🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:

> Jason Stokes wrote:
> > 
> ...
> > 
> > Creating a graphical environment, and then requiring that graphical
> > environment be manipulated by editing a hopelessly confusing set of
> > "X-resource" files is *not* ergonomic.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > Configuring each application with a set of dot-files, each of which has its
> > own special syntax and a huge litany of options is *not* ergonomic.
> 
> Syntax of a dot file reflects the functionality offered by application.
> I wouldn't expect sendmail config file to have the same set of options
> as system.fvwm2rc.  Granted, an application could have a menu-driven
> "config" subroutine that writes the dot file (sometimes it couldn't...)
>  
> > Having dozens of different text-editors, each having their own unique keyboard
> > short-cuts to do the same things is *not* ergonomic.
> > 
> > Vi and Elvis are never ergonomic.

My own 2c. follows
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> 
> Dunno about elvis, but vi's just fine.  :) 
> You are not trying to tell me Winword, WordPerfect and AmiPro have 
> the same keyboard shortcuts, are you?

They all can be configured *easly* to conform to WordPerfect (why?) macros.
This is in graphical interface.
Most of text based editors could be adapted to conform to Word Star 
keyboard sequences.
Those two represent the grandfathers of DOS editors so whole generations 
of users could use them without reinventing the wheel.
I do not mind the plethora of various editors in Linux/Unix but some 
uniformity would be recomended.

Just a 2c worth.
Stanislaw.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>  
> > Commands that give no indication of their activity, or any information on
> > successful completion (ie rm *) are *not* ergonomic.
> 
> I DON'T want rm to pop up zillion dialog boxes saying "Are you really
> really sure?"  -- of course I'm frigging sure, I'd alias it to 'rm -i'
> if I wasn't.
> 
> > Without being too serious, the definition of "democratic" I'm using is
> > something like:
> ...
> Someone
> > like the typical Windows user."
> 
> What I never understood is why a typical Windoze user would want to
> have a unix box on his/her table...  beats me.
> 
> -- 
> Dimitri
> (emaziuk at curtin.edu.au)
> --------------------------
> Mirrors and copulation are abominable, as they multiply entities
> 		(corollary to Occam's Razor)
> 
>