can refer to things > that are 'off screen' (things that are not visible). If you prefer to keep the details in your mind, instead of following a prompt path, do you also refuse to use a telephone directory ? Remember that eg. a 3 level 5-way-branching menue gives you 125 selections. ======= Richard Steiner wrote: > I've seen both types of applications under different *nix environments > as well. My current ISP provides a little point-and-shoot menu system > called MSH for users as an optional initial shell on their Solaris shell > server, which is very helpful for novice shell users, and mc (Midnight > Commander) is relatively popular among Linux users (being a clone and > functional superset of the old DOS-based Norton Commander filemanager). > Yes mc is a brilliant improvement of the original brilliant NC. A killer-ap. productivety tool > The idea of each is to suppliment the command line, not to replace it, > and tools like mc do a very good job of coexisting with a standard > shell while providing capabilities that are awkward if one is limited > to only using standard shell scripts, aliases, etc. > ... > I generally create a sizable selection of shell scripts and aliases on > any platform that I use (on the Unisys mainframe environment I work in, > I have so many aliases that I had to create my own help system in order > to keep them straight!), but there are still times when I find that a > visual menu system or a filemanager-type application comes in handy. That's because you've got better use for your mental capabilities, than remembering arbitrary syntax. == Chris Glur
From: Peter T. Breuer on 24 Nov 2005 11:54
In comp.os.linux.misc news(a)absamail.co.za wrote: > Robert Heller wrote: >> Right. For some commands (such as find), there is no real chance of >> ANY viable 'graphical' interface. > Perhaps that's because 'find' is an unstructured mess ? Find seems to me to be well suited to a dialog mode. What would you like me to look for? Files? Directories? .. Please mark the options corresponding to your choice. What time period for file creation or modification are you interested in ... After all, it offers a finite set of possibilities in itself. The same sort of interface as for searching a database would be appropriate. Well, that's not surprising ... a FS is a tree-shaped DB. Peter |