From: Zach White Date: 19:24 on 10 Jul 2006 Subject: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out Can anyone think of a more asinine proceedure for logging out? Not only is it completely unintuitive, but the very way it operates is hateful. I have this particular Win2k box I log into once a week or so via RDC. About a month ago I had to reboot the box, after it had been up for months. So of course, when I follow my normal log out proceedure, everything goes as planned until I get to the Log Out phase. Because I've previously rebooted, Windows assumes I want to reboot again. Never mind that in over a year of operation I've logged out 50 or 60 times and rebooted maybe 5 or 6 times. Granted, WinXP and 2003 get this better, and admittedly I could use the logout option in the start menu itself that can be enabled, but that action isn't burned into muscle memory from years of hitting Win, u, enter every time I wanted to log out. -Zach
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 00:54 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > Granted, WinXP and 2003 get this better, and admittedly I could use the > logout option in the start menu itself that can be enabled, but that action > isn't burned into muscle memory from years of hitting Win, u, enter every > time I wanted to log out. I never hit the "win" key in Windows, except when I've been using a Mac recently and I'm going for Command. Can anyone come up with as big a waste of keyboard space as the two Windows keys and the menu key... all of which simply duplicate other perfectly good key combinations and can't even be usefully applied as hotkeys in other apps? (Is this keyboard hate or software hate)?
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 01:02 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-07-11 01:55]: > can't even be usefully applied as hotkeys in other apps? I like them, a set of extra meta keys is always nice to have... But of course I don't use Windows. There are a couple hates to be had around the subject (binding keys in X11; trying to bind keys in Windows; Windows in general; probably others), but I can't get myself to care enough to go on about them. Regards,
From: Bill Page Date: 02:12 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out the only useful thing i can think of about the windows key is windows+e brings up windows explorer though i assume there's another way of doing that anyway? On 7/11/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-07-11 01:55]: > > can't even be usefully applied as hotkeys in other apps? > > I like them, a set of extra meta keys is always nice to have... > But of course I don't use Windows. > > There are a couple hates to be had around the subject (binding > keys in X11; trying to bind keys in Windows; Windows in general; > probably others), but I can't get myself to care enough to go on > about them. > > Regards, > -- > Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>; >
From: Simon Wistow Date: 08:48 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:42:07AM +0930, Bill Page said: > the only useful thing i can think of about the windows key is > windows+e brings up windows explorer > though i assume there's another way of doing that anyway? Windows-m minimises and unminimises everything which is hella useful sometimes.
From: Adam Auden Date: 08:55 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 7/11/06, Simon Wistow <simon@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Windows-m minimises and unminimises everything which is hella useful > sometimes. Hiding your porn one handed, for example.
From: Jan Martin Mathiassen Date: 09:58 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:42:07AM +0930, Bill Page said: >> the only useful thing i can think of about the windows key is >> windows+e brings up windows explorer >> though i assume there's another way of doing that anyway? > > Windows-m minimises and unminimises everything which is hella useful > sometimes. windows-l brings up the logout/change user box in XP, which I find hella useful since I usually spend my time as a normal user (to avoid stuff such as the ever-lovely starforce copy protection, which is a hate I keep meaning to write about any day now).
From: Jan Martin Mathiassen Date: 10:06 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: human bags of mostly water [was: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out] >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:42:07AM +0930, Bill Page said: >>> the only useful thing i can think of about the windows key is >>> windows+e brings up windows explorer >>> though i assume there's another way of doing that anyway? >> >> Windows-m minimises and unminimises everything which is hella useful >> sometimes. > > windows-l brings up the logout/change user box in XP, which I find hella > useful since I usually spend my time as a normal user (to avoid stuff such > as the ever-lovely starforce copy protection, which is a hate I keep > meaning to write about any day now). And let's cheer once more for brainware which obviously needs a firmware upgrade to fix the bug called "incorrectly interfacing with mail clients", and thus sending 2 emails to the entire list, and one to the guy being answered. Hugs, kisses. Now where's my caffeine?
From: Hakim Cassimally Date: 10:00 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 11/07/06, Jan Martin Mathiassen <hates_software@xxxxxxxx.xx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:42:07AM +0930, Bill Page said: > >> windows+e brings up windows explorer > > Windows-m minimises and unminimises everything which is hella useful > windows-l brings up the logout/change user box in XP windows-r brings up a mini command line. When I used windows I used that for pretty much all of my application launching. Sure it mean you had to remember "excel" but "winword" and "powerpnt", but with command-line completion that wasn't too heavy. I could never quite work out where these names were registered (they're not in PATH, but are the short names which respond to "start progname" in command line, I rifled through the registry a couple of times to try to work it out, unsuccessfully). I'd note that windows-m isn't as useful as you'd think for hiding pron as it responds very slowly in some cases as every window has to respond and animate the minimize window command. The "Show Desktop" option is quicker, though I forget what keyboard combination that's mapped to. osfameron
From: Phil Pennock
Date: 10:12 on 12 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
On 2006-07-12 at 11:00 +0200, Hakim Cassimally wrote:
> windows-r brings up a mini command line. When I used windows I used
> that for pretty much all of my application launching. Sure it mean
> you had to remember "excel" but "winword" and "powerpnt", but with
> command-line completion that wasn't too heavy.
I add aliases.
> I could never quite work out where these names were registered
> (they're not in PATH, but are the short names which respond to "start
> progname" in command line, I rifled through the registry a couple of
> times to try to work it out, unsuccessfully).
I found it, when I got fed up with not being able to run PuTTY that way;
I've since added a few others. The main limitation is that you're
limited to .exe, from what I recall, so no .bat. The other is that
whilst you can specify that a program takes drag&drop, you can't
otherwise massage the parameters. That, in combination with the lack of
.bat files, means that I haven't yet gotten to be able to type "zsh" and
get a properly-working Cygwin zsh setup. By setting the Path first,
it's almost working, but I need to manually source the login files which
do the rest of the critical setup. If someone knows how I can get to
run "zsh -l" then I'll be very interested to know. I suspect that the
answer involves a compiler. ;^)
You can have the target be a .lnk file (pointing directly to the .exe),
so I have pcmd.exe pointing to my menu shortcut for a command-prompt,
which changes the font to something smaller and increases the window
size, etc.
-----------------------------< cut here >-------------------------------
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\
Directory: cmdname.exe
(Default) REG_SZ X:\path\to\cmdname.exe
Path REG_SZ X:\path\to\
DropTarget REG_SZ {CLSID}
Default key is command to run.
Option Path key adds a semicolon-separated list of paths to the end of
the %PATH% presented to the program.
DropTarget is IDropTarget implementor; if present, then dropped files
are not put onto the cmdline as parameters but instead passed directly.
<URL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/shellcc/platform/shell/programmersguide/shell_basics/shell_basics_extending/fileassociations/fa_perceived_types.asp>
ShellExecute() looks in:
* Current working directory
* Windows directory
* Windows\System32 directory
* Directories listed in PATH environment variable
* the "App Paths" registry key
Order of this lookup varies; XP SP1 moves App Paths to top
-----------------------8< cut here: putty.reg >8------------------------
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\putty.exe]
@="C:\\Program Files\\PuTTY\\putty.exe"
----------------------------8< cut here >8------------------------------
-----------------------------< cut here >-------------------------------
> I'd note that windows-m isn't as useful as you'd think for hiding pron
> as it responds very slowly in some cases as every window has to
> respond and animate the minimize window command. The "Show Desktop"
> option is quicker, though I forget what keyboard combination that's
> mapped to.
Windows-D (for Desktop). I use that, Win-R and sometimes Win-E.
From: Phil Pennock Date: 10:24 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 2006-07-12 at 11:12 +0200, Phil Pennock wrote: > I've since added a few others. The main limitation is that you're > limited to .exe, from what I recall, so no .bat. The other is that > whilst you can specify that a program takes drag&drop, you can't > otherwise massage the parameters. That, in combination with the lack of > .bat files, means that I haven't yet gotten to be able to type "zsh" and > get a properly-working Cygwin zsh setup. By setting the Path first, > it's almost working, but I need to manually source the login files which > do the rest of the critical setup. If someone knows how I can get to > run "zsh -l" then I'll be very interested to know. I suspect that the > answer involves a compiler. ;^) > > You can have the target be a .lnk file (pointing directly to the .exe), Gods, I'm so stupid sometimes. I read my own mail and promptly when and fixed it. Okay, I now have the App Paths registry key "zsh.exe" pointing to a zsh-start.lnk, where the shortcut adds the -l needed, so that I have a fully-working Cygwin zsh by doing Win-R + "zsh". Something has to go wrong soon, because this OS install is almost becoming tolerable and every time I think that, I become frustrated at something new and the hates builds to an even higher level than ever before.
From: Hakim Cassimally Date: 10:31 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 12/07/06, Phil Pennock <phil.pennock@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 2006-07-12 at 11:12 +0200, Phil Pennock wrote: > Something has to go wrong soon, because this OS install is almost > becoming tolerable and every time I think that, I become frustrated at > something new and the hates builds to an even higher level than ever > before. WinXP was really quite tolerable for me actually. Once I'd dispatched the baby blue colour scheme (execpt during startup and crashes when it panics and runs back to it for comfort), it looks quite smooth and worked rather well. So, I had to reboot it every 1-2 days or it would run like treacle, but I end up rebooting Linux about as often because a) power management is broken so when it runs out of juice it doesn't hibernate, and b) occasionally wvdialling with my mobile stops working, and the magic incantations of replugging the usb cable, rebooting phone, and as last resort /etc/init.d/hotplug restart don't always work. and c) tasks such as waking up from sleep or watching a video in totem occasionally crash everything. osfameron
From: Yoz Grahame Date: 14:25 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 7/12/06, Hakim Cassimally <hakim.cassimally@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > So, I had to reboot it every 1-2 days or it would run like treacle, Same with mine. And the problem - oh how I laughed - appears to be Firefox leaking like a wounded oil tanker. Sure, I'm frequently running in excess of 30 tabs, but when the process starts it's taking about 250MB and has risen to 500+ by the end of the day, most of which happens when I'm doing nothing at all. (Seriously, just open the Process pane of Task Manager and watch.) Sure, I can just kill and restart FF, but given that it's the main thing I run and all those tabs take so long to open anyway... -- Yoz
From: demerphq Date: 14:32 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 7/12/06, Yoz Grahame <yoz@xxx.xxx> wrote: > On 7/12/06, Hakim Cassimally <hakim.cassimally@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > > > So, I had to reboot it every 1-2 days or it would run like treacle, > > Same with mine. And the problem - oh how I laughed - appears to be > Firefox leaking like a wounded oil tanker. Let me guess, you had some page with autorefresh on it? Every time i forget to close autorefreshing pages in FF before i go home at night the next day the machine is unusable until I kill FF. Now if only MS could blame the way it hangs when you try to print a document, or when you click on the show devices drop down in the open file dialogs.... (In this respect W2k is vaslty superior, but then theres the "Explorer takes 10 minutes to delete a file, regardless of its size" bug to remind you why you hate W2k....) Hate-Hate-Hate
From: Yoz Grahame Date: 15:11 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 7/12/06, Hakim Cassimally <hakim.cassimally@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Just to keep the hate nice and focused on topic, Safari, on gf's, > dad's, and brother's iBooks beachballs to a half when I try to run it > with more than 2 or 3 tabs. That and failing to work on pretty much > for any credit-card purchase I want to make really don't make up for > it allegedly rendering HTML better than Firefox and Opera, broken > piece of fanboy crap. Ohgodyes. I suspect Safari was partially responsible for my experiences of OS 10.4 on a Mini being less stable than XP on the laptop sitting next to it. Safari appeared to consistently take twice as much RAM as Firefox despite the latter running three times as many tabs. That, along with Dashboard widgets just consuming insane quantities of memory. WebCore has a lot to answer for. I realise that conventional wisdom says MacOS needs more RAM than Windows, but it's getting to the point where someone seems to have mistaken it for an aspiration. -- Yoz
From: Aaron Crane Date: 15:22 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out Yoz Grahame writes: > Safari appeared to consistently take twice as much RAM as Firefox despite > the latter running three times as many tabs. It seems not uncommon for my Safari to take 3 *gigabytes* of memory after several days of usage. This is on a laptop with 768 MB of RAM; unsurprisingly, I have to restart Safari periodically. And, oh look, I have to use a third-party payware add-on to get anything at all in the way of session saving. The fact that the session-saving gadget (Saft, for those unwisely wishing to play along at home) must be implemented in an insanely crufty and hackish way, because that's the only available option, is just food for the hatred. I'm switching browser Real Soon Now, I promise.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 15:55 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > I'm switching browser Real Soon Now, I promise. Try Camino. Firefox with almost-native GUI and no XUL hate. (not that it doesn't have its own hate, but it's a *dry* hate)
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 15:54 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > Ohgodyes. I suspect Safari was partially responsible for my > experiences of OS 10.4 on a Mini being less stable than XP on the > laptop sitting next to it. Safari appeared to consistently take twice > as much RAM as Firefox despite the latter running three times as many > tabs. That, along with Dashboard widgets just consuming insane > quantities of memory. WebCore has a lot to answer for. I hated when Adium went to using Webkit/core. Not only did I have to give up using it on Jaguar, it got significantly slower. And it's why Dashboard widgets use over 10x the CPU of Konfabulator widgets. Yes, really, I have multiple K widgets on screen all the time, with CPU about 2-3% for *everything* in the system, even on a mini. Bring up Dashboard and CPU use jumps to 20%. On my Macbook. Dual core 2.16 GHz. Page layout primitives are NOT APPROPRIATE for precisely positioned GUI elements, kthxbye. (insert hate about CSS taking the whole "no tables" things too seriously and refusing to have grid layout as an option, just to turn it up to 11)
From: Foofy Date: 19:03 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:54:04 -0400, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > (insert hate about CSS taking the whole "no tables" things too seriously > and refusing to have grid layout as an option, just to turn it up to 11) Actually it does, it's just not supported in IE so nobody bothers with it. That or people think it's just there for styling existing tables. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html P.S. Off-topic question! Am I supposed to "reply to all" or just to the main list? I always get the feeling I'm pissing everybody off by sending a message to the list and another to the original author...
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 19:50 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > > (insert hate about CSS taking the whole "no tables" things too seriously > > and refusing to have grid layout as an option, just to turn it up to 11) > Actually it does, it's just not supported in IE so nobody bothers with > it. That or people think it's just there for styling existing tables. > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html No, no, I don't mean "CSS doesn't support tables". CSS has a lot of really cool stuff for making tables look good, and it's great, and I use it all over the place. The problem is that back when CSS was being developed people were abusing tables for layout in inappropriate ways, and CSS doesn't seem to have a way to specify grid layout in the CSS file... instead people come up with the most insane workarounds to do simple stuff like three-column layout and then pat themselves on the back so hard they need a chiropractor on retainer when they figure out how to keep it from messing up more than occasionally in either IE or Gecko-based browsers. IE, instead of having 30 lines of obscure layout code, you should be able to say something like: ... page { layout: grid rows 1 columns 3; columns: "left", "center", "right"; } ... page left { width: max 30%; } ... page center { width: min 300px max 70%; } ... page right { width: min 100px max 10%; } I mean, CSS Zen garden is a tour de force, but it's like they're building a boat in a bottle using a remote manipulator that only accepts commands in haiku.
From: Foofy Date: 21:02 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:50:34 -0400, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> > (insert hate about CSS taking the whole "no tables" things too >> seriously >> > and refusing to have grid layout as an option, just to turn it up to >> 11) > >> Actually it does, it's just not supported in IE so nobody bothers with >> it. That or people think it's just there for styling existing tables. > >> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html > > No, no, I don't mean "CSS doesn't support tables". > > CSS has a lot of really cool stuff for making tables look good, and it's > great, and I use it all over the place. > > The problem is that back when CSS was being developed people were abusing > tables for layout in inappropriate ways, and CSS doesn't seem to have a > way > to specify grid layout in the CSS file... instead people come up with the > most insane workarounds to do simple stuff like three-column layout and > then pat themselves on the back so hard they need a chiropractor on > retainer > when they figure out how to keep it from messing up more than > occasionally > in either IE or Gecko-based browsers. > > IE, instead of having 30 lines of obscure layout code, you should be > able to > say something like: > > ... page { > layout: grid rows 1 columns 3; > columns: "left", "center", "right"; > } > > ... page left { > width: max 30%; > } > > ... page center { > width: min 300px max 70%; > } > > ... page right { > width: min 100px max 10%; > } > > I mean, CSS Zen garden is a tour de force, but it's like they're > building a > boat in a bottle using a remote manipulator that only accepts commands in > haiku. > > >
From: Foofy
Date: 21:44 on 12 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:50:34 -0400, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> =
wrote:
> tables for layout in inappropriate ways, and CSS doesn't seem to have =
a =
> way to specify grid layout in the CSS file...
But that's what you missed. You can specify table layout for any =
elements, but since IE doesn't support these properties it doesn't make =
=
sense to use them.
> instead people come up with the
> most insane workarounds to do simple stuff like three-column layout an=
d
Agreed. I have so much web development hate I could go on for years. I=
=
hate stupid hacks, pages unreadable without CSS, layouts that break in =
anything but Firefox and IE, "Web 2.0," replacing a bunch of unsemantic =
=
code and tables with equally unsemantic (but valid) divs and spans.
Basically we went from this:
<b>Hello there!</b>
To this:
<span class=3D'boldtext'>Hello there!</b>
And what the hell was wrong with b in the first place? We went from sev=
en =
keystrokes to open and close b to 17 keystrokes for strong! Any English=
=
handbook will tell you that bold already means emphasis.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 23:10 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > But that's what you missed. You can specify table layout for any > elements, but since IE doesn't support these properties it doesn't make It looked like you could make any element act like <TR> or <TD>, but it didn't look like you could describe the table in the CSS.
From: Aaron Crane Date: 11:35 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out Foofy writes: > replacing a bunch of unsemantic code and tables with equally unsemantic > (but valid) divs and spans. > > Basically we went from this: > <b>Hello there!</b> > > To this: > <span class='boldtext'>Hello there!</b> No, only people who didn't understand the point of non-presentational markup did that. The rest of us went from <b>Hello there!</b> to <strong>Hello there!</strong> or perhaps even, given that few people actually distinguish "emphasis" from "strong emphasis", to <em>Hello there!</em> with out-of-band stylesheet rules specifying that <em> is to be bold and non-italic. It's true that there are lots of people who write crap HTML containing almost no elements other than <div> and <span>. But that's (a) not the fault of the W3C (unlike many other things), and (b) not really a software hate.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 12:58 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out * Aaron Crane <hateful@xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx> [2006-07-13 12:40]: > No, only people who didn't understand the point of > non-presentational markup did that. The rest of us went from > > <b>Hello there!</b> > > to > > <strong>Hello there!</strong> Don’t miss <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/wannabe/>; though. FWIW, I use `<i>` a lot, and no, it’s not because I don’t know about `<em>`. `<b>` has much fewer uses, but it does have them as well. Regards,
From: Phil Pennock
Date: 23:22 on 12 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
On 2006-07-12 at 13:50 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> IE, instead of having 30 lines of obscure layout code, you should be able to
> say something like:
>
> ... page {
> layout: grid rows 1 columns 3;
> columns: "left", "center", "right";
> }
CSS 3, Multi-Column Layout, currently a Working Draft. Doesn't
(currently) include a way to specify min and max column widths and let
the browser auto-size the columns, but this is where to speak up if you
want to see this in an actual standard.
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/>
Give it ten years and it might be widely enough supported that it'll be
safe to use, if new web specs ever again do make it to the mainsteam.
body { column-count: 3 }
From: peter (Peter da Silva)
Date: 23:51 on 12 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
> CSS 3, Multi-Column Layout, currently a Working Draft. Doesn't
> (currently) include a way to specify min and max column widths and let
> the browser auto-size the columns, but this is where to speak up if you
> want to see this in an actual standard.
db#> INSERT INTO hates_software (tag,hate)
SELECT 'multi-column',hate FROM peter
WHERE reason ILIKE '%commitee%subset%general%solution%';
1 row(s)
db#> SELECT hate FROM hates_software WHERE tag='multi-column';
hate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Committees that implement a tiny subset of a general solution
because they fucked up and precluded the general solution in
a previous iteration
I'm not talking about "multi-column layout", I'm talking about general
grid layout. You should be able to define a complex page layout, at the
top level, completely in CSS, just as easily as you can define a complex
table. Including rowspan, colspan, absolute and relative widths... without
once referring to layers, iframes, or javascript.
From: Foofy Date: 00:04 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:51:21 -0400, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > I'm not talking about "multi-column layout", I'm talking about general > grid layout. You should be able to define a complex page layout, at the > top level, completely in CSS, just as easily as you can define a complex > table. Including rowspan, colspan, absolute and relative widths... > without once referring to layers, iframes, or javascript. Like I said, you _can_ do this, but it won't work in IE. The spec is eight years old, so blame Microsoft, not the W3, though they should be shot for other reasons (XSLT, for instance). Just read the damned link: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html#anonymous-boxes
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 00:59 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > Like I said, you _can_ do this, but it won't work in IE. The spec is > eight years old, so blame Microsoft, not the W3, though they should be > shot for other reasons (XSLT, for instance). Just read the damned link: > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html#anonymous-boxes I *did* read the damned link. It *doesnt* describe what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about "make a <UL> look like a table", I'm talking about "with this .css file, the navigation box is on the right, with that .css file, it's on the left", without having to put the navigation box in a float and play games with layers to drop the box in different places. I'm saying "I agree with the original decision that using tables for overall layout was a bad idea... but not because they were called "tables", but because using HTML for layout is a bad idea". Calling them a "STACK" of "ROW"s instead of a "TABLE" of "TR"s doesn't change that.
From: Sean Conner Date: 06:17 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out It was thus said that the Great Peter da Silva once stated: > > Like I said, you _can_ do this, but it won't work in IE. The spec is > > eight years old, so blame Microsoft, not the W3, though they should be > > shot for other reasons (XSLT, for instance). Just read the damned link: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html#anonymous-boxes > > I *did* read the damned link. > > It *doesnt* describe what I'm talking about. > > I'm not talking about "make a <UL> look like a table", I'm talking about > "with this .css file, the navigation box is on the right, with that .css > file, it's on the left", without having to put the navigation box in a float > and play games with layers to drop the box in different places. Hmmm ... if you're using Firefox, go to http://boston.conman.org/ You'll notice the "Obligatory Picture" on the left. Then select from the menu "View->Page Style->April Fool's 2006" and then scroll down a bit. You'll then notice that the "Obligatory Picture" is now below the Amazon ads (which themselves have shifted down) on the right hand side. I did not use floats for either style, nor did I play with layers. Granted, it took some playing around with but since I don't really *care* for IE compatibility it's not all that hateful (just some). -spc (Hateful: Google AdSense, which is mostly nonsense from what I've seen on my own blog ... )
From: peter (Peter da Silva)
Date: 18:35 on 13 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
> You'll then notice that the "Obligatory Picture" is now below the Amazon ads
> (which themselves have shifted down) on the right hand side. I did not use
> floats for either style, nor did I play with layers. Granted, it took some
> playing around with but since I don't really *care* for IE compatibility
> it's not all that hateful (just some).
That doesn't look like you're using grid layout to me. It looks like
you're using packing layout, which is a fine tool for simple layouts but
it's not very flexible and it requires a lot more playing around and it's
all but impossible to do a flexible auto-resizing layout that allows stuff
like aligned multi-columns above and below a spanned column... which is
trivial with grid layout.
And... are you sure you didn't use floats?
| DIV.sidebar
| {
| vertical-align: text-top;
| float: right;
| width: 20em; /*30%;*/ /*auto;*/
| margin: 0 1em 0 .5em;
| border: 1px solid black;
| padding: 0;
| background-color: #CCCCFF;
| color: #000000;
| }
I used to find myself on the defensive with this back before Tk had the
ability to use grid layout, and I had to admit that getting certain
effects in Tk before the grid layout engine was created was way too
complex.
From: Sean Conner
Date: 19:00 on 13 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
It was thus said that the Great Peter da Silva once stated:
> > You'll then notice that the "Obligatory Picture" is now below the Amazon ads
> > (which themselves have shifted down) on the right hand side. I did not use
> > floats for either style, nor did I play with layers. Granted, it took some
> > playing around with but since I don't really *care* for IE compatibility
> > it's not all that hateful (just some).
>
> That doesn't look like you're using grid layout to me. It looks like
> you're using packing layout, which is a fine tool for simple layouts but
> it's not very flexible and it requires a lot more playing around and it's
> all but impossible to do a flexible auto-resizing layout that allows stuff
> like aligned multi-columns above and below a spanned column... which is
> trivial with grid layout.
And it still sounds like you'll be using a ton of <DIV>s to replace <TR>s
and <TD>s. And if I understand you right, you want something like:
<DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> <DIV> <DIV>
I can see how it could be done using fixed position <DIV>s with relative
left and right margins being specified, but I'd have to try it out. But I
never liked using grids for layout [1] myself.
> And... are you sure you didn't use floats?
>
> | DIV.sidebar
> | {
> | vertical-align: text-top;
> | float: right;
> | width: 20em; /*30%;*/ /*auto;*/
> | margin: 0 1em 0 .5em;
> | border: 1px solid black;
> | padding: 0;
> | background-color: #CCCCFF;
> | color: #000000;
> | }
Yes, I do use floats, but not for the main layout you see (check the
current page [3] for any <DIV CLASS="sidebar"> ... you won't find any). The
above <DIV> is used for presenting some aside information within a given
blog entry and not for the primary layout of the page, such as
http://boston.conman.org/2006/06/22.1
with the "Obligatory Keyboard Rant" in a <DIV CLASS="sidebar">.
> I used to find myself on the defensive with this back before Tk had the
> ability to use grid layout, and I had to admit that getting certain
> effects in Tk before the grid layout engine was created was way too
> complex.
Well, one can always use absolutely positioned <DIV>s ...
-spc (Although at times I think the W3 CSS working team is smoking
crack for what they give us ... )
[1] Way back in 1996, I was tasked with writing a Java Applet [2] for a
web company. None of the existing layout managers (which included
a "grid layout" did what I wanted, so I wrote my own layout manager.
I never did like how the "grid layout" manager worked. I suspect
I was the *only* person to ever write a custom layout manager for
Java applets.
[2] http://www.conman.org/people/spc/refs/search/search.hp1.html
[3] http://boston.conman.org/
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 19:26 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > And it still sounds like you'll be using a ton of <DIV>s to replace <TR>s > and <TD>s. Well, except that it wouldn't be a "ton", and the layout of the divs would be specified entirely in the CSS file. Like the stuff Aaron linked to. > And if I understand you right, you want something like: > > <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> > > <DIV> > > <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> More like: <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> < DIV > <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> < DIV > With the divs in the first and third row remaining lined up. Which would be something like: xab xcc xde xff > [1] Way back in 1996, I was tasked with writing a Java Applet [2] for a > web company. None of the existing layout managers (which included > a "grid layout" did what I wanted, so I wrote my own layout manager. Grid definitely can't do anything, and there's a lot of layouts that are WAY easier with a packer, but using a packer to layout something as simple as a canvas with right and bottom scroll bars already makes grids look desirable. You really need at least these four classes of layout, and you need to be able to use them together... placer absolute positions packer "X is left of Y, Z is under both" grid "Top row is..., next row is..." flowed basically, text. You place things until you run out of room on the line, and then start a new line.
From: Aaron Crane Date: 11:27 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out Peter da Silva writes: > I'm not talking about "multi-column layout", I'm talking about general > grid layout. You should be able to define a complex page layout, at the > top level, completely in CSS, just as easily as you can define a complex > table. So something more like the possible approaches in this, then? http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-layout-20051215/
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 19:13 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > So something more like the possible approaches in this, then? > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-layout-20051215/ ... Oh, thank you! That looks like it allows just about everything I can think of, except for non-contiguous and interleaved flow. Non-contiguous flow: @x aa @y bb @z This would have running text in the @ sections, interleaved with images and a comment on the image with the running text continuing next to the next image. I suppose you could do something like this: @@x @aa @@y @bb @@z with the first column to narrow to actually contain any text. Interleaved flow is where you have (say) text and commentary, and both the text and commentary are flowed around embedded objects, but that's getting sufficiently esoteric I can't come up with an example. :)
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 23:02 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-07-12 16:55]: > (insert hate about CSS taking the whole "no tables" things too > seriously and refusing to have grid layout as an option, just > to turn it up to 11) `display: table-cell`, anyone? Regards,
From: Guy Thornley Date: 01:41 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:25:44PM +0100, Yoz Grahame wrote: > On 7/12/06, Hakim Cassimally <hakim.cassimally@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > > >So, I had to reboot it every 1-2 days or it would run like treacle, > > Same with mine. And the problem - oh how I laughed - appears to be > Firefox leaking like a wounded oil tanker. Please do not start me on Firefox hate. I can go on for HOURS. I really *really* need to find something else. Lets start with not telling you the mime type when you want to save a file. Sure it might be minor; but it makes it sortof impossible to fix your mailcap or mimetypes (or whatever-the-farce it uses) doesnt it? Continue with firefox 1.5 whole "skinned" look, what happened to the ff 1.0 native look? (On unix, its true, 'native look' is an oxymoron). Perhaps it was only a look. Still, it looked much better, especially on XP. Then firefox 1.5 seemed to use a new fangled version of the GTK, (or does it use something else? Im no good at keeping track of this stuff). Said GTK version has new save dialogs are essentially unnavigable. I typed out a big long spiel about the way _everything_ is wrong. But theres no point; you know already. Its slow, and unusable, and they refuse to use the native dialogues where they exist (eg winXP). Plenty of GTK hate, then. Ample proof that user interfaces should NOT be designed by software engineers. Next thing to hate must be the way it handles external applications. Now some of this is probably my fault; after all, my $HOME is on AFS which tends to disappear occasionally (credentials expire). But I'm sure you'll be quick to notice that from the "Download Actions" editor, available from somewhere in preferences, you can _Change_ actions and _Remove_ actions, but will find it difficult, nay, impossible, to actually /add/ an action. Somehow I actually have "PDF" twice. I suppose they have different mime types but will they tell me? NOOOO I couldnt POSSIBLY want that information, could I? Now lets continue with memory usage, which others too have noticed. I'm glad its not just me. Not only does it get big, it also gets slow. Middle-clicking on an tab (to paste a URL from the X selection) is nice an snappy when its first loaded. After a day or 2 of use, its up to somewhere ~1.0 seconds of lag. Pressing "back" starts to get similarly slow, too. At least from memory. I just restarted it. And lost all my tabs. ARGH. Another hate is the form-field saving for SSL pages. Ive met at least one form that I enter my CC number into and gets saved. Onto DISK. Great! Just what I always wanted! Its on SSL you freaking idiot; its sensitive information! Is that SOO HARD to figure out? The offensive thing is that saved form information is supposed to be cleared automagically on exit, at least according to preferences. It lies, I tell you, it LIES. Oh now we get to one my pet hates; the one that I find most endearing: the handling of the multi-line text input dialoges. In many unix text editors, Ctrl-A is beginning-of-line; so you press Ctrl-A, and then press a key to insert whatever character you want: boom! all your text vanishes, because Ctrl-A is magically SELECT ALL instead. Thank god undo works. The handling of spaces at an automatic line wrap is most foul and counter-intuitive; I'm not sure what it is about it that infuriates me so, but every time I bump into it, it confounds me. I think its because an automatic wrap is NOT a linefeed, despite having equivalent appearance. Oh, multiple tab rows are *desperately* needed, I often end up with just a row of pretty icons with "..." displayed after them. Windows task bar had this years ago, in at *least* win98 (thats 8 years, and counting). Oh but Microsoft couldnt have *possibly* got something right, could they? In winXP they go one better, and group similar windows together. It actually works, too. Installing new plugins is always a mission. You have to bury them in a special place in ~/.mozilla or they wont work. The java one is particuarly quirky, and must itself be a symlink into the JRE installation somewhere. IIRC. Im sure there is plenty of other things. Oh there definately is: theres no option for "treat as plain text" when opening an unsupported mime type. The server is always right, is it? WRONG. The number of times I've had to save something to disk an read it using 'less' is ludicrous and heartbreaking all at once considering it was a browser, which ostensibly is a human-interface with that exact capability, that forced me to do just that. > Sure, I'm frequently > running in excess of 30 tabs, but when the process starts it's taking > about 250MB and has risen to 500+ by the end of the day, most of which > happens when I'm doing nothing at all. (Seriously, just open the > Process pane of Task Manager and watch.) > Sure, I can just kill and restart FF, but given that it's the main > thing I run and all those tabs take so long to open anyway... Sir, have a beer. On me. .Guy
From: Philip Newton Date: 08:25 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 7/13/06, Guy Thornley <guy@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Im sure there is plenty of other things. Oh there definately is: theres no > option for "treat as plain text" when opening an unsupported mime type. The > server is always right, is it? Yes. Yes it is. "If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource." (RFC 2616) See also http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/content-type.html . Or http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/tests/spoof.jpg (which has rather different effects in IE compared to web browsers). Software that ignores this, and decides to sniff instead, is hateful. As is web server software that is incorrectly configured and serves useless thing such as "text/plain" for images.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 18:50 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > "If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the > recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its > content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the > resource." (RFC 2616) > Software that ignores this, and decides to sniff instead, is hateful. The interaction between this and operating system "helper command" bindings is additionally hateful. I really really wish the RFCs included something like: "The browser MUST NOT use helper applications provided for the command line or GUI shell to open documents, but MUST maintain its own database of applications that are intended to be used for safely displaying untrusted files. These applications MUST NOT in turn violate this restriction. "The browser MUST NOT permit untrusted content to request unsafe operations, with or without approval by the user. In particular, installation of software, plugins, and extensions MUST be initiated by a mechanism not available inside the browser's sandbox. "These rules MUST apply regardless of the location or authentication tokens provided by the displayed content. Applications that need to grant more rights to a document they are providing than are available in the sandbox MUST install a plugin or extension to perform these tasks in an instance of the browser under their control. It MUST NOT be possible for the user to use this instance to open an arbitary URL except by passing that URL to an instance of the browser that is known not to contain the unsafe extension."
From: Smylers Date: 09:37 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Firefox Unix Keybindings (Was: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out) Guy Thornley writes: > Oh now we get to one my pet [Firefox] hates; the one that I find most > endearing: the handling of the multi-line text input dialoges. In many > unix text editors, Ctrl-A is beginning-of-line; so you press Ctrl-A, > and then press a key to insert whatever character you want: boom! all > your text vanishes, because Ctrl-A is magically SELECT ALL instead. That's actually a Gnome hate, or perhaps a GTK hate. Firefox, for once, is actually going along with what the local system has been configured to use. But Gnome these days now seems to ship by default with Windows-esque keystrokes rather than traditional Unix ones. Even more hatefully, there used to be a simple select box for switching between the 2 sets of bindings in 'Preferences' > 'Keyboard Shortcuts', but that was removed in Gnome 2.8. So now the simplest way of specifying this is to put the following setting into ~/.gtkrc-2.0: gtk-key-theme-name = 'Emacs' At least with this being a plain text config file you can easily copy it between accounts without having to select it gui-ily on each one. But I note that the filename hatefully has a version number in it, so presumably whenever GTK 3 is released this file will be ignored and everything will revert back to using the default keybindings. Smylers
From: Earle Martin Date: 10:42 on 13 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:41:08PM +1200, Guy Thornley wrote: > Im sure there is plenty of other things. Oh there definately is: theres no > option for "treat as plain text" when opening an unsupported mime type. Over five and a half years old and counting. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57342 HATE.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 14:32 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > You can have the target be a .lnk file (pointing directly to the .exe), You can put command line arguments and things in a shortcut, and may be able to run a batch file from there. If not, make it a shortcut to "cmd.exe" and put the batch file in the arguments. Or do what I do and keep a command window open to your shell of choice all the time, which is Interix csh when I'm on Windows. I wonder what they'll nobble in Interix when they include it in Vista. They can't leave it out in the open to compete with their new ActiveX-enabled shell.
From: David Landgren Date: 14:33 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2006-07-12 at 11:00 +0200, Hakim Cassimally wrote: [...] >> I could never quite work out where these names were registered >> (they're not in PATH, but are the short names which respond to "start >> progname" in command line, I rifled through the registry a couple of >> times to try to work it out, unsuccessfully). > > I found it, when I got fed up with not being able to run PuTTY that way; > I've since added a few others. The main limitation is that you're > limited to .exe, from what I recall, so no .bat. The other is that [...] Odd. You are talking about W-r / Start | Run... thingie ? Give the .cmd extension a whirl in lieu of .bat, that may work. Either works for me so perhaps your PC's ext associations are fupped uck. David
From: Phil Pennock Date: 23:30 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 2006-07-12 at 15:33 +0200, David Landgren wrote: > Give the .cmd extension a whirl in lieu of .bat, that may work. Either > works for me so perhaps your PC's ext associations are fupped uck. Just to double-check before I spend time fighting Windows -- this is using the App Paths section of the Registry, which explicitly is only for .exe according to the MSDN (hah! right ...) page I linked to? I can well believe that MSDN is wrong, but given that I now have something vaguely working I'm loath to prod too much more. If things are hosed, I can well believe that too -- company laptop, so I was a good boy and joined it to the Windows Domain at work. That's the domain which immediately stomps all over the Registry (good) with config which hasn't really been updated since NT 3.51 days (not so good) because there are no _good_ Windows admins left at $employer (except the one who became a Unix admin and refuses to keep bailing out the Windows admin, especially since one is a political shit).
From: Chris Devers
Date: 05:34 on 11 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Peter da Silva wrote:
> I never hit the "win" key in Windows, except when I've been using a
> Mac recently and I'm going for Command. Can anyone come up with as big
> a waste of keyboard space as the two Windows keys and the menu key...
> all of which simply duplicate other perfectly good key combinations
> and can't even be usefully applied as hotkeys in other apps?
>
> (Is this keyboard hate or software hate)?
Au contraire, I used to feel this way, but once I got used to them I
realized that they made it possible to use Windows nearly sans mouse.
The Windows key is a global, application & context independent shortcut
to core OS resources. That's a tremendously useful thing to have.
By itself, it's a way to the start menu, but I almost never use that.
Far more usefully, [win]+[e] brings up Windows Explorer, typically --
unless someone's been fiddling with XP to increase UI hatefulness -- in
the split folders-on-left, views-on-right mode, as apposed to the
useless, screen real estate wasting views XP prefers.
Also, [win]+[f] brings up the search ("find") window, though here it
does default to that fucking puppy that Clippy gave birth to, unless
you've managed to fix XP to use the old search interface. So it's
useful, but also annoying, and possibly ultimately frustrating if
searching in training-wheels "puppy mode" doesn't work for you.
There are some others too, but I tend to forget them if I'm not using
Windows on a daily basis, which at this point has been over a year.
As for the menu key, show me any other way to bring up a context menu
for the current focus (highlighted) item without using the mouse. Okay,
yeah, sure, if you've gone to the trouble of pointing the mouse at
something then the right-click is only a tap away, but if you're doing
things through the [tab] and arrow keys on the keyboard -- and most apps
are extremely amenable to this on Windows, particularly core ones like
Windows Explorer and IE -- then having this key handy is excellent. And
the placement is good too: if your right-hand fingers are on the
inverted-T arrow keys, then your right thumb will typically rest near
the [menu] key, so you can usually tap it quickly.
I spent years ignoring these keys, and only started noticing how useful
they were after I'd more or less fully switched over to Macs from Linux
and Windows. Now, they're one of the last Windows features I miss.
So it goes.
From: Ricardo SIGNES Date: 05:46 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-07-11T00:34:30] > As for the menu key, show me any other way to bring up a context menu=20 > for the current focus (highlighted) item without using the mouse. I thought this nearly always was Shift-F10..? --=20 rjbs --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEsy0/5IEwYcR13KMRAhd2AJ9L6523vXmbJOz4I/pVG43GcT4lCACfeQnA qfc3rTSC4sJTRW2Jc76vFSU= =JwB/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--
From: Chris Devers Date: 05:57 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > * Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-07-11T00:34:30] > > As for the menu key, show me any other way to bring up a context menu > > for the current focus (highlighted) item without using the mouse. > > I thought this nearly always was Shift-F10..? Possibly, I hadn't been aware of that. I still think making it one (obvious) key was a good idea though. Not least when considering it in tandem with using the arrow keys...
From: Peter da Silva
Date: 12:13 on 11 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
[Regarding the "win" key.
On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:34 PM, Chris Devers wrote:
> Au contraire, I used to feel this way, but once I got used to them I
> realized that they made it possible to use Windows nearly sans mouse.
That's another reason for my hatred of the Win key.
You see, prior to the makeover in Windows 95, it was possible to use
Windows completely sans mouse with the ALT key as the application-
and context- independent shortcut to the entire user interface. AND
you only needed to know maybe 5 or 6 key combinations to navigate to
any control on the screen.
Windows 95 brought in the task bar, and that was half-a-window-and-
half-not. And you needed control-escape to get to the start menu, and
a bunch of other crap, so they added the Windows key.
I don't use the Windows key because everything you list is _already_
accessible through the existing keystrokes on Windows, and nothing in
that list is anything important enough or that I use often enough to
make saving one keystroke getting to it worth having to program a
different set of finger macros for when I'm using Windows.
> Also, [win]+[f] brings up the search ("find") window, though here it
> does default to that fucking puppy that Clippy gave birth to, unless
> you've managed to fix XP to use the old search interface. So it's
> useful, but also annoying, and possibly ultimately frustrating if
> searching in training-wheels "puppy mode" doesn't work for you.
This is the one that really pisses me off, because I'm used to
command F getting me to the FAR more useful search function in the
current application.
Which brings me to my hate of Microsoft using CONTROL for application
commands AS WELL AS for command line OS level controls. My hatred
when I started using Windows and had to keep track of whether I was
in a DOS application (where control C was "kill application") or
Windows (where control C was copy) was right up there with the
command/control/q/w hate on this list.
> As for the menu key, show me any other way to bring up a context menu
> for the current focus (highlighted) item without using the mouse.
There is a key combination for that, but I'd have to boot my Wintendo
to bring back my finger macros for that and I'm not going to take the
time this morning.
From: John Handelaar Date: 14:08 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out Peter da Silva wrote: > Which brings me to my hate of Microsoft using CONTROL for application > commands AS WELL AS for command line OS level controls. See also: everyone else with both GUIs and terminals. Well, except IBM. (Anyone else still shut Windows apps with Alt-F4?)
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 14:13 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > Peter da Silva wrote: > > Which brings me to my hate of Microsoft using CONTROL for application > > commands AS WELL AS for command line OS level controls. > See also: everyone else with both GUIs and terminals. (insert control-click hate, stir well) > Well, except IBM. (Anyone else still shut Windows apps > with Alt-F4?) (waves hand)
From: dom (Dominic Mitchell) Date: 14:19 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 02:08:43PM +0100, John Handelaar wrote: > Peter da Silva wrote: > >Which brings me to my hate of Microsoft using CONTROL for application > >commands AS WELL AS for command line OS level controls. > > See also: everyone else with both GUIs and terminals. > > Well, except IBM. (Anyone else still shut Windows apps > with Alt-F4?) Ah, CUA, how we miss thee. Not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access -Dom
From: Philip Newton Date: 14:19 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out On 7/11/06, John Handelaar <john@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > (Anyone else still shut Windows apps with Alt-F4?) I use it to shut extra Firefox windows. Which is still the same app. Ick. And Opera 9, which interfered with my Ctrl+N = new tab muscle memory. And Ctrl+Q closes down the whole program, so Alt+F4 it is. Still ick.
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 15:35 on 11 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out --MP_cRzw5oriGaGL72Abbk7xDiS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:19:15 +0200, "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 7/11/06, John Handelaar <john@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > (Anyone else still shut Windows apps with Alt-F4?) > > I use it to shut extra Firefox windows. Which is still the same app. Ick. > > And Opera 9, which interfered with my Ctrl+N = new tab muscle memory. > And Ctrl+Q closes down the whole program, so Alt+F4 it is. Still ick. That is easy to fix :) # cd ~/.opera # mv /tmp/personal.ini . # vi personal.ini # mv /tmp/opera-personal ~/bin # ~/bin/opera-personal And if you're on windows, Alt-P Advanced Shortcuts Keyboard setup Edit
From: Abigail
Date: 23:32 on 11 Jul 2006
Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out
--pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 06:24:26PM +0000, Zach White wrote:
> Can anyone think of a more asinine proceedure for logging out? Not only is
> it completely unintuitive, but the very way it operates is hateful.
Shuttle crew members share your hate.
From THE WEEKLY UNIX NEWSPAPER, London, 16-20 Feb 1998, Issue Number 667
On Friday the 24th, I was watching the NASA Channel on cable TV to see how
the experiments and Shuttle crew were doing. The men on board needed to
send some adjusting instructions to the automated setups doing experiments
in the cargo bay, and they were using a laptop to do the sending. As some
of you may have heard, there was a "computer problem" on board as reported
by CNN. The dialog between the crew and the Johnson Space Center (JSC) went
something like this:
Crew: Urgent, Johnson, we can't get a DOS prompt!
JSC: Press "C:<enter>".
Crew: Heck, we're not familiar with all this.
JSC: What screen are you looking at?
Crew: It says "My Computer", and, er, various other icons.
JSC: Click on "Start", and then "Shutdown".
Crew: You click the "Start" button to shut down?
JSC: Yeah. Isn't it obvious?
Crew: Somebody get me an aspirin.
JSC: Just hit the damn "Start" button.
Crew: We can't do that. It didn't load a mouse.
JSC: Didn't load any mouse at all?
Crew: Well, yeah, a PS/2 or something. But we don't have one of those.
JSC: Okay. Press Alt + Esc.
Crew: And what does that do?
JSC: It should help.
Crew: Negative.
JSC: Stand by, will attempt to replicate the problem down here.
Crew: Roger.
<Long Pause>
JSC: Okay then. Double-click on the MS-DOS icon.
Crew: I don't have a mouse.
JSC: Go to the backup plan.
Crew: Which is what?
JSC: Dock with the Russians. They have a Unix workstation you can borrow.
[http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html#subj5]
Abigail
--pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEtCcGBOh7Ggo6rasRAv6vAJ9s8o1dKlef0h827i3UakwGGsdpeACeLUe1
RlcPChrvrAC1DLtXZwxhVK8=
=YFwY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc--
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 14:23 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out > JSC: Okay. Press Alt + Esc. > Crew: And what does that do? > JSC: It should help. > Crew: Negative. Oh yes, it's *control-escape*. Bleeding obvious, no? No? Alt was the universal command key up to then, but Windows 95 is when Microsoft really jumped the shark...
From: Smylers Date: 18:31 on 12 Jul 2006 Subject: Re: Start -> Shut Down -> Log Out Peter da Silva writes: > > JSC: Okay. Press Alt + Esc. > > Oh yes, it's *control-escape*. Bleeding obvious, no? No? > > Alt was the universal command key up to then, but Windows 95 is when > Microsoft really jumped the shark... I think that Ctrl+Esc did do something on Windows 3.1, perhaps bring up the task list? Smylers
Generated at 10:27 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi