Re: *nix

[Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@surfnaked.ca>]

References: <zAzEd-78R-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <zAGFH-31v-1@gated-at.bofh.it>

On 2020-02-17 at 06:00:01, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
wrote:

> 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 withdrawn because of a GUI replacement.

Not withdrawn, no.  But newer software tends to neglect the keyboard
in favour of pointy-clicky stuff.  Note that I'm not just talking
about Linux, which really isn't that bad.  On other OSes, however,
the situation is much worse.

>>> 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).

I also tend to use programs that allow me to use the keyboard.
mplayer - and its successor, mpv - work great with the keyboard.
xv works great for displaying GIFs and JPEGs.  (At least older
ones - some newer JPEGs contain codes that xv can't handle.  At
that point I reluctantly fall back to ristretto.  No doubt there
are programs that would suit my needs better, but I haven't been
willing to take the time to find them.)

> So my mouse gets very little exercise, and most of the time it's
> just used to set which window has focus.

What, you don't use alt-tab?  :-)

>>> 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.

Depends on how it's implemented.  It does seem less attractive now
than prior to, say, 1984.

> 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.

OK, you caught me.  I actually read this list via Usenet, so if I want
to post I have to save the text, build a new message with it, and post
it from scratch.  On the plus side, slrn doesn't need a mouse.  :-)

--
/~\  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.