Question of setting environment variables - Slackware

This is a discussion on Question of setting environment variables - Slackware ; On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:34:55 +0000, Mike sprout: >> If you're involved in the GNU project, the sky's the limit! ;-) > > Or, arthritis is the limit. as you seem to favor mouse use, just wait for carpal ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 174

Thread: Question of setting environment variables

  1. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:34:55 +0000, Mike sprout:

    >> If you're involved in the GNU project, the sky's the limit! ;-)

    >
    > Or, arthritis is the limit.


    as you seem to favor mouse use, just wait for carpal tunnel syndrome
    and your arthritis will be history ;-|

  2. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Jerry Peters:
    >
    > [...]
    >>>
    >>> Sure there are task specific functions the man reader process can do
    >>> better than a browser that was never designed or developed in that
    >>> direction, but it /could/ be, and /wasn't/.

    >>
    >> Again, _why_ _bother_. man works perfectly well for the overwhelming
    >> majority of us. If you want to, why not write some troff macros to
    >> convert man pages to HTML?

    >
    > My point (or part of it anyway) made then. "Why bother" is pretty close
    > to "We've always done things this way" and "We're used to it now" and so
    > on.


    No, it means what we have now works well enough for the majority of
    us, so no one sees the need for Yet Another Useless Change.
    >
    > Thats not where I've been aiming. I KNOW its not much bother once you get
    > used to it, and I KNOW it appears trivial, and probably is, but the
    > question stuck with me. Why are certain things "semi-fixed" in that "It
    > worked ok, so we're still using it" zone?
    >

    See above comment.
    >
    >>>
    >>> So, its maybe not so much me turning things into a complex issue, but
    >>> that the question itself involves complexity that is already there, is
    >>> traditionally avoided as its easier to just learn to use the man reader
    >>> process, and this needs to be waded through if one is to examine the
    >>> question I'm looking at.

    >>
    >> Sorry, but you remind me of people I've worked with over the years who
    >> had a definite talent for making the simple difficult. IBM, for example,
    >> is very good at designing things that work for very large installations,
    >> but are a PITA for you average moderate sized datacenter.

    >
    > So thats the lens you're looking through. Don't invest too much in how
    > things look in this surreal medium though. Its tricky guessing intent/
    > motivation/etc. just by text alone.
    >
    > Next up, I'll teach you to how to suck eggs.
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>> IOW, the existence of the traditional man reader process has acted as a
    >>> diversion to development of a potentially better way of integrating
    >>> system and other documentation into other multi-purpose/function
    >>> applications.

    >>
    >> But that's _not_ the UNIX way. The browser is already getting to be a
    >> bloated monstrosity with image viewers & all sorts of other junk.

    >
    >
    > I'm not talking about today's "Bloatfox", or even Rubic's Lynx, I'm
    > trying to reference some kind of generic reader that can handle most
    > things to a legible degree, rather than a collective of different
    > applications with different command sequences and different flags and
    > different keysets etc. just to do the same thing, read documentation.
    >
    > Ah mean tah say! Just how different can documentation BE already?
    >
    > Its words, then plus markup, then plus images, then plus extras. How many
    > ways can one split that up and make life more complex than it needs to be?
    >

    You should really complain to the GNU people then. The ones that
    "improved" man by inventing info.

    Jerry

  3. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Jerry Peters:
    >
    > [...]
    >>
    >> Slack is a "minor" distro because you actually have to work at mastering
    >> it. It is not a point & click type process with a lot of hand-holding.
    >> The reward is a system that can be customized to work exactly as you
    >> want it to.
    >>
    >> Jerry

    >
    >
    > Actually, if you also count the derivatives, Slackware is a base for
    > quite a few projects, and the base for at least a couple of serious
    > challengers for the Ubuntu "Its not Windows but..." products.
    >
    > Zenwalk is my (current) derivative of choice, but Vector is pretty
    > sophisticated, and there are others worth looking at too.
    >
    > Slackware might not be as visible as some distros, but its there, and in
    > more places than one might expect.
    >

    Yeah, it seems Ubuntu & its derivatives are getting most of the press
    these days, along with RH/Fedora.

    If I wanted something that acts almost exactly like Windows, I'd just
    _use_ Windows.

    Jerry

  4. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:

    > If it were in a format common tools could read by default, without
    > having to reformat them before you can read then, meaning you have to
    > read up on how to reformat them (assuming you know you can) before you
    > can read them to finally get the information you need to... er... what
    > was I doing now?


    Type "man command" at a command prompt. Press the spacebar to see the
    next screenful. Press the spacebar again to see the next screenful
    after that. Repeatedly press the spacebar as many times as required to
    read to the end of the document, or if you want to quit reading before
    you reach the end, press "q". How hard is that for even the simplest
    newbie to grasp?

    All of the formatting, and processing that goes on behind the scenes is
    hidden from the user, yet available for a more advanced user to
    customize if desired or necessary.

    Your original suggestion of "mc+lynx" is a lot more complicated
    than the above: fire up "mc" at a command prompt. Figure out how to
    navigate to the directory containing the manual page you're looking for.
    Hrmmm... where *was* that, I remember seeing it the other day ... Figure
    out how to get mc to launch Lynx with that particular page as input.
    Now figure out how to navigate the page within Lynx ... Oh, would you
    look at that! You just press the spacebar for the next screenful!
    I wonder why they can't make a tool to just *display* the page I'm
    looking for without my having to find it myself, where I can just press
    the spacebar for the next screenful ... I could just launch the command
    with the *name* of the page as an argument ...

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  5. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Jerry Peters:
    >
    >> Mike wrote:
    >>> Responding to Jerry Peters:
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>>
    >>>>> While the idea of a single killer-app might not appear to some/many,
    >>>>> IMO the man reader thing is heading in the other direction, and in
    >>>>> some ways echoes the M$ way of imposing more complications than are
    >>>>> necessary on the end user, when there are simpler and more direct
    >>>>> ways of delivering that content.
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's see "man bash" as opposed to what? Man searches MANPATH, are you
    >>>> going to implement that in the browser? Mostly I know which man page I
    >>>> want, I just need to look up an option, or be sure I've remembered it
    >>>> correctly. I _don't_ want to, or need to wade through a TOC to find
    >>>> the page I'm looking for.
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, man is not a single program, it's a pipeline. It could actually
    >>>> be implemented as a shell script if someone wanted to code it. The
    >>>> complicated part is finding the desired manpage, after that it's a
    >>>> simple pipeline.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> From where I'm sitting, you just outlined something I've been talking
    >>> about. Sure, issuing "man something" gets you documentation, but not in
    >>> any way that couldn't be done in several other ways. Sure, the obscure
    >>> and specialist formating can be piped into several other options. Sure,
    >>> its all learnable, and sure, its a process thats been developed and
    >>> smoothed over the years.

    >>
    >> You still seem to be missing the point. Manpages are written in a markup
    >> language for troff (groff)

    >
    > And how is my point NOT what you just wrote here?
    >
    > It needs it's own reader process/binary because of it's format.


    And so does HTML XML SGML and whatever else you're proposing.
    That web browsers are supposedly ubiquitous doesn't change that. I
    suppose ASCII text might be different, but then you'd still need
    something like more or less to _conveniently_ read it.

    >
    > If man pages were written in a format for more than/something else than
    > just t/groff, then they could/would be exportable by default and not need
    > reformatting, or a specialist reader to read them.
    >
    > Just for the fun of it, when was the last time you read anything other
    > than t/groff formatted documentation using t/groff?
    >


  6. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:

    > And then there's the Linux way, "I wonder what would happen if we...?"
    >


    Close, but the Linux way is to just go ahead and try it, because you
    can.

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  7. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Jerry Peters:
    >
    >> Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Users like superficial bells and whistles in their content. For crying
    >>> out loud, some people even liked "blink" tags (to nauseating degrees).
    >>> I think the jury is still out on whether this represents any form of
    >>> progress at all. (well, that "blink" tags no longer seem to be used
    >>> definitely is progress ...)

    >>
    >> Blink tags and animated gifs on web pages. One of the reasons I despise
    >> MSIE: no way to turn these abominations off. Perhaps there is by now,
    >> but I haven't used MSIE for anything serious in at least 5 years.
    >> Oh, I forgot Flash, another abomination. Thank God for Flashblock &
    >> Noscript.
    >>
    >> Jerry

    >
    >
    > What are these strange esoteric thinks of which you speak?
    >
    > Let me dig around for a moment.
    >
    > Ah yes. Things on my "This is a fault/SNAFU/AdWare so nuke it before you
    > start" list for any browser I examine/deploy.
    >
    > Still can't find any reference to this "MSIE" thing though. Could that be
    > part of the spyware one typically has to clean off one's HDD when one
    > buys a new computer? (Surely nobody actually fires that up any more?
    >

    No choice, it was my work machine & corp. standards (along with
    ActiveX crap) required IE.

    I also forgot to add scrolling marquees to the list of abominations. A
    subsidiary I was doing some work for had those on their web site.

    Jerry

  8. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to No_One:

    > On 2008-10-01, Mike wrote:
    >>
    >> And how is my point NOT what you just wrote here?
    >>
    >> It needs it's own reader process/binary because of it's format.
    >>
    >> If man pages were written in a format for more than/something else than
    >> just t/groff, then they could/would be exportable by default and not
    >> need reformatting, or a specialist reader to read them.

    >
    >
    > Just for the fun of it...isn't exporting and reformating one in the
    > same??


    And she said, "Huh?" Oh, right, context. Exported in the way that an RTF
    formatted document can be sent to be read in several word processor
    applications. While onem ight have written it, including some formatting
    specific to that application, it can still be read and even edited by
    another application without the need for conversion.

    Bad choice of descriptor on my part there I think.

    >
    >
    >> Just for the fun of it, when was the last time you read anything other
    >> than t/groff formatted documentation using t/groff?
    >>
    >>

    > When was the last time you used adobe reader for anything other than pdf
    > files.
    >


    And there we have it. At last. (Wuhoo!)

    "What? Is he having a go at Adobe's PDF now?"

    Absolutely! PDF is a really dumb format for distributing internet
    documentation in to different screens/outputs, and its only a
    commercially ripped version of the .ps format anyhoo, which is supposed
    to be a "ready to print" specific format, NOT an internet web document
    format. The only reason its there at all is because Adobe thought they
    could pull a BillyWare by flooding the internet with their proprietary
    format as if it were some kind of serious alternative to HTML.



    Uh-oh! What have I done now!?

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  9. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Loki Harfagr:

    > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:34:55 +0000, Mike sprout:
    >
    >>> If you're involved in the GNU project, the sky's the limit! ;-)

    >>
    >> Or, arthritis is the limit.

    >
    > as you seem to favor mouse use, just wait for carpal tunnel syndrome and
    > your arthritis will be history ;-|



    I don't favour it, but switching from full keyboard-only to "peck a bit -
    type a bit" has sure pulled things back. As I mentioned in an earlier
    post, I used to use and love SLRN, but now my fingers have decided Pan is
    a way better option, despite my better judgement.

    Could be worse though...

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  10. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Sylvain Robitaille:

    > Mike wrote:
    >
    >> If it were in a format common tools could read by default, without
    >> having to reformat them before you can read then, meaning you have to
    >> read up on how to reformat them (assuming you know you can) before you
    >> can read them to finally get the information you need to... er... what
    >> was I doing now?

    >
    > Type "man command" at a command prompt. Press the spacebar to see the
    > next screenful. Press the spacebar again to see the next screenful
    > after that. Repeatedly press the spacebar as many times as required to
    > read to the end of the document, or if you want to quit reading before
    > you reach the end, press "q". How hard is that for even the simplest
    > newbie to grasp?


    Now ask thta newbie to search for something they're not sure about, and
    scroll back to something they remember seeing a page or two earlier...

    T'aint gonna happen as the basic functions of the man reader process are
    crude and clumsy compared to most other reader software.

    Its a basic tool. Granted its got lots of things you can do with it IF
    you know how to use them AND yo know they're there. T'aint newbie stuff
    though, and it IS a PITA when you're trying to focus on something else,
    and you have to learn yet more app-specific syntax and commands just to
    find a basic bit of information.

    Its really not that intuitive at all if you never spent the time learning
    it's peculiarities.

    People are not born knowing how to read a man page, and its not a genetic
    skill that develops with adulthood. It is, however, yet another thing to
    (have to) learn, and for the trivial reason that its documentation is in
    a format from another planet, and it's reader has it's own unique and
    invisible interface.

    IOW, its not "newbie-friendly" at all.


    > All of the formatting, and processing that goes on behind the scenes is
    > hidden from the user, yet available for a more advanced user to
    > customize if desired or necessary.


    "Hidden from the user" AND application specific.

    Scroll? How does a newbie figure this one out in a hurry? Search? Again,
    not intuitive, not similar to anything else the newbie might understand
    or be familiar with. In fact, some might even thing the only thing it
    does is leap a screenfull at a time. How hard is that for a newbie to
    grasp? They'd need to KNOW about it first.

    For some, the logical thing to do, when they have the time, would be to
    find man2html and convert all those old legacy formatted documents into
    something readable and managable with a commonly used tool like a browser
    or word processor.

    Sure, after a while they might discover the hidden "cheats" in the "game
    of man", but by then it will only be a game, not a useful tool, and one
    they will wonder why it is still as it is and not in a "modern" format.


    > Your original suggestion of "mc+lynx" is a lot more complicated than the
    > above: fire up "mc" at a command prompt.


    My original "suggestion" was simply the nearest example at the time I
    made it to point out that there are plenty of alternatives. You're making
    way too much of this bit, and are, I'm sure, capable of using your own
    imagination to work out a better alternative, (other than the man
    process .

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  11. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Jerry Peters:

    > Mike wrote:
    >> Responding to Jerry Peters:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>>
    >>> Slack is a "minor" distro because you actually have to work at
    >>> mastering it. It is not a point & click type process with a lot of
    >>> hand-holding. The reward is a system that can be customized to work
    >>> exactly as you want it to.
    >>>
    >>> Jerry

    >>
    >>
    >> Actually, if you also count the derivatives, Slackware is a base for
    >> quite a few projects, and the base for at least a couple of serious
    >> challengers for the Ubuntu "Its not Windows but..." products.
    >>
    >> Zenwalk is my (current) derivative of choice, but Vector is pretty
    >> sophisticated, and there are others worth looking at too.
    >>
    >> Slackware might not be as visible as some distros, but its there, and
    >> in more places than one might expect.
    >>

    > Yeah, it seems Ubuntu & its derivatives are getting most of the press
    > these days, along with RH/Fedora.
    >
    > If I wanted something that acts almost exactly like Windows, I'd just
    > _use_ Windows.
    >
    > Jerry



    No dude, you wouldn't. Nobody is that insane.

    You'd use DedRat/Fedupwith, Whoburntwho, or similar.

    Be realistic.


    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  12. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On 2008-09-30 at 19:43 ADT, Mark Madsen wrote:
    > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:30:58 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    >
    >> The only reason why the nroff/troff way of markup isn't "more widely
    >> cross-compatible" is simply because it hasn't been as widely learned or
    >> deployed outside of Unix/unix-like systems.

    >
    > That said, I have used runoff and/or and troff or clones thereof on VAX/
    > VMS and Univac 1100 systems.


    And the venerable "runoff" that came with the mighty PDP-10.

    I think when TeX became available, most people with the mindset to be
    able to use that sort of non-wysiwyg system probably switched to using
    plain TeX and/or LaTeX. And then word processors for everyone else...

    Cheers.
    Jim

  13. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:

    > Now ask thta newbie to search for something they're not sure about,
    > ...


    This is addressed how, if the markup language is changed?

    > and scroll back to something they remember seeing a page or two
    > earlier...


    Oh you mean *within* the document. Well, given that both of these
    amount to one-keystroke commands (plus a search string for the "search")
    I don't expect it would be too difficult for even the dumbest of
    newbies.

    > T'aint gonna happen as the basic functions of the man reader process
    > are crude and clumsy compared to most other reader software.


    The "man reader" you're referring to here is "more" (or "less" on Linux).
    It's a program that is easily one of the first learned (at least by most
    Unix/Linux users I know) by new users. They may not get into any heavily
    advanced usage of the pager program (heck, it's been more 12 years, and
    I still don't use anything more than ' ', 'b', '/', '?', or 'q'), but
    very few have much difficulty with "spacebar moves ahead one screenful,
    'b' moves back one screenful, 'q' to quit, '/' to search forward, and
    '?' to search backward".

    I've never had ANYONE stop me and say, "wait a minute, spacebar to move
    forward one screenful, but I can't wrap my head around 'b' to move back
    one screenful. Isn't there some other program I can use to read this
    document?" In fact, most people that have seen a computer keyboard (at
    least the Canadian English and US Qwerty varieties) are able to understand
    that '/' and '?' are on the same physical key, so keeping track of which
    searches in what direction seems to not cause any problem either.

    I would dare to point out that finding the search function in HTML
    viewers has always taken me longer than finding the '/' key. Some HTML
    viewers provide a combination-key option to bring up the search function
    (Lynx is intelligent enough to maintain the typical of Unix programs '/'
    key for searching forwards), but it seems that they all need to use a
    different combination than all the others. I suppose THAT's easier to
    learn than "press '/' to search forwards"?

    > Its a basic tool.


    That's the point. Contrary to the misinformation you seem to be
    repeatedly reporting here, the more/less program (the user's interface
    to "man" once the manual page is displayed) is not limitted to viewing
    manual pages. It is a general purpose program intended to present text
    on its input, one screenful at a time. It's commonly used, and easily
    understood.

    > Granted its got lots of things you can do with it IF you know how to
    > use them AND yo know they're there.


    The fact that the "man" command is able to produce output that can be
    used in ways beyond the original intention of the programmers is a good
    thing. Learning how to make it produce such output is essentially
    learning how basic system commands function.

    > Its really not that intuitive at all if you never spent the time
    > learning it's peculiarities.


    Press the spacebar to see the next screenful. Is that really such a
    difficult to grasp "peculiarity"???

    > People are not born knowing how to read a man page, ...


    People are not born knowing how to read. What's your point?

    > It is, however, yet another thing to (have to) learn, and for the
    > trivial reason that its documentation is in a format from another
    > planet, and it's reader has it's own unique and invisible interface.


    Mike, pay close attention, because there's going to be a quiz at the end
    of the thread:

    - press the spacebar to see the next screenful. That's the long
    horizontal key at the bottom of your keyboard.

    - press 'b' if you want to go back by one screenful. You'll find that
    one above the middle of the spacebar.

    - press 'q' to quit reading the manual page. If you can't find that
    one, you're not ready to use it yet.

    You don't need to know the slightest thing about the markup language
    used to display that documentation. You don't even need to know that
    a markup language is involved. You don't even need to know what a
    markup language is. The "unique and invisible interface" is a freaking
    SPACEBAR!!! How complicated is that??? If it were any simpler, your
    mother would be reading the manual page TO you!

    > IOW, its not "newbie-friendly" at all.


    I know. Newbies have so much trouble differentiating the spacebar from
    the "any" key ....

    >> All of the formatting, and processing that goes on behind the scenes
    >> is hidden from the user, yet available for a more advanced user to
    >> customize if desired or necessary.

    >
    > "Hidden from the user" AND application specific.


    It is NOT application specific. Have you not read the umpteen numerous
    posts in this thread that have attempted to explain to you the purpose
    of the *roff commands and less?

    > Scroll? How does a newbie figure this one out in a hurry?


    Scroll? You mean move forward one page? The average newbie will likely
    stumble upon it when they slap the keyboard in frustration wondering why
    there isn't a menu at the top of the manual page "viewer".

    > Search? Again, not intuitive, not similar to anything else the newbie
    > might understand or be familiar with.


    Don't presume that "the newbie" understands anything about any software.
    A learning curve is a learning curve. If the hypothetical newbie knows
    absolutely nothing, then learning to press the spacebar turns out to
    actually be *easier* than learning to operate a mouse.

    > In fact, some might even thing the only thing it does is leap a
    > screenfull at a time. How hard is that for a newbie to grasp? They'd
    > need to KNOW about it first.


    How uneducated is this hypothetical newbie, by the way? We seem to have
    gone from a poor vacuum-tube-powered computer in Siberia, (I hope those
    are Sovtek tubes; those are actually desirable in guitar amps, so the
    computer will at least sound good!) to a newbie that can't figure out
    how to use the spacebar on his keyboard. Is this newbie using the
    vacuum-tube-powered computer in Siberia, that doesn't have a troff
    equivalent to format manual pages for display?

    > For some, the logical thing to do, when they have the time, would be
    > to find man2html and convert all those old legacy formatted documents
    > into something readable and managable with a commonly used tool like a
    > browser or word processor.


    Oh my! Yes, the newbie user who can't grasp a spacebar will definitely
    have an easier time of that!

    > My original "suggestion" was simply the nearest example at the time I
    > made it to point out that there are plenty of alternatives.


    I'm listening. Remember, though, that now we have to be sure that these
    "plenty of alternatives" would run on a computer that is not powerful
    enough to run troff+more/less and the user is too new to comprehend
    "press the spacebar for the next screenful" ...

    > You're making way too much of this bit, ...


    You trolled. I bit. you've strung me along, changing specifications
    along the way. The line broke.

    > and are, I'm sure, capable of using your own imagination to work out a
    > better alternative, (other than the man process .


    Let's see, we could use "locate" to find the page we're looking for,
    "gunzip" to decompress the file (since it's stored in compressed form to
    save disk space), "troff" to process the markup into something a human can
    easily read, and perhaps "less", since that's readily available on Linux
    systems, to display the result to the user. Put it all in a pipeline in
    a command alias, so we don't need to remember the exact sequence ...

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  14. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:25:57 +0000 (UTC), Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    ....
    >I would dare to point out that finding the search function in HTML
    >viewers has always taken me longer than finding the '/' key. Some HTML
    >viewers provide a combination-key option to bring up the search function
    >(Lynx is intelligent enough to maintain the typical of Unix programs '/'
    >key for searching forwards), but it seems that they all need to use a
    >different combination than all the others. I suppose THAT's easier to
    >learn than "press '/' to search forwards"?


    One of the big issues people complain about with the new Chrome browser is
    that it doesn't search within document for '/' keypress -- Firefox and Opera
    have had '/' for searching within doc for ages

    Grant.
    --
    For linux system scripts, linux-kernel configs and dmesg, ipv4 geoip
    and firewall tools: http://bugsplatter.id.au/

    Google Groups is evil? See: http://improve-usenet.org/

  15. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Grant wrote:

    > One of the big issues people complain about with the new Chrome
    > browser is that it doesn't search within document for '/' keypress --
    > Firefox and Opera have had '/' for searching within doc for ages


    (checks Firefox ... Holy Crap! It works! Firefox gains a point in my
    book for adopting a well-known single-keystroke command ...)

    Of course that's much too convoluted for newbies to use. Better to
    make them use the menu selection, or control-key combination ... ;-)

    Just for the data point, it seems to also work in Konqueror, if you
    don't pause while typing your search term (Konqueror appears to have an
    annoying habit of disabling the "find" feature after a brief (about 1
    second) pause in typing ...)

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  16. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Grant wrote:

    > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:25:57 +0000 (UTC), Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    > ...
    >> I would dare to point out that finding the search function in HTML
    >> viewers has always taken me longer than finding the '/' key. Some HTML
    >> viewers provide a combination-key option to bring up the search function
    >> (Lynx is intelligent enough to maintain the typical of Unix programs '/'
    >> key for searching forwards), but it seems that they all need to use a
    >> different combination than all the others. I suppose THAT's easier to
    >> learn than "press '/' to search forwards"?

    >
    > One of the big issues people complain about with the new Chrome browser is
    > that it doesn't search within document for '/' keypress -- Firefox and Opera
    > have had '/' for searching within doc for ages
    >

    It's there in Seamonkey too.

    Realistically, they often do match the operation of "less". I have no
    idea how "intuitive" the commands are, but if there's consistency
    then someone is likely to try the familiar and have success. As
    has been discussed before, things that often seem "intuitive" are
    often just the familiar, and people are so used to a certain way
    that they forget what it was like before they knew.

    I more or less started using lynx before "more" or "less", and I suspect
    I had no problem with "less" because lynx does use the familiar. Press
    "space" and go down, press "b" and go up, the "/" key to search, I'm sure
    I just tried those to get results when I started using "less".

    I don't recall what it was like to use a browser for the first time,
    but it would have been at public terminals at computer shows way
    back in 1995. But after a few episodes then, I didn't use a graphic
    browser until I started running Linux in mid-2001. I can't remember
    that experience either, but I'm sure I "intuitively" used the same
    keys to navigate the web page. Sylvain is right, you have to be
    fast if you invoke search with "/". Lynx requires a carriage return
    to terminate things, which makes for a definite search, while the graphic
    browser scheme is more like the leap key on the Swyftcard, since it will
    leap on a partial if you delay too long.

    Most of the time now, a "newbie" doesn't exist. Computers have become
    too common that, at least in many parts of the world, people do have
    experience and now from a fairly early age. Their experience, even
    if different, gives them a foundation for moving further, while a
    real "newbie" is so rare that the problem isn't really there. I
    doubt many people come to Linux as a beginner, they'd have to avoid
    computers.

    On the other hand, "new" always takes some effort. I couldn't even
    figure out how to turn off that new laptop I bought on Sunday, though
    the manual did tell how to turn it on. Even with decades of computer
    experience, it still took some work to find my way around, though
    the familiar tools are mostly missing from Linpus Lite so it was
    made all the harder. No "man" command, though they had one of those
    glossy help browsers. It does have vi, proving the common statement
    that you can count on vi being on any distribution. Things like
    "cal" and "look" are there, but they didn't bother with things
    like lynx and pine that won't take up much space compared to
    the gui stuff. I'm not sure where the space is going, I'm using
    up about 4gigs for Slackware 12 on this computer, yet this
    Aspire One is using up that much with less capability.

    Michael


  17. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On 2008-10-02, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    > Grant wrote:
    >
    >> One of the big issues people complain about with the new Chrome
    >> browser is that it doesn't search within document for '/' keypress --
    >> Firefox and Opera have had '/' for searching within doc for ages

    >
    > (checks Firefox ... Holy Crap! It works! Firefox gains a point in my
    > book for adopting a well-known single-keystroke command ...)


    Double Holy Crap! It works in Firefox 3 on OS X!

    Any heathens out there want to test Firefox on Windows? ;-)

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  18. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:30:42 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:

    > On 2008-09-30 at 19:43 ADT, Mark Madsen
    > wrote:
    >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:30:58 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    >>
    >>> The only reason why the nroff/troff way of markup isn't "more widely
    >>> cross-compatible" is simply because it hasn't been as widely learned
    >>> or deployed outside of Unix/unix-like systems.

    >>
    >> That said, I have used runoff and/or and troff or clones thereof on
    >> VAX/ VMS and Univac 1100 systems.

    >
    > And the venerable "runoff" that came with the mighty PDP-10.


    I never had the pleasure of using the PDP-10, but the PDP series
    collection of user software was taken over wholesale to the VAX.

    > I think when TeX became available, most people with the mindset to be
    > able to use that sort of non-wysiwyg system probably switched to using
    > plain TeX and/or LaTeX. And then word processors for everyone else...


    I used to use LaTeX not only for writing articles, but also for my
    everyday paper correspondence. Once one had a working template for a
    letter only the actual content needed to be changed.

    Then I went to spend a year at a computer science department (which shall
    remain nameless) where they turned out not to use TeX/LaTeX at all and we
    were all forced to use MS-Word to write scientific papers. On Apple Mac
    SEs. The experience scarred me.

  19. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Jerry Peters:

    > Mike wrote:
    >> Responding to Jerry Peters:
    >>
    >>> Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Users like superficial bells and whistles in their content. For
    >>>> crying out loud, some people even liked "blink" tags (to nauseating
    >>>> degrees). I think the jury is still out on whether this represents
    >>>> any form of progress at all. (well, that "blink" tags no longer seem
    >>>> to be used definitely is progress ...)
    >>>
    >>> Blink tags and animated gifs on web pages. One of the reasons I
    >>> despise MSIE: no way to turn these abominations off. Perhaps there is
    >>> by now, but I haven't used MSIE for anything serious in at least 5
    >>> years. Oh, I forgot Flash, another abomination. Thank God for
    >>> Flashblock & Noscript.
    >>>
    >>> Jerry

    >>
    >>
    >> What are these strange esoteric thinks of which you speak?
    >>
    >> Let me dig around for a moment.
    >>
    >> Ah yes. Things on my "This is a fault/SNAFU/AdWare so nuke it before
    >> you start" list for any browser I examine/deploy.
    >>
    >> Still can't find any reference to this "MSIE" thing though. Could that
    >> be part of the spyware one typically has to clean off one's HDD when
    >> one buys a new computer? (Surely nobody actually fires that up any
    >> more?
    >>

    > No choice, it was my work machine & corp. standards (along with ActiveX
    > crap) required IE.
    >
    > I also forgot to add scrolling marquees to the list of abominations. A
    > subsidiary I was doing some work for had those on their web site.
    >
    > Jerry



    You have my deepest sympathies.


    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  20. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Sylvain Robitaille:

    > Mike wrote:
    >
    >> And then there's the Linux way, "I wonder what would happen if we...?"
    >>

    >
    > Close, but the Linux way is to just go ahead and try it, because you
    > can.



    Thats the one! 8)


    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast