W
Wolfgang Mederle
Xah said:
This is utter bullshit. On my Mac, the Meta key is mapped to the Command
key, while the Alt (Option) key is used by the system.
Follow-up to comp.emacs.
This is utter bullshit. On my Mac, the Meta key is mapped to the Command
key, while the Alt (Option) key is used by the system.
Follow-up to comp.emacs.
M
Martijn Lievaart
And you are posting this to compl.lang.perl because.....??????
F'up set.
M4
J
Joe Attardi
But you're trying to hijack them to comp.emacs. You did it yet again
-- if I had not manually intervened THIS response would have gone
there instead of in the newsgroup that I am reading. Since you seem to
want them to go there I'm again sending the ones you try to hijack
exclusively to comp.lang.java.programmer.
And since the normal behavior of a surfer is to read something, click
reply, type their new text, and click send without bothering to verify
that it will actually go to the newsgroup they are reading since
that's normally automatic, you are in effect choosing the destination
of their post for them when you do whatever it is you keep doing. That
strikes me as quite rude. How many people respond to postings of
yours, then later come back to see if there's been any response to
their response, only to end up scratching their heads because the
response they distinctly remember writing is nowhere to be seen?
If this discussion is off-topic for cljp, we have Xah to blame for
that. He's the one that started this thread and included cljp in the
newsgroups line. Now it has to continue in cljp if people who started
reading it in cljp and ended up with a stake in it are to continue to
follow it without gratuitously subscribing to extra newsgroups they
don't have the time or inclination to read.
This must be some subtle and arguably-clever insult. My response is a
bit more direct, and therefore is more honest: FOAD, and have a nice
day.
You might not be so amused when it eventually dawns on you that that
guy that you've been harassing, insulting, and intermittently pissing
off over the Internet over the past few weeks knows your street
address. Not that I plan to use this information for anything but
rattling your cage right here and now, but are you so certain that
*everyone* you're this nasty to online will likewise not use it?
P.S. Will someone PLEASE tell me how to exempt myself from GG's
ridiculously small "posting limits"?!?! I had posted maybe 10 articles
to cljp all day and one to another newsgroup, and apparently that was
enough to exceed their limit. I think it keeps decreasing -- I
remember estimating it as 50 postings in 24 hours, and later it
apparently dropped to 25. Now it looks to be half that again. That
actually makes that aeio or whatever it was called start to look rosy,
with its limit of 25; now that is the HIGHER limit instead of the
LOWER one.
And I ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DEMAND that in the future, if a posting won't
be accepted it say so as soon as I click "reply" instead of waiting
for me to enter a bunch of data that I'll then have to do all over
again after logging out and back in!!! Christ that makes me mad! Who
designed this thing anyway, Microsoft? And why isn't there any working
feedback method to tell the developers of GG this, so I have to post
it here instead and hope they happen to stumble onto it someday???
There was only the one web form that I ever found, which never
produced anything but automated responses and form letters that prove
that whatever I wrote was only ever read by a bot, or at least
something with the IQ of a bot. Plus there's no Google Groups feedback
newsgroup, which is a complete travesty...
By the way, whoever it was that just tried to hack me* (David Kastrup?
Was that you?), you can now go to hell. Please board the ferry at
once. Oh, and we regret to inform you that the WiFi service is
temporarily out of order. -- Styx Cruise Lines Mgt. (So, no more
internet for you.)
* I just got a spontaneous popup saying "The Windows scripting host is
disabled", apparently an error message caused when an attempt to use
the scripting host was foiled by my having long since turned it off as
a security risk. Obviously I was right to do so. Typing in this box in
Firefox shouldn't attempt to invoke the Windows scripting host. Which
suggests an attempt to exploit some scripting vulnerability, either by
code embedded somehow into one of the postings to this thread, or
separately by someone sending packets of would-be doom to my IP
address. In any event, don't bother trying again. There was a similar
attack a few days ago that was equally futile. WHATEVER VULNERABILITY
YOU TRIED TO EXPLOIT IS NOT EXPOSED ON MY COMPUTER -- DON'T BOTHER.
The only thing you accomplished was to a) cause that dialog to pop up,
which is annoying and wastes my time with closing it; b) cause Windows
Help and Support Center to open by itself afterward, probably to try
to assist me with diagnosing my scripting host problem, in typical
brain-dead Windoze fashion (but at least it HAS a Help and Support
Center that is easy to get to, navigate, and use, unlike some software
that I could name); and c) alert me to the hack attempt. Next time
maybe I'll happen to have WireShark running. Then I'll have your IP
and logs evidencing an attempted hack. Then you will want to quake in
terror at losing your net account and maybe getting arrested!
Don't **** with Twisted. He is the Internet Tough Guy!
X
Xah Lee
Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts Are Painful
Xah Lee, 2007-07
A important aspect in designing keyboard shortcuts is to have keyboard
shortcuts for those most frequently used commands, and, the most
frequently used commands should have most easily-pressed keystrokes.
For example, they should be on the home row.
Emacs's keyboard shortcut set is very inefficient, largely because,
Emacs's keyboard shortcuts are designed with a keyboard that
practically has the Ctrl and Alt key positions swapped.
[image: Space Cadet keyboard]
above: The Space-cadet keyboard (Source↗, 2007-07) .
The common keyboard used around emacs era in the 1980s are those
keyboards from Lisp Machines↗. (see Space-cadet keyboard↗) The
keyboard on lisp machines have the Control key right besides the space
bar (similar to the position of Alt keys on PC keyboards), and Meta to
the left of Control. So, the Control key is right under the thumb, and
the Meta is secondary to Control. This is why, the shortcuts for the
most used commands in emacs involve the Control key instead of the
Meta key. (e.g. The cursor movements: C-p, C-n, C-f, C-b, C-a, C-e,
the cut/paste/undo C-w, C-y, C-/, the kill-line C-k, the mark C-SPC,
the search C-s.) Lisp Machine's keyboards fell out of use alone with
Lisp Machines. Since the 1990s, the IBM PC keyboard↗ (and its
decedents) becomes the most popular and is used by more than 99% of
personal computers today. The PC keyboard does not have Meta key but
have Alt instead, which is practically used as Meta for Emacs. The
Ctrl and Alt key's position are essentially swapped from the Control
and Meta on the Lisp Machine's keyboards. Emacs however, did not
change its keyboard shortcut set by switching the commands that are
mapped to the Control and Meta keys. This makes emacs keyboard
shortcuts very painful, and the frequent need to press the far-away
Control key makes the Emacs Pinky syndrome. (Many emacs-using
programer celebrities have injured their hands with emacs. (e.g.
Richard Stallman↗, Jamie Zawinski↗), and emacs's Ctrl and Meta
combinations are most cited as the major turn-off to potential users
among programers)
----------
This post is archived and updated at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html
Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/
Xah Lee, 2007-07
A important aspect in designing keyboard shortcuts is to have keyboard
shortcuts for those most frequently used commands, and, the most
frequently used commands should have most easily-pressed keystrokes.
For example, they should be on the home row.
Emacs's keyboard shortcut set is very inefficient, largely because,
Emacs's keyboard shortcuts are designed with a keyboard that
practically has the Ctrl and Alt key positions swapped.
[image: Space Cadet keyboard]
above: The Space-cadet keyboard (Source↗, 2007-07) .
The common keyboard used around emacs era in the 1980s are those
keyboards from Lisp Machines↗. (see Space-cadet keyboard↗) The
keyboard on lisp machines have the Control key right besides the space
bar (similar to the position of Alt keys on PC keyboards), and Meta to
the left of Control. So, the Control key is right under the thumb, and
the Meta is secondary to Control. This is why, the shortcuts for the
most used commands in emacs involve the Control key instead of the
Meta key. (e.g. The cursor movements: C-p, C-n, C-f, C-b, C-a, C-e,
the cut/paste/undo C-w, C-y, C-/, the kill-line C-k, the mark C-SPC,
the search C-s.) Lisp Machine's keyboards fell out of use alone with
Lisp Machines. Since the 1990s, the IBM PC keyboard↗ (and its
decedents) becomes the most popular and is used by more than 99% of
personal computers today. The PC keyboard does not have Meta key but
have Alt instead, which is practically used as Meta for Emacs. The
Ctrl and Alt key's position are essentially swapped from the Control
and Meta on the Lisp Machine's keyboards. Emacs however, did not
change its keyboard shortcut set by switching the commands that are
mapped to the Control and Meta keys. This makes emacs keyboard
shortcuts very painful, and the frequent need to press the far-away
Control key makes the Emacs Pinky syndrome. (Many emacs-using
programer celebrities have injured their hands with emacs. (e.g.
Richard Stallman↗, Jamie Zawinski↗), and emacs's Ctrl and Meta
combinations are most cited as the major turn-off to potential users
among programers)
----------
This post is archived and updated at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html
Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/
K
kaldrenon
I wonder if his head would implode were someone to (even jokingly)
agree with him on any matter. He might actually find it disappointing.
X
Xah Lee
The following article a extended version of previous post.
A HTML version can be found at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html
-----------------------------------
WHY EMACS'S KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS ARE PAINFUL
Xah Lee, 2007-07
A important aspect in designing a keyboard shortcut set, for a
application that has intensive, repetitive, prolonged human-machine
interaction (such as coding and text editing), is to consider
ergonomic principles. Specifically: allocate keyboard shortcuts for
the most frequently used commands, and, the top most frequently used
commands should have most easily-pressed keystrokes. For example, they
should be on the home row.
This article shows why Emacs's keyboard shortcut set are the most
ergonomically unsound.
THE SWAPPING OF CONTROL AND META MODIFIERS
Emacs's keyboard shortcuts is very inefficient. The primary cause is
because, emacs's keyboard shortcuts are designed with a keyboard that
practically has the Ctrl and Alt key positions swapped.
Space Cadet keyboard
above: The Space-cadet keyboard (Source↗, 2007-07) .
The common keyboard used around emacs era in the 1980s are those
keyboards from Lisp Machines↗. (see Space-cadet keyboard↗) The
keyboard on lisp machines have the Control key right besides the space
bar (similar to the position of Alt keys on PC keyboards), and Meta to
the left of Control. So, the Control key is right under the thumb, and
the Meta is secondary to Control. This is why, the shortcuts for the
most used commands in emacs involve the Control key instead of the
Meta key. (e.g. The cursor movements: C-p, C-n, C-f, C-b, C-a, C-e,
the cut/paste/undo C-w, C-y, C-/, the kill-line C-k, the mark C-SPC,
the search C-s.) Lisp Machine's keyboards fell out of use alone with
Lisp Machines. Since the 1990s, the IBM PC keyboard↗ (and its
decedents) becomes the most popular and is used by more than 99% of
personal computers today. The PC keyboard does not have Meta key but
have Alt instead, which is practically used as Meta for emacs. The
Ctrl and Alt key's position are essentially swapped from the Control
and Meta on the Lisp Machine's keyboards. Emacs however, did not
change its keyboard shortcut set by switching the commands that are
mapped to the Control and Meta keys. This makes emacs keyboard
shortcuts very painful, and the frequent need to press the far-away
Control key makes the Emacs Pinky syndrome. (Many emacs-using
programer celebrities have injured their hands with emacs. (e.g.
Richard Stallman↗, Jamie Zawinski↗), and emacs's Ctrl and Meta
combinations are most cited as the major turn-off to potential users
among programers)
THE CHOICE OF KEYS
The shortcut's key choices are primarily based on first letter of the
commands, not based on key position and finger strength or ease of
pressing the key. For example, the single char cursor moving shortcuts
(C-p previous-line ↑, C-n next-line ↓, C-b backward-char â†, C-f
forward-char →) are scattered around the keyboard with positions that
are most difficult to press. (these shortcuts all together accounts
for 43% of all commands executed by a keyboard shortcut) Of these, the
most frequently used is C-n (next-line), which accounts for 20% of all
shortcut calls, but is assigned to the letter n, positioned in the
middle of the keyboard, which is one of the most costy key to press.
Similarly, the second most used among these is the C-p (previous-
line), accounting for 16% of all shortcut command calls, is located in
a position above the rigth hand's pinky, also one of the most costy
key to press.
(Here we assumes the QWERTY keyboard layout. On the Dvorak layout, it
is about as bad.)
OUTDATED COMMANDS
A significant portion of emacs's major shortcuts (those with M-«key»
or C-«key») are mapped to commands that are almost never used today.
Some of these occupies the most precious space (Home row with Meta:
e.g. M-s (center-line), M-j (indent-new-comment-line), M-k (kill-
sentence)). Most programer who have used emacs for years never use
these commands. For example:
digit-argument, M-1 to M-9
negative-argument, M--
move-to-window-line, M-r
center-line, M-s
transpose-words, M-t
tab-to-tab-stop, M-i
M-g prefix, M-g
indent-new-comment-line, M-j
tmm-menubar, M-'
zap-to-char, M-z
back-to-indentation, M-m
tags-loop-continue, M-,
find-tag, M-.
NO EMPLOYMENT OF THE SHIFT KEY
For historical reasons, emacs do not use any keybindings involving the
Shift with a letter. (e.g. there's no “meta shift aâ€, or “control
shift aâ€) This is so because in early computing environment, such key
combination cannot be distinguished, due to a practical combination of
ASCII↗, Computer terminal↗, telnet↗.
Today, however, employing the Shift key as part of a shortcut with
other modifiers is common and convenient. For example, on Mac OS X,
Undo and Redo are Cmd+Z and Cmd+Shift+Z, Save and Save As are Cmd+S
and Cmd+Shift+S. On Mac and Windows, moving to next/previous field/
window/application often use the Shift key for reversing direction. In
text editing on both Mac and Windows, a modifier key with a arrow key
will move cursor by word/paragraph, and with Shift down will select
them while moving.
Using the Shift key as a reverse operation is very easy to remember,
and doesn't take another precious shortcut letter. By not using the
Shift key, commands with a logical reverse operation necessarily have
to find other key space, and overall making the shortcut set more
difficult to remember, or scattered, or more difficult to press.
A FLAW IN KEYBINDING POLICY
Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
consistant. Emacs has this in its Emacs Lisp manual: Elisp Manual: Key-
Binding-Conventions.
This guide, indicates that the only key space reserved for users to
define, are the function keys F5 to F9, and key stroke sequence
starting with Ctrl+c followed by a single letter key.
This is a severe restraint to the utility of customized shortcuts. F5
to F9 are only 6 keys. The key sequence starting with C-c followed by
a letter, is a difficult sequence to execute, and there are only 26
spaces there.
The function keys, F1 to F12, are very good candidates for user
defined shortcut space, similarly for the digit key shortcuts, 0 to 9.
These series of key space can be multiplied by any combination of
modifiers of Control, Meta, Shift. For example, a user might define
the them to insert various templates, headers/footers, a system of
customized HTML/XML tags. Or, she might assign them to various special
emacs modes such as dired, shell, ftp, email, calendar, calc,
*scratch*, make-frame-command (Open a new window), insert signature.
It seems too drastic a policy, to limit user defined keys to only F5
to F9, and key sequence of Control+c followed by a single letter key.
EPILOGUE: FAILURE TO CHANGE
Today, most commonly used keyboard shortcuts have been somewhat
informally standardized. For example, C/X/V is for Copy/Cut/Paste. O
is for Open. S is for Save, Shift-S is for Save As. P is for Print. F
is for Find/Search. Tab is for next, Shift tab for previous. These are
common conventions today in every application across Microsoft Windows
and Macintosh (and most Linuxes).
These shortcuts conventions are primarily brought about by Apple
Computer Inc's Human interface guidelines↗ and IBM's Common User
Access↗ in the 1990s.
In the early 1990s, DOS era software, each application has its own
scheme of shortcuts. The following is a excerpt from the Wikipedia
article on Common User Access↗:
CUA was a detailed specification and set strict rules about how
applications should look and function. Its aim was in part to bring
about harmony between MS-DOS applications, which until then had
implemented totally different user interfaces.
Examples:
* In WordPerfect, the command to open a file was [F7], [3].
* In Lotus 1-2-3, a file was opened with [/] (to open the menus),
[W] (for Workspace), [R] (for Retrieve).
* In Microsoft Word, a file was opened with [Esc] (to open the
menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load).
* In WordStar, it was [Ctrl]+[K]+[O].
* In Emacs, a file was opened with [Ctrl]+[x] followed by [Ctrl]+
[f] (for find-file).
Some programs used [Esc] to cancel an action, some used it to complete
one; WordPerfect used it to repeat a character. Some programs used
[End] to go to the end of a line, some used it to complete filling in
a form. [F1] was often help but in WordPerfect that was [F3]. [Ins]
sometimes toggled between overtype and inserting characters, but some
programs used it for “pasteâ€.
Thus, every program had to be learned individually and its complete
user interface memorized. It was a sign of expertise to have learned
the UIs of dozens of applications, since a novice user facing a new
program would find their existing knowledge of a similar application
absolutely no use whatsoever.
Commercial software have updated themselves with time (or went
extinct), but emacs has not.
Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/
A HTML version can be found at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html
-----------------------------------
WHY EMACS'S KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS ARE PAINFUL
Xah Lee, 2007-07
A important aspect in designing a keyboard shortcut set, for a
application that has intensive, repetitive, prolonged human-machine
interaction (such as coding and text editing), is to consider
ergonomic principles. Specifically: allocate keyboard shortcuts for
the most frequently used commands, and, the top most frequently used
commands should have most easily-pressed keystrokes. For example, they
should be on the home row.
This article shows why Emacs's keyboard shortcut set are the most
ergonomically unsound.
THE SWAPPING OF CONTROL AND META MODIFIERS
Emacs's keyboard shortcuts is very inefficient. The primary cause is
because, emacs's keyboard shortcuts are designed with a keyboard that
practically has the Ctrl and Alt key positions swapped.
Space Cadet keyboard
above: The Space-cadet keyboard (Source↗, 2007-07) .
The common keyboard used around emacs era in the 1980s are those
keyboards from Lisp Machines↗. (see Space-cadet keyboard↗) The
keyboard on lisp machines have the Control key right besides the space
bar (similar to the position of Alt keys on PC keyboards), and Meta to
the left of Control. So, the Control key is right under the thumb, and
the Meta is secondary to Control. This is why, the shortcuts for the
most used commands in emacs involve the Control key instead of the
Meta key. (e.g. The cursor movements: C-p, C-n, C-f, C-b, C-a, C-e,
the cut/paste/undo C-w, C-y, C-/, the kill-line C-k, the mark C-SPC,
the search C-s.) Lisp Machine's keyboards fell out of use alone with
Lisp Machines. Since the 1990s, the IBM PC keyboard↗ (and its
decedents) becomes the most popular and is used by more than 99% of
personal computers today. The PC keyboard does not have Meta key but
have Alt instead, which is practically used as Meta for emacs. The
Ctrl and Alt key's position are essentially swapped from the Control
and Meta on the Lisp Machine's keyboards. Emacs however, did not
change its keyboard shortcut set by switching the commands that are
mapped to the Control and Meta keys. This makes emacs keyboard
shortcuts very painful, and the frequent need to press the far-away
Control key makes the Emacs Pinky syndrome. (Many emacs-using
programer celebrities have injured their hands with emacs. (e.g.
Richard Stallman↗, Jamie Zawinski↗), and emacs's Ctrl and Meta
combinations are most cited as the major turn-off to potential users
among programers)
THE CHOICE OF KEYS
The shortcut's key choices are primarily based on first letter of the
commands, not based on key position and finger strength or ease of
pressing the key. For example, the single char cursor moving shortcuts
(C-p previous-line ↑, C-n next-line ↓, C-b backward-char â†, C-f
forward-char →) are scattered around the keyboard with positions that
are most difficult to press. (these shortcuts all together accounts
for 43% of all commands executed by a keyboard shortcut) Of these, the
most frequently used is C-n (next-line), which accounts for 20% of all
shortcut calls, but is assigned to the letter n, positioned in the
middle of the keyboard, which is one of the most costy key to press.
Similarly, the second most used among these is the C-p (previous-
line), accounting for 16% of all shortcut command calls, is located in
a position above the rigth hand's pinky, also one of the most costy
key to press.
(Here we assumes the QWERTY keyboard layout. On the Dvorak layout, it
is about as bad.)
OUTDATED COMMANDS
A significant portion of emacs's major shortcuts (those with M-«key»
or C-«key») are mapped to commands that are almost never used today.
Some of these occupies the most precious space (Home row with Meta:
e.g. M-s (center-line), M-j (indent-new-comment-line), M-k (kill-
sentence)). Most programer who have used emacs for years never use
these commands. For example:
digit-argument, M-1 to M-9
negative-argument, M--
move-to-window-line, M-r
center-line, M-s
transpose-words, M-t
tab-to-tab-stop, M-i
M-g prefix, M-g
indent-new-comment-line, M-j
tmm-menubar, M-'
zap-to-char, M-z
back-to-indentation, M-m
tags-loop-continue, M-,
find-tag, M-.
NO EMPLOYMENT OF THE SHIFT KEY
For historical reasons, emacs do not use any keybindings involving the
Shift with a letter. (e.g. there's no “meta shift aâ€, or “control
shift aâ€) This is so because in early computing environment, such key
combination cannot be distinguished, due to a practical combination of
ASCII↗, Computer terminal↗, telnet↗.
Today, however, employing the Shift key as part of a shortcut with
other modifiers is common and convenient. For example, on Mac OS X,
Undo and Redo are Cmd+Z and Cmd+Shift+Z, Save and Save As are Cmd+S
and Cmd+Shift+S. On Mac and Windows, moving to next/previous field/
window/application often use the Shift key for reversing direction. In
text editing on both Mac and Windows, a modifier key with a arrow key
will move cursor by word/paragraph, and with Shift down will select
them while moving.
Using the Shift key as a reverse operation is very easy to remember,
and doesn't take another precious shortcut letter. By not using the
Shift key, commands with a logical reverse operation necessarily have
to find other key space, and overall making the shortcut set more
difficult to remember, or scattered, or more difficult to press.
A FLAW IN KEYBINDING POLICY
Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
consistant. Emacs has this in its Emacs Lisp manual: Elisp Manual: Key-
Binding-Conventions.
This guide, indicates that the only key space reserved for users to
define, are the function keys F5 to F9, and key stroke sequence
starting with Ctrl+c followed by a single letter key.
This is a severe restraint to the utility of customized shortcuts. F5
to F9 are only 6 keys. The key sequence starting with C-c followed by
a letter, is a difficult sequence to execute, and there are only 26
spaces there.
The function keys, F1 to F12, are very good candidates for user
defined shortcut space, similarly for the digit key shortcuts, 0 to 9.
These series of key space can be multiplied by any combination of
modifiers of Control, Meta, Shift. For example, a user might define
the them to insert various templates, headers/footers, a system of
customized HTML/XML tags. Or, she might assign them to various special
emacs modes such as dired, shell, ftp, email, calendar, calc,
*scratch*, make-frame-command (Open a new window), insert signature.
It seems too drastic a policy, to limit user defined keys to only F5
to F9, and key sequence of Control+c followed by a single letter key.
EPILOGUE: FAILURE TO CHANGE
Today, most commonly used keyboard shortcuts have been somewhat
informally standardized. For example, C/X/V is for Copy/Cut/Paste. O
is for Open. S is for Save, Shift-S is for Save As. P is for Print. F
is for Find/Search. Tab is for next, Shift tab for previous. These are
common conventions today in every application across Microsoft Windows
and Macintosh (and most Linuxes).
These shortcuts conventions are primarily brought about by Apple
Computer Inc's Human interface guidelines↗ and IBM's Common User
Access↗ in the 1990s.
In the early 1990s, DOS era software, each application has its own
scheme of shortcuts. The following is a excerpt from the Wikipedia
article on Common User Access↗:
CUA was a detailed specification and set strict rules about how
applications should look and function. Its aim was in part to bring
about harmony between MS-DOS applications, which until then had
implemented totally different user interfaces.
Examples:
* In WordPerfect, the command to open a file was [F7], [3].
* In Lotus 1-2-3, a file was opened with [/] (to open the menus),
[W] (for Workspace), [R] (for Retrieve).
* In Microsoft Word, a file was opened with [Esc] (to open the
menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load).
* In WordStar, it was [Ctrl]+[K]+[O].
* In Emacs, a file was opened with [Ctrl]+[x] followed by [Ctrl]+
[f] (for find-file).
Some programs used [Esc] to cancel an action, some used it to complete
one; WordPerfect used it to repeat a character. Some programs used
[End] to go to the end of a line, some used it to complete filling in
a form. [F1] was often help but in WordPerfect that was [F3]. [Ins]
sometimes toggled between overtype and inserting characters, but some
programs used it for “pasteâ€.
Thus, every program had to be learned individually and its complete
user interface memorized. It was a sign of expertise to have learned
the UIs of dozens of applications, since a novice user facing a new
program would find their existing knowledge of a similar application
absolutely no use whatsoever.
Commercial software have updated themselves with time (or went
extinct), but emacs has not.
Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/
X
Xah Lee
The following is a FAQ from emacs modernization
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
Q: Emacs's undo is superior, because the prevalent Undo/Redo system
actually loss info.
A: Emac's undo is very confusing and does not have a Redo command. To
redo after a undo, people are told to type something then do a undo.
Long time emacs user argue that it is technically superior because it
lets user to revert to any possible state of the past.
A practical problem with the way of emacs undo is that it repeats the
states in the action record. In the prevalent undo model, the action
record is linear, and each entry is unique. A user can easily arrive
at a desired previous state using undo and redo. In emacs's model, it
traverses the queue back and forth (or add existing states to the
stack). It is hard for a user to know when to do undo or do "some
random typing followed by undo" to get to the state he wants. In
particular, once a person did more than once of "some random typing
followed by undo", the undo record becomes too convoluted for a person
to keep in mind and often the undo action becomes useless at that
point.
If you take a survey among programers who use emacs for at least 1
year, perhaps more than 90% are confused by emacs's undo model and do
not find it useful. If you take a survey of software users other than
emacs, i do not think anyone will report their software's undo lacks
something to be desired.
It is reasonable to argue, that people work better with a simple undo/
redo model. Undo is practically used to erase a mistake or doing a
simple one-time revision. Once a user did a sequence of undos and
redos, we can assume that he arrived at a satisfactory point and
intends to start fresh from that point. If he needs extra revision
control, a more proper mechanism, one that people actually use, is to
revert to the saved version.
Xah
(e-mail address removed)
http://xahlee.org/
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
Q: Emacs's undo is superior, because the prevalent Undo/Redo system
actually loss info.
A: Emac's undo is very confusing and does not have a Redo command. To
redo after a undo, people are told to type something then do a undo.
Long time emacs user argue that it is technically superior because it
lets user to revert to any possible state of the past.
A practical problem with the way of emacs undo is that it repeats the
states in the action record. In the prevalent undo model, the action
record is linear, and each entry is unique. A user can easily arrive
at a desired previous state using undo and redo. In emacs's model, it
traverses the queue back and forth (or add existing states to the
stack). It is hard for a user to know when to do undo or do "some
random typing followed by undo" to get to the state he wants. In
particular, once a person did more than once of "some random typing
followed by undo", the undo record becomes too convoluted for a person
to keep in mind and often the undo action becomes useless at that
point.
If you take a survey among programers who use emacs for at least 1
year, perhaps more than 90% are confused by emacs's undo model and do
not find it useful. If you take a survey of software users other than
emacs, i do not think anyone will report their software's undo lacks
something to be desired.
It is reasonable to argue, that people work better with a simple undo/
redo model. Undo is practically used to erase a mistake or doing a
simple one-time revision. Once a user did a sequence of undos and
redos, we can assume that he arrived at a satisfactory point and
intends to start fresh from that point. If he needs extra revision
control, a more proper mechanism, one that people actually use, is to
revert to the saved version.
Xah
(e-mail address removed)
http://xahlee.org/
D
Damien Kick
Giorgos said:
If you were referring to the "free" in "free Mumia Abu Jamal", I would
agree with you. I don't think anyone would imagine that this phrase
meant that someone was going to get Mumia Abu Jamal gratis. Like it or
not, "free software" referring to "free as in beer" is probably the most
common interpretation of the phrase for a native English speaker.
Admittedly, I do not have a "scientific" survey handy. However, I just
asked my wife--who has absolutely no interest in anything related to
programming, has never heard of the FSF, Eric Raymond, nor the
disagreement between those two camps, nor probably will she ever have an
interest--what she thinks I mean when I say "free software". After
getting over the "why are you asking such a stupid question" phase, the
first thing that jumped to her mind was "free as in beer". You can
stamp, growl, swagger, spit, curse, and bluster all you want on this
point, but millions of English speakers are going to ignore you anyway.
Lucky for most of them, they do not have to suffer the lectures of
sociopolitically motivated language mavens trying to "correct" them from
the error of mistaking the meaning of a phrase to be the normal meaning
of that phrase.
F
Frank Goenninger
Fully true for non-native English speakers as well. Just did the "wife
test" also - she is a pure software user - and yes, free is "no money,
do what you want" and that's it.
I *never* use the term "free" if I don't want to imply "free beer"
(which is a Good Thing and as such highly valuated - ask any Bavarian).
Using "free" as by FSF or any other lawyer-style 6 pixel font printed
phrasing is pure perfidiousness.
Frank
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo(at)goenninger(dot)net
"Don't ask me! I haven't been reading comp.lang.lisp long enough to
really know ..."
W
Wildemar Wildenburger
I appearantly missed a lot of that conversation, but what is your point?Frank said:
While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary cost" to
many people societies, that is by no means set in stone (talk to native
americans, blacks, jews, palestinians, etc. about the word free, see
what they have to say).
But that aside: The word free with respect to the FSF and GPL have a
perfectly well defined meaning. People may misunderstand that from not
knowing the definition but that doesnt make it any less well defined.
Again, why this discussion?
/W
R
Roedy Green
but does not "free beer" nearly always come with a catch or implied
obligation?
G
George Neuner
It means you have to bring the chips.
George
F
Frank Goenninger
Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the
why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned "hey, it's
all well defined" statement was brought in. I simply said that if that
"well-definedness" is against "common understanding" then I don't give
a damn about that clever definitions. Because I have to know that there
are such definitions - always also knowing that free is not really
free. It is such a good subject to discuss over and over and over
without ever reaching any conclusion or resolution because neither FSF
nor GNU nor the FREE as in FREE BEER defenders will change their mind.
So, wasting bandwith is the only real effect ... And hey, it's Usenet,
so wasting time and bandwith is part of the game.
Again, why this discussion - ah - I don't really know...
;-)
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo(at)goenninger(dot)net
"Don't ask me! I haven't been reading comp.lang.lisp long enough to
really know ..."
B
Bent C Dalager
"Liberated" is a valid meaning of the word "free". The main problem is
that there aren't really any other words in the English language that
have the same meaning as the word "free" when it is wearing its
"liberated" hat. It is unfortunate that the word is overloaded with
multiple other meanings, one of which is so central in our modern
market oriented society that it tends to come to the forefront of
people's minds when the word is used. But that's just the way it is.
You work with the language you've got.
I am quite sure they would be overjoyed if someone were to come up
with a decent replacement for the word "free" so as to disambiguate
the term. A number of people have tried pretty hard, however, and
failed. If you fancy yourself an accomplished wordsmith, any
suggestions are sure to be welcome.
Cheers
Bent D
D
David Kastrup
No. It is a valid meaning of the word "freed".
Xpost+Fup2 gnu.misc.discuss: this is not really relevant for most of
the touched Usenet groups.
B
Bent C Dalager
Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,
Free
(...)
"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
of parents, guardian, or master."
The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
"free".
As I do not read gnu.misc.discuss, I reinstated the previous bunch.
Apologies to those who may be annoyed at this.
Cheers
Bent D
G
George Neuner
I don't think knowing the meaning of a word is being pedantic.
"Freed" is derived from "free" but has a different, though associated,
meaning. Words have meaning despite the many attempts by Generation X
to assert otherwise. Symbolism over substance has become the mantra
of the young.
The English language has degenerated significantly in the last 30
years. People (marketers in particular) routinely coin ridiculous new
words and hope they will catch on. I remember seeing a documentary
(circa 1990?) about changes in the English language. One part of the
program was about the BBC news and one of its editors, whom the staff
called the "protector of language", who checked the pronunciation of
words by the news anchors. The thing that struck me about this story
was the number of BBC newspeople who publicly admitted that they could
hardly wait for this man to retire so they could write and speak the
way they wanted rather than having to be "correct".
Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or
meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a
colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the dictionary
has become little more than evidence of popularity as the major
dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider any
word they can find used in print.
George
B
Bent C Dalager
Apparantly, you missed the part where I referred to the 1913 edition
of Webster. I have kept it in the quoted text above for your
convenience. I can assure you that 1913 is both more than 30 years ago
/and/ it is before 1980, in case that was in doubt.
Cheers
Bent D
D
David Kastrup
Not as much "been" liberated, but "turned" liberated.
But picking just a single word from a whole explanation of _one_
naming and declaring it as equivalent is not really being careful with
language at all.
And even when using a Thesaurus, it should be clear that the offered
alternatives are not supposed to or capable of capturing all nuances
of the keyword.
But picking just a single word from a whole explanation of _one_
naming and declaring it as equivalent is not really being careful with
language at all.
And even when using a Thesaurus, it should be clear that the offered
alternatives are not supposed to or capable of capturing all nuances
of the keyword.
B
Bent C Dalager
I expect that either way you split this hair, using "free" in the
sense of "possessing liberty" is still going to be quite reasonable.
I have never claimed equivalence. What I have made claims about are
the properties of one of the meanings of a word. Specifically, my
claim is that "free" is a reasonable description of some one or some
thing that has been "liberated".
As an example, when a slave becomes a free man, this is not commonly
understood to mean that he now has a low or zero monetary cost.
I have never claimed to be providing a full definition of the word.
Indeed, I quite clearly conceded very early on that "free" is commonly
associated with what might otherwise be called "gratis" - that is
"free of charge".
My effort has been to point out that the word also has other meanings.
Cheers
Bent D