🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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?
 
> 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)