candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> writes:
To be fair, having Linux as your first OS would be very rare.
Hey, look, guys! I'm a rarity!!
(Most people would deinitely consider that a GOOD THING!)
Well, almost. I went from MSDOS to UNIX and then Linux. Never had Windows as my personal 'daily-driver'.
(Aually, I was using X11 desktops on UNIX, and had heard 'Wonderful Things' about this new 'Windows thing'. So I tried it and was aghast at just how **bad** and primitive it was, compared to what I was already using.)
Jack
Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> writes: >>>
To be fair, having Linux as your first OS would be very rare.
Who cares. It is the only OS I have used since 1998 at least.
Everything else I look at sucks.
Programs I install
Openshot
Firefox
Gimp
GVIM
thunderbird
mutt
gcc
make
Perl
Python
gdb
vlc
crossfire-gtk
gnuplot
dia
inkscape
scribus
xcalc
oclock
windowmaker
X11
openrc
hexchat
popcorntime
transmission
open-nusismat
make
rsync
ssh!!
at minimum
Hey, look, guys! I'm a rarity!!
(Most people would deinitely consider that a GOOD THING!)
Well, almost. I went from MSDOS to UNIX and then Linux. Never had Windows as >> my personal 'daily-driver'.
(Aually, I was using X11 desktops on UNIX, and had heard 'Wonderful Things' >> about this new 'Windows thing'. So I tried it and was aghast at just how
**bad** and primitive it was, compared to what I was already using.)
Jack
nano
git
openssh
gnutls
links
bash
automake
autoconf
gcc
mutt
htop
iotop
gomuks
tmux
WordGrinder
and that's it.
When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
nano
git
openssh
gnutls
links
bash
automake
autoconf
gcc
mutt
htop
iotop
gomuks
tmux
WordGrinder
and that's it.
When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.
Wordgrinder is not a common choice. Could you please tell me a bit about
it? Wat is it with wordgrinder that guys you joy when writing texts?
On 11/16/2024 04:31, D wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
nano
git
openssh
gnutls
links
bash
automake
autoconf
gcc
mutt
htop
iotop
gomuks
tmux
WordGrinder
and that's it.
When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.
Wordgrinder is not a common choice. Could you please tell me a bit about
it? Wat is it with wordgrinder that guys you joy when writing texts?
I should probably note, if it's not apparent in the list above, I live in bash. I do not use a WM day-to-day. I'm a purist shell-only user. WordGrinder is the only shell program I was able to find that has support great support for ODT, a format that I have to be able to use at work since almost all of our documents are either ODT or MD (Mostly ODT). It has a pretty decent spell checker that you can add to it's dictionary and has pretty good formatting support within the limitations of shell (You won't be adding images, but I don't get paid enough to make documentation with pretty pictures anyways). It is probably the most feature-rich shell application I've found so far. You can look at it here if you want: https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder/
If you have a recommendation for something other then WordGrinder that works without any Xorg/X11 components installed though, I'd be happy to try it out. It has to support opening and saving (or importing/exporting) into ODT and MD formats and must be able to compile source-only and no docker.
Before you ask, since you'll probably find me in another thread asking about Gentoo related to KDE, I do have Xorg installed on another machine but it's only for the small sliver of time where I have to test a desktop program I'm writing for the company I work for. And I use a separate machine for that. Most of my time is in headless code though so it's not often I have to boot it up.
On Sat, 16 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 04:31, D wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
nano
git
openssh
gnutls
links
bash
automake
autoconf
gcc
mutt
htop
iotop
gomuks
tmux
WordGrinder
and that's it.
When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.
Wordgrinder is not a common choice. Could you please tell me a bit
about it? Wat is it with wordgrinder that guys you joy when writing
texts?
I should probably note, if it's not apparent in the list above, I live
in bash. I do not use a WM day-to-day. I'm a purist shell-only user.
WordGrinder is the only shell program I was able to find that has
support great support for ODT, a format that I have to be able to use
at work since almost all of our documents are either ODT or MD (Mostly
ODT). It has a pretty decent spell checker that you can add to it's
dictionary and has pretty good formatting support within the
limitations of shell (You won't be adding images, but I don't get paid
enough to make documentation with pretty pictures anyways). It is
probably the most feature-rich shell application I've found so far.
You can look at it here if you want: https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder/
If you have a recommendation for something other then WordGrinder that
works without any Xorg/X11 components installed though, I'd be happy
to try it out. It has to support opening and saving (or importing/
exporting) into ODT and MD formats and must be able to compile source-
only and no docker.
Before you ask, since you'll probably find me in another thread asking
about Gentoo related to KDE, I do have Xorg installed on another
machine but it's only for the small sliver of time where I have to
test a desktop program I'm writing for the company I work for. And I
use a separate machine for that. Most of my time is in headless code
though so it's not often I have to boot it up.
Thank you for sharing! Very interesting. What type of work do you do
where you are able to get by with only the shell? You must have a very
kind employer! =)
As for word processing, the usual suspects are vim, groff, latex and for converting documents back and forth, I think that pandoc is very common.
But this is all hearsay, so I am sure there are others here in this
group who know much more about it than I do.
On 11/16/2024 16:20, D wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
On 11/16/2024 04:31, D wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
nano
git
openssh
gnutls
links
bash
automake
autoconf
gcc
mutt
htop
iotop
gomuks
tmux
WordGrinder
and that's it.
When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.
Wordgrinder is not a common choice. Could you please tell me a bit
about it? Wat is it with wordgrinder that guys you joy when writing
texts?
I should probably note, if it's not apparent in the list above, I
live in bash. I do not use a WM day-to-day. I'm a purist shell-only
user. WordGrinder is the only shell program I was able to find that
has support great support for ODT, a format that I have to be able to
use at work since almost all of our documents are either ODT or MD
(Mostly ODT). It has a pretty decent spell checker that you can add
to it's dictionary and has pretty good formatting support within the
limitations of shell (You won't be adding images, but I don't get
paid enough to make documentation with pretty pictures anyways). It
is probably the most feature-rich shell application I've found so
far. You can look at it here if you want:
https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder/
If you have a recommendation for something other then WordGrinder
that works without any Xorg/X11 components installed though, I'd be
happy to try it out. It has to support opening and saving (or
importing/ exporting) into ODT and MD formats and must be able to
compile source- only and no docker.
Before you ask, since you'll probably find me in another thread
asking about Gentoo related to KDE, I do have Xorg installed on
another machine but it's only for the small sliver of time where I
have to test a desktop program I'm writing for the company I work
for. And I use a separate machine for that. Most of my time is in
headless code though so it's not often I have to boot it up.
Thank you for sharing! Very interesting. What type of work do you do
where you are able to get by with only the shell? You must have a very
kind employer! =)
I am a headless C developer (Sometimes C++). I develop code that must
run on machines that have zero interfaces or local terminal access. I
think the new term is headless software engineer but that's just a
little too fancy of a title for me. So I stick with C developer.
I code
for anything from embedded devices (the smallest was a 1" by 1" device
with 4MB of Flashable EEPROM and 1.25MB of memory on a 548MHz processor)
all the way up to large data center scale servers. I also have a Data
center background on top of that so it gives me a leg up when it comes
to understanding how an application will be used. (most developers only
learn to develop. They never go further to learn how it's going to be implemented and used later which means they can't account for the things their program will be demanded to do. I have the advantage of know how
data centers work so I can code accordingly.)
Since the binary programs have to run headless, I code with shell access only. So I'm in a near comparable environment to how the program would
be run. Limiting myself to only having shell access helps to put me (and
my team of 11 which also work in shell only) in the mental state of how
the program will operate. So if we can't do it from shell, then the
headless binary won't be able to either. In fact, it's a requirement we
code in shell only. Company law (I may or may not have been responsible
for it. But I'll plead the 5th if you ask me.)
On 11/17/24 14:33, Phillip Frabott wrote:
I am a headless C developer (Sometimes C++).
That is bizarre. It is much easier to code, debug, test in a good
graphical IDE, even if you are developing console apps.
It is much easier to code, debug, test in a good graphical IDE, even if
you are developing console apps.
On 17/11/2024 15:18, Pancho wrote:
It is much easier to code, debug, test in a good graphical IDE, even
if you are developing console apps.
Not if the target machine doesn't have a GUI or a console at all.
On 2024-11-17, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 11/17/24 14:33, Phillip Frabott wrote:
I am a headless C developer (Sometimes C++).
Is that like Roland the headless Thompson gunner? :-)
(Thank you, Warren Zevon.)
That is bizarre. It is much easier to code, debug, test in a good
graphical IDE, even if you are developing console apps.
Horses for courses. Never underestimate the value of a
few printf()s sprinkled here and there (or log file writes
if you're really headless). I'm still a fan of makefiles.
Horses for courses. Never underestimate the value of a few printf()s sprinkled here and there (or log file writes if you're really headless).
I'm still a fan of makefiles.
Never underestimate the value of a few printf()s
sprinkled here and there (or log file writes if you're really headless).
I'm still a fan of makefiles.
That is bizarre. It is much easier to code, debug, test in a good
graphical IDE, even if you are developing console apps.
... I can't remember if we loaded
the makefiles into Visual Studio or generated them from Visual Studio,
or both.
On 11/17/2024 10:18, Pancho wrote:
That is bizarre. It is much easier to code, debug, test in a good
graphical IDE, even if you are developing console apps.
Your assuming that a debugger can even run on such limited memory on the specific CPU being used. Most of my work involves very limited memory constraints. And these aren't x86 compatible processors so it's not like
I can debug on the local dev machine. It all has to run on the hardware.
so printf() and the occasional rawdump file being stored on an SD card
if your lucky enough to get access to a device with an SD card reader is
the only real option. Obviously this wouldn't be true for the larger
headless systems but I'm not going to have 2 different development configurations for coding embedded devices vs large servers. And GUI's
just become distractions anyways. Everything I need is in bash. So if I
was to use a GUI I'd be right back into multiple bash windows with no
desktop apps anyways, so why waste the resources of GUI when I'm never
going to utilize it the way it was meant to be used?
It's just a different breed of development here. We are very uncommon.
But we love it.
...Thank you for sharing! Very interesting. What type of work do you do where >> you are able to get by with only the shell? You must have a very kind
employer! =)
I am a headless C developer (Sometimes C++). I develop code that must run on
law (I may or may not have been responsible for it. But I'll plead the 5th if you ask me.)
As for word processing, the usual suspects are vim, groff, latex and for
converting documents back and forth, I think that pandoc is very common.
But this is all hearsay, so I am sure there are others here in this group
who know much more about it than I do.
While I'm sure that Vim an Groff and others are capable of converting/using these formats back and forth, WordGrinder is a more dedicated purpose application. Trying to use multi-purpose editors just adds more complexity not to mention the fact that you have to build additional addons and configurations to get the feature set that WordGrinder provides out of the box. So that's why it was ultimately chosen.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:17:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Horses for courses. Never underestimate the value of a few printf()s
sprinkled here and there (or log file writes if you're really headless).
I'm still a fan of makefiles.
I'm a dinosaur so my preferred technique is either printf or log files.
For production code I've sometimes created a sequence of log statements
that can be turned on with a flag that are a narrative of what's going on.
My goal is a support person can read the file and see where the problem occurs. Often it is a configuration issue they can fix.
The nice part is the technique can be used with any language and is
effective where a debugger isn't available.
After consideration ...... you only install WHAT YOU ARETrue, but probably you will keep using the same stuff year after
LIKELY TO *NEED*. That will vary from person to person,
app to app, year to year.
The more shit you install theNot really, you just waste some space for something you installed but don't
more complicated things get.
Just make sure 'nano' is there. There's a trick to setting the default
editor to nano, find it. I know Manjaro doesn't just assume this - loves to default to the horrible 'vi' or 'vim'. Nano makes things SO much nicer -
like kinda up to 1984 :-)
Just make sure 'nano' is there. There's a trick to
setting the default editor to nano, find it.
On 11/18/2024 00:42, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
Just make sure 'nano' is there. There's a trick to
setting the default editor to nano, find it.
I usually just symlink vi and vim to nano. Never had problems with it.
I usually just symlink vi and vim to nano.
On 11/18/2024 18:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
You can just set the $EDITOR and $VISUAL environment variables, and
leave it at that.
<https://manpages.debian.org/1/sensible-editor.1.en.html>
Yeah, but not all programs use those variables.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:36:17 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:
I usually just symlink vi and vim to nano.
You can just set the $EDITOR and $VISUAL environment variables, and leave
it at that.
<https://manpages.debian.org/1/sensible-editor.1.en.html>
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:39:18 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:
On 11/18/2024 18:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
You can just set the $EDITOR and $VISUAL environment variables, and
leave it at that.
<https://manpages.debian.org/1/sensible-editor.1.en.html>
Yeah, but not all programs use those variables.
Which ones don’t?
Either when a dev doesn't do the right thing or if they are doing cross-platform where not all platforms use it. (Windows for example).
186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
After consideration ...... you only install WHAT YOU ARETrue, but probably you will keep using the same stuff year after
LIKELY TO *NEED*. That will vary from person to person,
app to app, year to year.
year, unless your job changes.
The more shit you install theNot really, you just waste some space for something you installed but don't use and then forget about.
more complicated things get.
Just make sure 'nano' is there. There's a trick to setting the default
editor to nano, find it. I know Manjaro doesn't just assume this - loves to >> default to the horrible 'vi' or 'vim'. Nano makes things SO much nicer -
like kinda up to 1984 :-)
Not nicer, easier for someone that doesn't use text editor often and has to make a small change in a config file. Fedora switched its default editor to Nano for this reason time ago. If you use a text editor for programming using Nano instead of vim (or emacs) would be a nightmare.
As for the "Subject", I usally install Fedora with the "netinstall" disc so I can choose from the start what I want and I have a system with KDE, vim, gnuplot, gcc, gdb, LaTeX, Libreoffice ready, I have to add very little: xmgrace and agrmerge, plus a few utilities I use, like ncdu, htop and bpytop, ag, pdfshuffler...
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:20:45 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:
Either when a dev doesn't do the right thing or if they are doing
cross-platform where not all platforms use it. (Windows for example).
If it’s open source, submit a patch to fix it.
All the cross-platform open-source software should have learned to respect common *nix conventions by now.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:17:37 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Horses for courses. Never underestimate the value of a few printf()s
sprinkled here and there (or log file writes if you're really headless).
I'm still a fan of makefiles.
I'm a dinosaur so my preferred technique is either printf or log files.
For production code I've sometimes created a sequence of log statements
that can be turned on with a flag that are a narrative of what's going on.
My goal is a support person can read the file and see where the problem occurs. Often it is a configuration issue they can fix.
The nice part is the technique can be used with any language and is
effective where a debugger isn't available.
On 11/18/2024 23:59, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:20:45 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:
Either when a dev doesn't do the right thing or if they are doing
cross-platform where not all platforms use it. (Windows for example).
If it’s open source, submit a patch to fix it.
All the cross-platform open-source software should have learned to respect >> common *nix conventions by now.
It's not that big of a deal really. And to be honest, when I go home from work, I don't touch a computer.
What!? But what do you do to give joy and meaning to your life at home, without touching a computer? ;)Sex, drugs and rock and roll?
On 19/11/2024 09:02, D wrote:
Sex, drugs and rock and roll?
What!? But what do you do to give joy and meaning to your life at
home, without touching a computer? ;)
On 11/19/24 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2024 09:02, D wrote:
Sex, drugs and rock and roll?
What!? But what do you do to give joy and meaning to your life at
home, without touching a computer? ;)
The drugs I take now just don't seem as much fun as the drugs I took
when I was young.
On 11/19/24 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2024 09:02, D wrote:
Sex, drugs and rock and roll?
What!? But what do you do to give joy and meaning to your life at home,
without touching a computer? ;)
The drugs I take now just don't seem as much fun as the drugs I took when I was young.
On 19/11/2024 09:02, D wrote:
Sex, drugs and rock and roll?
What!? But what do you do to give joy and meaning to your life at home,
without touching a computer? ;)
On 18/11/2024 14:36, Phillip Frabott wrote:
On 11/18/2024 00:42, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:Year of using vi have made me ok with it. For small jobs.
Just make sure 'nano' is there. There's a trick to
setting the default editor to nano, find it.
I usually just symlink vi and vim to nano. Never had problems with it.
For bigger jobs I either use s GUI editor or joe.
Geany is my coding app of choice.
The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 18/11/2024 14:36, Phillip Frabott wrote:
On 11/18/2024 00:42, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:Year of using vi have made me ok with it. For small jobs.
Just make sure 'nano' is there. There's a trick to
setting the default editor to nano, find it.
I usually just symlink vi and vim to nano. Never had problems with it.
For bigger jobs I either use s GUI editor or joe.
Geany is my coding app of choice.
For me, it's vi(m) or nothing.
I used to use microEmacs, but I found regular emacs too knuckle-busting.
My partial list of must-haves:
- Fluxbox window manager (and Xfce4 for its tools/managers)
- xbindkeys
- tmux
- mpd, mpc (for automation), and ncmpcpp
- GCC and Clang, autotools, libtool, gdb and cgdb
- git
- conky
- urxvt
- texlive, latexmk for project documentation
- JACK, a2jmidid
- alsamixer
- nm-applet, NetworkManager
- ssh client and server
- cups
- cheese and guvcview
- LibreOffice (for letters, shopping lists, and tables)
There's a bunch of others I forget about, and have to install when I try to use
them.....
On 19/11/2024 10:07, Pancho wrote:
On 11/19/24 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2024 09:02, D wrote:
What!? But what do you do to give joy and meaning to your life at
home, without touching a computer? ;)
Sex, drugs and rock and roll?
The drugs I take now just don't seem as much fun as the drugs I took
when I was young.
This is sadly true...
It's sad when the most useful thing you 3D printed was a drawer to
hold them all and a little cup to hold them before swallowing...
The other day a daemon program spewed 2 gigabytes of log entries, all
almost identical (the filename changed). The program was
tracker-extract.
Currently there are many programs that spew chat like there is no
tomorrow to syslog :-/
I have no idea what my distro includes. Most of em have never been run.
I only really run the stuff I've installed over and above the standard installation.
... my fingers speak [vi/vim] well enough
that if I'm trying to move down the screen in other editors a string of
"j"s appear on the screen.
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:30:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
... my fingers speak [vi/vim] well enough
that if I'm trying to move down the screen in other editors a string of
"j"s appear on the screen.
The vi/vim apps I’ve used also support the arrow keys, like modern programs.
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Moving around after inserting text requires n + 1 keystrokes: 1 to exit insert mode, and n to move around. Editors which don’t have a separate insert mode can do n moves with just n keystrokes.
... it's often nice not to have to move your hands out of home
position.
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
One keystroke is pretty cheap in the scheme of things.
... And not all
editors can easily do things I use a lot in vi(m), such as placing the
cursor on a brace, bracket, or parenthesis and jumping to the
corresponding one.
The thing that really irritates me is the effort made by a lot of
software (particularly under Windows) ...
To me, one mouse click is worth at least 10 keystrokes, and is
more error-prone. Most people don't realize the tremendous demands
on hand-eye coordination needed to accurately position the mouse
pointer at a tiny point on the screen and not let it move as you
click a button. There's a reason that touch typists work hard
to develop their skill.
On 2024-11-19, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/11/2024 10:07, Pancho wrote:
On 11/19/24 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2024 09:02, D wrote:
What!? But what do you do to give joy and meaning to your life at
home, without touching a computer? ;)
Sex, drugs and rock and roll?
The drugs I take now just don't seem as much fun as the drugs I took
when I was young.
One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all.
This is sadly true...
It's sad when the most useful thing you 3D printed was a drawer to
hold them all and a little cup to hold them before swallowing...
You know you're getting old when all the names in your
little black book end in "M.D.".
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:30:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
... my fingers speak [vi/vim] well enough
that if I'm trying to move down the screen in other editors a string of
"j"s appear on the screen.
The vi/vim apps I’ve used also support the arrow keys, like modern programs.
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Moving around after inserting text requires n + 1 keystrokes: 1 to exit insert mode, and n to move around. Editors which don’t have a separate insert mode can do n moves with just n keystrokes.
On 20/11/2024 00:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
To me, one mouse click is worth at least 10 keystrokes, and is
more error-prone. Most people don't realize the tremendous demands
on hand-eye coordination needed to accurately position the mouse
pointer at a tiny point on the screen and not let it move as you
click a button. There's a reason that touch typists work hard
to develop their skill.
And why many many professional users of various applications much prefer
the keyboard shortcuts to using a mouse.
Really, GUIS for a touch typists are rather things that get in the way.
On the other hand, CAD is impossible without one...
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:53:52 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
... it's often nice not to have to move your hands out of home
position.
That “advantage” makes no sense to me. My hands move all over the place --
to the various parts of the keyboard, and to the mouse, and other controls
-- wherever I need to operate something. Going back to home position is something you can do by touch, very quickly, anyway. (That’s what those little nubs are for.)
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
One keystroke is pretty cheap in the scheme of things.
You were saying ... ?
... And not all
editors can easily do things I use a lot in vi(m), such as placing the
cursor on a brace, bracket, or parenthesis and jumping to the
corresponding one.
Surely all the common editors can do that. What about moving between lines with matching indentation -- handy for Python programming?
The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 20/11/2024 00:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
To me, one mouse click is worth at least 10 keystrokes, and is
more error-prone. Most people don't realize the tremendous demands
on hand-eye coordination needed to accurately position the mouse
pointer at a tiny point on the screen and not let it move as you
click a button. There's a reason that touch typists work hard
to develop their skill.
And why many many professional users of various applications much prefer
the keyboard shortcuts to using a mouse.
Really, GUIS for a touch typists are rather things that get in the way.
On the other hand, CAD is impossible without one...
I dunno about that. One AutoCAD guy I knew at work spent a lot of time in the AutoCAD command-line.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:57:00 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The other day a daemon program spewed 2 gigabytes of log entries, all
almost identical (the filename changed). The program was
tracker-extract.
Currently there are many programs that spew chat like there is no
tomorrow to syslog :-/
My favorite was a Windows process that repeatedly logged the C: drive was almost full -- to the C: drive of course. Cleaning up after it
successfully committed suicide was fun.
We had a couple of programs that would politely check for disk space
before running. That worked well for years before the first machines with
TB+ drives showed up. Back to the drawing board for the disk space calculation.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:30:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Moving around after inserting text requires n + 1 keystrokes: 1 to exit
insert mode, and n to move around. Editors which don’t have a separate
insert mode can do n moves with just n keystrokes.
With vim, you can be in insert mode and still move around with the arrow keys.
/usr/share/vim/vim91/doc/ contains about 11 megs o' text help files.
Actually, one problem with vim is tooooo many ways to do things. :-)
On 20/11/2024 00:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
To me, one mouse click is worth at least 10 keystrokes, and is
more error-prone. Most people don't realize the tremendous demands
on hand-eye coordination needed to accurately position the mouse
pointer at a tiny point on the screen and not let it move as you
click a button. There's a reason that touch typists work hard
to develop their skill.
And why many many professional users of various applications much prefer
the keyboard shortcuts to using a mouse.
Really, GUIS for a touch typists are rather things that get in the way.
On the other hand, CAD is impossible without one...
Actually, one problem with vim is tooooo many ways to do things.
On 2024-11-20, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:30:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Moving around after inserting text requires n + 1 keystrokes: 1 to exit
insert mode, and n to move around. Editors which don’t have a separate >>> insert mode can do n moves with just n keystrokes.
With vim, you can be in insert mode and still move around with the arrow
keys.
/usr/share/vim/vim91/doc/ contains about 11 megs o' text help files.
Actually, one problem with vim is tooooo many ways to do things. :-)
Every now and then I come across some nifty trick I didn't know about. One of my favourites is /\<foo\> - which finds the next occurrence of "foo" that is a complete word, i.e. it ignores "foobar".
Every now and then I come across some nifty trick I didn't know about.
One of my favourites is /\<foo\> - which finds the next occurrence of
"foo" that is a complete word, i.e. it ignores "foobar".
Really, GUIS for a touch typists are rather things that get in the way.
On the other hand, CAD is impossible without one...
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:39:21 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Actually, one problem with vim is tooooo many ways to do things.
I've got a fairly thick book on Vim around here someplace. I have my
little bag of tricks I've developed over the years that's a small subset
of Vim but they're well polished from use. Things I do every couple of
years like turning on line numbering requires some research.
On 2024-11-19, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 19/11/2024 12:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
For me, it's vi(m) or nothing.
+1 - it's available on all machines, and my fingers speak
it well enough that if I'm trying to move down the screen
in other editors a string of "j"s appear on the screen.
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Occasionally I'll fall back to a GUI editor if I need
to cut and paste text - mousepad works, but not well
enough to make me want to switch.
I used to use microEmacs, but I found regular emacs too knuckle-busting.
I looked at emacs once or twice, but it lives on a different planet
than I do.
Both vi and emacs live in a different planet than I do.
Interesting! Line numbering is one of those things I like to have
enabled by default. I think my most common tricks are search n' replace s///g, working with buffers, !! for pulling in stuff from the terminal,
dt to delete to, well, too many to mention. And many have almost become automatic.
I didn't know there was a special way to do this. I used simply "\ foo
", as you said "tooooo many ways to do things".
Every now and then I come across some nifty trick I didn't know about.
One of my favourites is /\<foo\> - which finds the next occurrence of
"foo" that is a complete word, i.e. it ignores "foobar".
The best 2D CAD ever is still Corel draw. Draw a square where you want
to to be, and then type in its side values to make it exact...you can
use the mouse OR type in values.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:30:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
... my fingers speak [vi/vim] well enough
that if I'm trying to move down the screen in other editors a string of
"j"s appear on the screen.
The vi/vim apps I’ve used also support the arrow keys, like modern
programs.
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Moving around after inserting text requires n + 1 keystrokes: 1 to exit
insert mode, and n to move around. Editors which don’t have a separate
insert mode can do n moves with just n keystrokes.
With vim, you can be in insert mode and still move around with the arrow keys.
/usr/share/vim/vim91/doc/ contains about 11 megs o' text help files.
Actually, one problem with vim is tooooo many ways to do things. :-)
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 22:11:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Both vi and emacs live in a different planet than I do.
vi definitely lives someplace else in the solar system than vim or gVim.
The choice was easy back when disk space was at a premium. iirc, gVim took around 2 MB, and emacs took over 20 MB. Of course gVim didn't tell your fortune, play go, or require keyboard maneuvers equivalent to playing B7
on a guitar.
GNU Emacs lets you
experience the power of Control-U. It is a prefix argument that (oversimplification follows, but ...) multiplies the effect of the next action by 4.
Regarding moving around requiring n+1 keystrokes, GNU Emacs lets you experience the power of Control-U. It is a prefix argument that (oversimplification follows, but ...) multiplies the effect of the next action by 4.
On 2024-11-20, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 22:11:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Both vi and emacs live in a different planet than I do.
vi definitely lives someplace else in the solar system than vim or
gVim.
The choice was easy back when disk space was at a premium. iirc, gVim
took around 2 MB, and emacs took over 20 MB. Of course gVim didn't tell
your fortune, play go, or require keyboard maneuvers equivalent to
playing B7 on a guitar.
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping (back when 8MB was a lot).
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:51:03 +0100, D wrote:
Interesting! Line numbering is one of those things I like to have
enabled by default. I think my most common tricks are search n' replace
s///g, working with buffers, !! for pulling in stuff from the terminal,
dt to delete to, well, too many to mention. And many have almost become
automatic.
Buffers are one of the selling points for me. The Brief editor had them
back in the DOS days before Borland bought it and killed it. I never could figure out why the Visual Studio editor was so lame in that regard. I
haven't used Studio enough lately to bother but VS Code has a very nice
Vim extension. "* to interact with the clipboard is one I use often.
Recording key sequences to a named register os handy too.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 22:11:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Both vi and emacs live in a different planet than I do.
vi definitely lives someplace else in the solar system than vim or gVim.
The choice was easy back when disk space was at a premium. iirc, gVim took around 2 MB, and emacs took over 20 MB. Of course gVim didn't tell your fortune, play go, or require keyboard maneuvers equivalent to playing B7
on a guitar.
Oh, | want to execute a regular expression on my text here.
Here | go.
| take my mouse hand off my keys.
| move my mouse hand to my mouse
I grip the mouse with my mouse hand
| move the mouse to the tag strip on top of the editing buffer
I click the tag strip
| release the mouse
| move my mouse hand to the keys
| write the regex
| take my mouse hand off the keys
| move my mouse hand to my mouse
I grip the mouse and press da butans
| drag the mouse over the regex to highlight it
| release da butans
| watch as my regex hopefully does what it needs to do on the first try.
I move the mouse to the editing buffer to continue inputting text
| release the mouse
| move my mouse hand to the keys
| FINALLY start typing again.
press both foot pedals
press meta shift control sysrq
play the moonlight sonata on the two extra leopards while requesting Regex-Mode with the headstick.
hit the electric cymbals strapped under my arm and while putting the shift-stick | have gripped tightly with my sphincter into turbo mode.
signal my two assistants to turn their keys in unison, NOW!
input the regex
release all keys and watch as emacs gracefully rearranges the text
escape or equivalent
: %s/foo/bar/g
enter
continue editing
On 2024-11-20, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:30:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
... my fingers speak [vi/vim] well enough
that if I'm trying to move down the screen in other editors a string of >>>> "j"s appear on the screen.
The vi/vim apps I’ve used also support the arrow keys, like modern
programs.
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Moving around after inserting text requires n + 1 keystrokes: 1 to exit
insert mode, and n to move around. Editors which don’t have a separate >>> insert mode can do n moves with just n keystrokes.
With vim, you can be in insert mode and still move around with the arrow keys.
/usr/share/vim/vim91/doc/ contains about 11 megs o' text help files.
Actually, one problem with vim is tooooo many ways to do things. :-)
Regarding moving around requiring n+1 keystrokes, GNU Emacs lets
you experience the power of Control-U. It is a prefix argument
that (oversimplification follows, but ...) multiplies the effect
of the next action by 4.
So, with control-U three times and an arrow key the cursor can
move 64 steps in any direction.
If you want to execute the current keyboard macro 1024 times, do
control-U 5 times, then control-X, then 'e'.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 22:11:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Both vi and emacs live in a different planet than I do.
vi definitely lives someplace else in the solar system than vim or gVim.
The choice was easy back when disk space was at a premium. iirc, gVim took around 2 MB, and emacs took over 20 MB. Of course gVim didn't tell your fortune, play go, or require keyboard maneuvers equivalent to playing B7
on a guitar.
On 20 Nov 2024 18:53:07 GMT, G wrote:
I didn't know there was a special way to do this. I used simply "\ foo
", as you said "tooooo many ways to do things".
That works, as long as there is white space.
int foo, foobar
for (foo=0; foo<10; foo++) {
foobar *= 2
}
How many foos will it find?
On 2024-11-20, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:30:32 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
For sheer economy of keystrokes, vi(m) is hard to beat.
Moving around after inserting text requires n + 1 keystrokes: 1 to exit
insert mode, and n to move around. Editors which don’t have a separate >>> insert mode can do n moves with just n keystrokes.
With vim, you can be in insert mode and still move around with the arrow keys.
/usr/share/vim/vim91/doc/ contains about 11 megs o' text help files.
Actually, one problem with vim is tooooo many ways to do things. :-)
Every now and then I come across some nifty trick I didn't know about.
One of my favourites is /\<foo\> - which finds the next occurrence of
"foo" that is a complete word, i.e. it ignores "foobar".
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:23:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:In the world of semi-professional fab, its Cardboard Aided Design where
On the other hand, CAD is impossible without one...
CAD has a different meaning in my world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_dispatch
That lead to some awkward moments when interviewing candidates who hadn't done any research into what they were applying for.
Charlie Gibbs wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Every now and then I come across some nifty trick I didn't know about.
One of my favourites is /\<foo\> - which finds the next occurrence of
"foo" that is a complete word, i.e. it ignores "foobar".
A quick way to do that is to put the cursor on a word and hit "*" (or "#" to search upward).
:help *
So my earlier joke was not a joke. I twas the truth! In vim, just type
1024@a and be done with it (assuming macro is in a).
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:54:10 +0100, D wrote:
So my earlier joke was not a joke. I twas the truth! In vim, just type
1024@a and be done with it (assuming macro is in a).
I always try a couple of single invocations before committing to running
the macro on the whole document, not that I've ever screwed up.
On 21 Nov 2024 04:31:13 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
Regarding moving around requiring n+1 keystrokes, GNU Emacs lets you
experience the power of Control-U. It is a prefix argument that
(oversimplification follows, but ...) multiplies the effect of the next
action by 4.
I hope it has a similar prefix to undo all the stuff I just destroyed with Ctrl-U.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2024, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 22:11:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Both vi and emacs live in a different planet than I do.
vi definitely lives someplace else in the solar system than vim or gVim.
The choice was easy back when disk space was at a premium. iirc, gVim took >> around 2 MB, and emacs took over 20 MB. Of course gVim didn't tell your
fortune, play go, or require keyboard maneuvers equivalent to playing B7
on a guitar.
This old classic comes to mind:
Regexing with several editors:
acme:
Oh, | want to execute a regular expression on my text here.
Here | go.
| take my mouse hand off my keys.
| move my mouse hand to my mouse
I grip the mouse with my mouse hand
| move the mouse to the tag strip on top of the editing buffer
I click the tag strip
| release the mouse
| move my mouse hand to the keys
| write the regex
| take my mouse hand off the keys
| move my mouse hand to my mouse
I grip the mouse and press da butans
| drag the mouse over the regex to highlight it
| release da butans
| watch as my regex hopefully does what it needs to do on the first try.
I move the mouse to the editing buffer to continue inputting text
| release the mouse
| move my mouse hand to the keys
| FINALLY start typing again.
Emacs:
press both foot pedalsRegex-Mode with the headstick.
press meta shift control sysrq
play the moonlight sonata on the two extra leopards while requesting
hit the electric cymbals strapped under my arm and while putting theshift-stick | have gripped tightly with my sphincter into turbo mode.
signal my two assistants to turn their keys in unison, NOW!
input the regex
release all keys and watch as emacs gracefully rearranges the text
vim:
escape or equivalent
: %s/foo/bar/g
enter
continue editing
On 20/11/2024 19:18, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:23:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:In the world of semi-professional fab, its Cardboard Aided Design where
On the other hand, CAD is impossible without one...
CAD has a different meaning in my world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_dispatch
That lead to some awkward moments when interviewing candidates who hadn't
done any research into what they were applying for.
you cut bits of cardboard to the shapes you want and measure or scan
them BEFORE invoking the software, or you trace them direct onto metal
and nark the outline for manual cutting,,,
On 11/21/24 8:45 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2024 19:18, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:23:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:In the world of semi-professional fab, its Cardboard Aided Design
On the other hand, CAD is impossible without one...
CAD has a different meaning in my world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_dispatch
That lead to some awkward moments when interviewing candidates who
hadn't
done any research into what they were applying for.
where you cut bits of cardboard to the shapes you want and measure or
scan them BEFORE invoking the software, or you trace them direct onto
metal and nark the outline for manual cutting,,,
Neolithic tech CAN be the best :-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:35:17 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,840 |