On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:46:56 +0100 NN_il_Confusionario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 05:25:07AM -0600, lee wrote: > > Well, maybe I should learn more about using framebuffer stuff > > why? If you are satisfied with X, you have no real reasons. > I have to admit that even in X I have several consoles always open as they can make things work a lot better. I don't switch to the console for two reasons, I do use some X apps (I prefer to browse with firefox, and even that is not always enough due to badly written pages) and the second is that I like mouse copy/paste and I don't feel like setting up the mouse for the console. [ ... ] > > > (though > > openoffice still sucks to the point of unusability in that) > > the idea itself of a office suite sucks, and I have no use for it. > anything worth writing can and should be written in either text or latex (there are a few alternatives to latex, I admit). It will always look better than any office suite. [ ... ] > > > and phone software. > > I do not use them, but being audio (no video) I think that if and when a > console developer will need it, it will be ported. Obviously I am not > considering proprietary things. > There are text voip programs (forgot which one now, sorry). Albeight not skype though (but they are netmeeting compatible). [ ... ] > > > them, there might be a substitute than you can run on a console, but it > > is so much easier to use the GUI application. > > This is a very correct argument. It is the same as my argument, except > that (1) in my argument console and X interchange their roles; (b) in > your case you are equally able to use console and GUIs, and in my case I > ame completely lost with GUIs > I have run into one woman in one of the forums (escapes me which one at the moment) who couldn't use gui at all due to a visual disorder, she couldn't make out the layout. Have heard of a few others with similar problems, for starters, blind people would have a hard time using x, I don't know exactly how it works but there are Braille readers for the console. > > ATM, I have 5 terminals open plus claws plus firefox plus plan plus > > emacs, I'm logged in on two consoles and gnome-panel is running (to > > provide a few icons, the dictionary plugin and a clock). Eventually add > > gimp, gaim, gnumeric or openoffice, ekiga. How would I do that with > > only 6 available consoles? The wonders of screen and additional virtual consoles (I actually cut them down to 3 since I don't need more. [ ... ] > > > See the attached screenshots, one is of lynx, the other > > one is firefox, both showing the same forum. > > Now which one is more useable/user friendly? That would depend on your preferences, but I don't see why a text interface would be worse. Even in firefox I usually kill most flash and stuff and I'm left with text tables ... > > lynx. Infinitely. > > The first evident thing is colors. But one can configure both lynx and > mozilla to use (and force) whatever colors one prefers (infact, this is > one of the first things I do when I have to meet mozilla: edit > preferences ... fonts and colors, and set a sane minumum dimension for > fonts, and *force* a decent shaped font, and *force* colors like green > [or white] on black) > > The other evident thing is that lynx does not display annoing and > useless icons. But fortunately you can set mozilla such that it does not > display images automatically (unfortunately mozilla no more has a old > and useful feature of netscape: do not show images by default, but a > command can show the images in the displayed page without changing the > default. But there should exist mozilla extensions for this now) > [ ... ] > > Obviously, you can take a digital photo of the monitor, but I do not > have a digital (or not digital) camera, and I have no real interst in > images (even if I have a strong interst in music; the two things might > be related since is find images _very_ disturbing when listening or > playing music). > A different discussion, but there is actually a syndrome where people mix the senses and can hear pictures or see sounds. Personally I have a problem describing feelings in words since I feel and think more in color and images then words. I also prefer analog cameras since they have a lot more soul (same as records compares to cds) and I would still be using them if it weren't so difficult processing slide film where I live. [ ... ] > > You can do all that on a console. But isn't it so much easier to do it > > under X11? > Depends on your habits, way of thought, visual limitations and progrematic requirements. I do a lot of work in the console (x or vt) and then only thing I miss in the vt is the mouse which I never feel like setting up. [ ... ] > > > That would all be possible if there was a solution for the > > problem with the fonts. > > I am not convinced that my problem is _only_ with fonts. > sounds more like an issue with perceptual organization. Same reason that also in X I usually work full screen with whatever application I'm using. Personally I also use small fonts since I need an "above" look. I have a very hard time with people who work in word or the browser seeing only three or four lines at a time through all the toolbars and zoom settings. Personally I use X but I guess that I have more of a console like setup since all toolbars and and titles etc. are almost always hidden. X just makes them easily accessible. My work is images and math formulas so I do need something that is more graphic capable them the console though [ ... ] > > I do not have or use win, but I know for sure that mozilla under linux > and under win is _NOT_ the same (even if much is in common, obviously), > and that there are many more developers for mozilla under win than onder > linux, which explains the better features under win. > Same thing actually, there are some plugins that use win features though (active X and such) and thus are not directly applicable to linux. > Incidentaly, from what I had occasion to see, win has by default a much > better integration between "win32 console application *in full screen*" > and "win32 GUI application" than the default integration in linux/*BSD > between vt consoles and X. > My experience is the other way around. The difference is that windows doesn't have a command line per say. You either run things in the console, and linux's are ages ahead than the windows console, or you run them full screen, and linux has a way to set that up (what I usually do). > > into .muttrc, and I would not have the filtering, processing and SPAM > > filtering options claws offers > Even with claws I use fetchmail + procmail (don't use spam assassin but it's an option) and I can access the same folders with mutt, claws and a bunch of others. > you can use spamassassin or any other kind of "server" spam filtering > with mutt (however I do not need to do this locally, the servers are > alreding doing this) > > > I have no reason to, and claws does (so far) everything mutt > > does > [ ... ] > > > > What is the advantage of using different users? > > security. A mail malware cannot do anything against my web downloads, > and a web malware cannot do anything against my mails. And both kind of > malware cannot do anything against my (for me important) mathematical > .tex files and musical (.ly .mid .wav and so on) files. > > Yes, you can have something like this also with X, but (1) X is > intrinsecally less secure, see OpenBSD documentation to understand why; > (2) when you start X as user1 and then (even with the sane method of > xauth, not to speak about insane methods like xhost) you give to user2 > the right to use the display, then privacy of user1 is completely > compromised, and partly also security (se X documentation). You can use > two separate istances of the X server, at the expemse of more resources > used and the non-integration between the two X servers (unless you do > crazy things like vnc on localhost only; one day I will amuse myself by > using the svga version of vncclient to attach to a local X with > vncserver ...). But even withy two X servers, the potential security > hole of the direct memory acces of X is present (see (1) above). > There is xnest, and I thing a newer one, don't know if the security is better though. > > You mean you can open an X terminal and have it display what is > > currently being displayed on a console? > > apt-get install screen > man screen > info screen > pinfo screen > tkman screen > tkinfo screen > $WHATEVER screen > > > That's an interesting > > feature, how do you do that? > > screen -x > > Or also something like conspy should be possible (I have never used it, > however) > > > Still I'm not really understanding how you see using consoles (almost) > > exclusively as so superior to using applications and terminals with > > X11 > Don't know about him, but I'm guessing that not superrior but rather more fitting to the needs, why are you so hurt that other people have other needs? [ ... ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
