Has anyone done any serious studies of the layout of the Blackberry thumb-board, how it affects thumb overuse, and how it could be improved by possible rearrangement?
As we know, Qwerty layouts were not well-optimized for their defined use, let alone two-thumb typing. The Dvorak layout may provide some benefit for thumb-typists, but it has been designed for four fingers (and 1-2 thumbs), not a two-thumbs application.
IMO, there needs to be some serious study on two-thumb key layouts for portable devices, to produce several efficient and usable key layouts for such devices. Ideally, a better layout would minimize excessive thumb motion, take advantage of thumb alternation, and place common letters in easy-to-reach locations, and be generally more ergonomic. We've seen more than a few examples of this in the world of desktop keyboards and on-screen keyboards, but this needs to be applied to thumbs.
I'm certainly no expert - I learned Dvorak and studied other alternative layouts - but I managed to come up with a few two-thumb layouts in my spare time. One is loosely based on Dvorak, and another comes closer. I haven't yet published these anywhere, but I can if there's interest.
Has anyone taken the time to design a new layout? I'd be curious to see any ideas.
Seriously - use your hard-earned cash, and buy your girlfriend an iGesture pointing device. The one-button mouse is ideal for most uses, but obviously you and your girlfriend are power users, so you need an input device for power users. The iGesture is such a beast.
It runs on USB, and works equally well with Mac, Windows and Linux (for those rare occasions when she'll let you borrow it). It's very smooth and sensitive, and you can move as quickly or slowly as you need to. It has no moving parts, and requires you to move nothing more than your hand.
It has no buttons - everything is controlled by the tips of your fingers and thumb. It works the same for left-handed and right-handed users - you can even switch hands whenever you like, with no reconfiguration. It emulates mouse events, with up to 5 buttons available. (The default setting for Mac is 2-button, but 3-button is an easy switch, and more can be configured.)
It comes programmed by default with a set of easy-to-remember gestures, including pointing, left- and right-clicking, dragging, arrow keys, page/text navigation keys, and others. The learning curve is fairly easy - you only have to learn the gestures you need to use. Basic "mouse" gestures should be easily mastered within 10-15 minutes of practice.
It's completely customizable with a free configuration utility. You can map pretty much *any* mouse or keyboard action to any gesture. The configuration utility gives you enough rope to hang yourself, if you so desire, but it is very powerful. The iGesture will store your settings in onboard memory, so you can use it with other computers, no drivers or software required.
It even comes with XWinder, a driver for Mac and Windows that lets you move and resize any window under the pointer with a special drag gesture, without needing to move the pointer to the window's title bar. This part is really slick.
Best of all, it's substantially bigger than any of the glidepoint-style pointing devices on the market today - about 5" by 7". This gives you an incredible pointing area. It's flat and thin, and can be placed beside the keyboard, or even on top of a Powerbook's touchpad or built-in keyboard.
Downsides:
Cost. The iGesture is on sale at $129. The more advanced models cost even more. But, IMO, this is money well spent.
Sensitive to static electricity. You can "reset" it with a "slap" gesture, thus negating any static charge you have in your hands.
Goes a bit wonky when wet. Keep beverages away and hands dry. Can be easily dried off with a paper napkin.
Can be intimidating for new users, at first.
No, I don't work for Fingerworks. I'm just a very happy customer - I own an iGesture NumPad, and a TouchStream keyboard, and they're both excellent - I use them on all 3 of the OS's, including my 15" Powerbook. They really go easier on the hands, too - my tendonitis has improved quite a bit.
Read this page. The authors of your paper were biased against Dvorak, and used disreputable sources to try to prove their case. Footnote #59 shows their hypocrisy: "Neither can we claim that Dvorak is proven to be inferior to Qwerty."
Better yet, have you even tried to learn Dvorak? The fact is that it's easier to learn and use than QWERTY. I made the switch a year ago, after typing QWERTY more than half of my life.
As a current Intel employee, I've been in a few groups where the code names weren't named after geographical locations. But these were usually exceptions.
For one project I worked on, the code name started out as "Cezanne" (after the artist, I would assume) but was renamed to a geographical location mid-way through the development cycle. We engineers never understood why, and most of the team still kept using the old name in server directories, passwords, etc. We thought we were rebels... ah, the joys of youth.
Another poster has commented that the Pentium(R) M processors had code names from geographic locations in Israel, where most of the design team was located. This also holds true for other projects, where the design teams are based in various nations. It's common to see code names based on a small city (for example, in Ireland) that nobody here had ever heard of, until the project started and the name was explained.
Other times, the project manager got to choose a "custom" name based on one of his/her favorite places to visit. One project manager named all of his ill-fated projects after small coastal towns along the Pacific Northwest, presumably places he had visited during his frequent (and inconveniently scheduled) vacations.
I'd also argue that code names do have meaning, at least for the engineers involved with the project. A code name gives a team a rallying point, or a central concept by which we can understand our involvement in the project. Depending on our experiences in that project, whenever we hear or see that name later on in life, we engineers can either feel bursts of pride, or shudders of grief and disgust.
BTW - Hi Brad! I used to work with you on "Rainier".
Please see my other post in this topic about the TypeMatrix EZ-Reach keyboards. They are a series of split keyboards with the number keys under the *correct* hands, as you requested.
They cost $99 but are well worth the money, IMHO. I have used these for nearly a year, and I love them.
I strongly recommend that you try the TypeMatrix line of ergonomic keyboards. I've been using their standard EZ-Reach model for nearly a year, and I absolutely love it.
The EZ-Reach is about 14 inches wide, and can easily be transported in most laptop bags or portfolio cases. It is thin (less than 0.75 inches) and very portable. It has an embedded numeric keypad (similar to what you'd find on a laptop computer) which can be enabled at your discretion, or ignored altogether.
EZ-Reach has a very symmetrical design, with almost equal key layouts on both sides. It can be placed in front of a monitor and you can sit straight-on, without having to twist your body (or neck) during typing.
Since it has no extra numeric keypad, you can place your mouse closer to your typing area - this applies to lefties, and especially to righties (like me).
The key technology feels like a *very good* laptop keyboard. The keys have a scissor mechanism and a thin profile which makes them flat and easy to hit, with a minimum of vertical displacement. I have found the feeling to be very crisp and rich in tactile feedback; normal keyboards feel too "mushy" to me now.
The key layout is patterned in a matrix fashion, without any of the vestigial staggered-key pattern of the (arguably) archaic design of the original typewriter. Motion studies have shown that fingers move more naturally when they move straight up-and-down, and the staggered key layout increases risk of RSI. The TypeMatrix EZ-Reach is one of only three keyboards that I have found which lays out the keys in this fashion. Here are the others:
This is perhaps the strongest advantage of using the EZ-Reach; your fingers take some time to adjust to the matrix, but once you get used to it, you'll have a hard time going back. Finger motion for me seems more logical and more intuitive on the TypeMatrix layout than with any other keyboard design. Also, the centrally-placed Backspace, Tab, and Enter keys can be hit by the stronger index fingers, rather than the weaker pinky fingers. This also makes a difference at the end of a long day of coding or document editing.
If you ever have the urge to learn the DVORAK keyboard layout, you can switch the layout of the EZ-Reach with a single function-key (Function+F7). This toggles the mode between QWERTY and DVORAK. TypeMatrix sells (at least) three versions of this keyboard, all with the same guts but differently labeled keycaps: one for plain QWERTY, one for plain DVORAK, and a dual-labeled QWERTY+DVORAK version. The operation of all three models is identical.
One of the very few disadvantages of the EZ-Reach is the fact that the Home/End/PgUp/PgDown keys are overlaid on top of F9-F12, and require the Function key in order to be activated. This is somewhat annoying for me, but I've found a way to re-map the keys in Linux (using xmodmap) such that I sacrifice the F9-F12 keys in order to use the text navigation commands. On the other hand, I use a FingerWorks iGesture NumPad for most of my cursor control, so I can access those commands using gestures as well. (TypeMatrix is working a new keyboard design that addresses this limitation. Please contact them directly to learn more about it.)
The other disadvantage (and this one depends on your preference) is that this keyboard only comes with a PS/2 interface. I use all-USB setups wherever possible, so I have to use a PS/2-to-USB converter (which introduces a few quirks of its own), but it generally works very well. I've had several conversations with TypeMatrix customer support, and they do plan to introduce USB keyboards in the near future.
Your mileage may vary. I really love the TypeMatrix design and philosophy, and the keyboard works very well for me.
Disclaimer: I don't work for TypeMatrix, but I love the company and their products.
My hand also gets a bit tense after using my iGesture NumPad. I absolutely love using it, but I have to find a balance between using a *very light* touch and relaxing enough to work easily.
Regarding precision, I've found that rolling the fingertips can help move the pointer by single pixels. You may want to try that instead of sliding fingers, before you sell your pad.:)
I can't offer much advice about the IntelliMouse drivers - since the iGesture products need no drivers, it seems like there shouldn't be any interference on their part.
The ultimate form of tactile feedback comes from lifting all fingers (and thumb) from the pad. That alone should assure you that the gesture has been released. I don't know of any way they could integrate some other forms of feedback (i.e. clicking, shocking, beeping) when a gesture has been released, but it'd probably become annoying after a while.
Sticky pads can easily be cured with a quick cleaning, using a single squirt of Lysol (not-aerosol) brand cleaning solutions. Go for something fairly tame, like a glass cleaner or an all-purpose cleaner, and spray once or twice onto a soft lint-free cloth. Then, when the iGesture is unplugged, wipe the surface clean until it shines like new and your fingers slide smoothly. I have sweaty fingers as well, and a good cleaning every 2-3 months seems to work for me.
For high-precision work with Photoshop, you may want to consider the use of a foot-pedal controller that lets you handle the "buttons" while using a hand controller to handle motion. It's a lot easier to keep a foot solidly placed on a pedal, and have complete freedom to move the mouse (or your fingers across an iGesture) until you're ready to release.
Also, remember that many iGesture actions only need to start with a given gesture; from that point on, one finger/thumb can be used to continue dragging. For example, a right-click drag needs two fingers + thumb to start dragging, but once you've started you can release all fingers except one, and use that finger to continue the gesture. It takes a bit of practice but it works much easier.
Disclaimer: I don't do a whole lot of work in Photoshop (or GIMP) but I've found that the iGesture makes it much easier than any other mouse or trackball that I've used. It's nice to not have to physically move any object; your fingers are the only thing that moves.
and Safari is not playing leap frog or riding on the tails of anyone else's efforts.
But doesn't Safari do just that? Apple didn't write Safari's rendering engine from scratch. Apple chose to use WebCore, which was derived from KDE's KHTML code. They've been very good citizens by contributing code back to the KDE project, but they're still utilizing code that was developed by another group.
So why is it okay for Safari to "leap frog" and build upon the efforts of the KHTML development team, but not OmniWeb? What makes Safari an "honest effort" when they re-use code in the same way as Apple? Why should OmniWeb have to re-invent the wheel when there is already a stable rendering engine available for them to utilize?
If you want a web browser with a "niche market" that uses a proprietary rendering engine, look no further than Opera or Internet Explorer. But the re-use of WebCore makes OmniWeb a credible product, and frees up their developers' time to do other worthwhile things, such as fixing bugs and working on the stability of their program. Why should they have to waste time writing their own rendering engine?
I can understand your dislike for OmniWeb for their past track record of stability, but if you're going to critique their re-use of open source code, you'll need to come up with some far more convincing arguments.
If the couch could automatically order take-out food for the occupant, it would pretty much *have to* account for weight gain, right? Who's going to program their couch to order a salad for them?
So what you're saying is that the ports tree is "the" only way that people should use *BSD? That there are no reasons to improve upon a system that, admittedly, has grown old and was not designed from the ground-up as a flexible software maintenance tool? That people should not innovate or try to develop a better system that meets their needs?
The "issues" that people encounter when using a new package management system are positive forces for change. A fresh approach to software management will help developers re-think a lot of the old assumptions that were made in ports/pkgsrc. Having "issues" is not inherently a bad thing -- it just means that there is still work left to do.
Yes, ports is a well-oiled machine, and it isn't going away anytime soon. But portage is much more flexible, far more powerful, and does some things better than ports ever could. To extend your analogy: we can keep oiling a well-proven combustion engine, or we can make an architectural leap to a cleaner power plant that doesn't rely on fossil fuels. Just because something is well-refined doesn't mean that there is no room for innovation.
I've used both, and found that portage works better for my needs. If you had used portage then you would be able to understand the differences and the way it works, and you'd be able to offer some fact-based opinions. And you can still use whatever works best for you. But as it stands, you just sound like someone who resists change, a "stick in the mud". Sorry to be blunt.
I know you're probably a troll, but I feel obligated to ask the questions anyway.
Why does it matter if people "waste" their time on this? Does it hurt your ego to see people working on Gentoo BSD? Are you the sole arbiter of what *BSD-related projects are wastes of other people's time? More importantly, who asked you?
What if, by some chance, Gentoo BSD happens to provide a better package management system than the standard package management systems? What if portage meets people's needs better than ports or pkgsrc? Imagine the possibility that portage does a better job. Why discount the system before ever trying it?
When you say "we don't need it", are you speaking for all *BSD users? Have you built a concensus amongst the *BSD communities who have agreed that their current package management systems are the best of all possible implementations?
It may very well be that you don't need portage, which is fine. Nobody's forcing you to use it. The ports and pkgsrc trees won't be going away anytime soon. If you're more comfortable with the way things are, then that's okay. Your pace of progress can be as fast or as slow as you want it to be.
But for those of us who have used portage, and who see the advantages it has over the existing ports/pkgsrc systems in a real-world environment, why should we stop working to improve *BSD because you said it was a waste of our time?
Well, since there is already a thriving community of Gentoo Linux developers who maintain the portage tree, I'd say that the first part of your question has already been answered. The Gentoo portage tree will be used for both Gentoo Linux and Gentoo BSD.
Portage supports this too. Check the --usepkg and --buildpkg options for emerge.
Then again, I would guess that most Gentoo users prefer to compile their ebuilds locally, for reasons of performance, optimizations, and custom USE flags.
I'm not sure that this would be useful. My experience with Gentoo Linux and its existing portage tree has taught me that many ebuilds are inter-related. As a quick example: a new version of PHP might require an updated version of Apache, a new MM library, and a new version of OpenSSL.
If a user only updated their PHP portage directory, and if the PHP ebuild were properly written to require the most current or known-good versions of all of its dependencies (as tested by the PHP ebuild maintainers), then the user would run into dependency errors and would have to go update those other portions of the portage tree, by hand. This would be sub-optimal. (I've run into this problem with OpenBSD's ports tree, and it was annoying. Newer ports required newer dependencies, and newer versions of the ports infrastructure.)
Remember that updating the portage tree does not automatically update all installed software. The user must still use the emerge command wisely by seeing what ebuilds have been updated, and making a decision based on their needs. Those who run emerge -u world blindly can get into trouble.:)
To moderators: IMO, the previous comment should not be marked "Informative". It contributes no factual information towards the topic of discussion. At best, it is an opinion.
To the poster: nobody's asking anyone to "throw out stable and robust ports". Wherever did you get that idea? The whole GentooBSD project seems more to be an exploration of an alternate way to manage and maintain a BSD-based system. I don't think that the authors intend this to replace or usurp existing distributions of FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
The ports tree has its place. Portage has its place too. I should know, I use both on different servers and for different goals. The USE flags are an incredibly powerful tool, and they provide a unique solution that works for both general and specific cases. Portage has been written for flexibility, whereas ports is flexible in some ways but very inflexible in others. But no one system is perfect. Can't both coexist?
Your question of "perhaps you could actually code it up" has already been answered. People are actually coding it up, but you've been making negative comments about their work. I'd bet that you've never even tried their code. Can't you contribute positively instead?
Your comment sounds similar to typical reactionary, defensive arguments raised by many zealots, including (sadly) a number of FreeBSD fans. Just because portage exists and thrives doesn't endanger the existence of ports, nor does it invalidate the years of work put into making the ports system what it is today.
Could it be, perhaps, that you're feeling defensive and you're willing to strike back at new approaches because they endanger your perceived monopoly on managing software on *BSD? Are you insecure because you secretly acknowledge the limitations of ports, but want to defend your ego and the honor of your *BSD community? Why are you trying to prevent people from improving the existing *BSD system in the way they see fit? What makes ports inherently better? Are makefiles really the best way to maintain a ports tree? Why should a *BSD administrator be forced to use ports if they have already realized that portage works better for them?
I'm glad you made the comment about "if you can convince the committers of their need". This statement, right here, sums up one very valid reason for the creation of GentooBSD. What prevents a group of creative programmers from using BSD- and GPL-licensed code to create a forked distribution that best meets their needs? Why should they have to let a group of "committers" or a "core team" ratify a new approach? Name one good reason why they shouldn't exercise their rights to modify open-source code to create something new that solves their problems in a different way.
It is precisely this manner of arrogance and hubris that will either doom or significantly hamper the forward progress of the FreeBSD community. I'm always amazed by how a group of people can wear blinders for so long that they refuse to acknowledge new approaches, and ridicule others (as you have done) who try to innovate rather than blindly following the accepted party line. So many programmers rant about their "freedoms" with open source, yet they try to squash any exercise of freedom within their code base or areas of knowledge. It sickens me.
Personally, I welcome GentooBSD and I look forward to using it when it matures, as I'm sure it will. You're more than welcome to continue using your existing *BSD. If you don't want portage, that's fine and you don't have to use it, but don't snap at those who do just because they didn't use *BSD in your manner.
I'm not sure if it's a CGI bug or something, but whenever I try to load the vendor's page (listed above) and click the "Custom Configuration" tab to customize this laptop, I end up getting really funny results.
Initially, after loading the page and clicking on the "Custom Configuration" tab, here are the prices I saw:
Retail Price
$1383.00
Your Price
$1259.00
You Save
$124.00
Now, without changing any of the drop-down boxes below, I clicked on the "recalculate" button, and here's what I saw:
Retail Price
$1383.00
Your Price
$2520.00
You Save
$-1137.00
Hmm. Fishy. It's nice that they allow me to customize the laptop, but if I end up having to pay more than $1200 extra for the benefit of customizing it, is it really worth it? Has anyone else run into this problem?
I just received a T30 at work this April. It's a pretty good laptop and it seems to do pretty much everything I need to do. I don't have any serious complaints with it, but it wasn't my first choice. I don't know if I'd spend my own money to buy one.
If you're concerned about the lack of IBM-specific drivers and utilities after doing a re-install, and if you wish to buy a new copy of a Microsoft OS in which to run these utilities (your choice, really) then please remember that IBM has just about all of these drivers and utilities available for download on their support website. It might be a good idea to download these utilities and burn a CD-R now, just in case your laptop fails later.
Not that I'm advocating that you buy or use a Microsoft OS, mind you. If it weren't for my company's use of Microsoft Outlook as a critical business app, I'd have installed Linux or BSD on that laptop months ago.:)
As a native Oregonian who has lived in another state (Utah) for some time, I got really tired of the sales tax there, and I've really enjoyed being back here in Oregon. It's so nice not having to worry about how much something really costs when I get to the cash register. I'd much rather have my taxes taken directly out of my income so I don't have to worry about it. The money that does enter my checking account or wallet is MINE, damnit.
And yeah, property taxes suck, but you can always rent.
Slashdot Mirror
As we know, Qwerty layouts were not well-optimized for their defined use, let alone two-thumb typing. The Dvorak layout may provide some benefit for thumb-typists, but it has been designed for four fingers (and 1-2 thumbs), not a two-thumbs application.
IMO, there needs to be some serious study on two-thumb key layouts for portable devices, to produce several efficient and usable key layouts for such devices. Ideally, a better layout would minimize excessive thumb motion, take advantage of thumb alternation, and place common letters in easy-to-reach locations, and be generally more ergonomic. We've seen more than a few examples of this in the world of desktop keyboards and on-screen keyboards, but this needs to be applied to thumbs.
I'm certainly no expert - I learned Dvorak and studied other alternative layouts - but I managed to come up with a few two-thumb layouts in my spare time. One is loosely based on Dvorak, and another comes closer. I haven't yet published these anywhere, but I can if there's interest.
Has anyone taken the time to design a new layout? I'd be curious to see any ideas.
"Courage!"
(except that was at the end of the broadcast...)
I find it interesting that the only capitalized terms in all 6 of the crawls (except for the titles) are these:
II: ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC
IV: DEATH STAR
VI: GALACTIC EMPIRE
Does anyone else see something here?
It runs on USB, and works equally well with Mac, Windows and Linux (for those rare occasions when she'll let you borrow it). It's very smooth and sensitive, and you can move as quickly or slowly as you need to. It has no moving parts, and requires you to move nothing more than your hand.
It has no buttons - everything is controlled by the tips of your fingers and thumb. It works the same for left-handed and right-handed users - you can even switch hands whenever you like, with no reconfiguration. It emulates mouse events, with up to 5 buttons available. (The default setting for Mac is 2-button, but 3-button is an easy switch, and more can be configured.)
It comes programmed by default with a set of easy-to-remember gestures, including pointing, left- and right-clicking, dragging, arrow keys, page/text navigation keys, and others. The learning curve is fairly easy - you only have to learn the gestures you need to use. Basic "mouse" gestures should be easily mastered within 10-15 minutes of practice.
It's completely customizable with a free configuration utility. You can map pretty much *any* mouse or keyboard action to any gesture. The configuration utility gives you enough rope to hang yourself, if you so desire, but it is very powerful. The iGesture will store your settings in onboard memory, so you can use it with other computers, no drivers or software required.
It even comes with XWinder, a driver for Mac and Windows that lets you move and resize any window under the pointer with a special drag gesture, without needing to move the pointer to the window's title bar. This part is really slick.
Best of all, it's substantially bigger than any of the glidepoint-style pointing devices on the market today - about 5" by 7". This gives you an incredible pointing area. It's flat and thin, and can be placed beside the keyboard, or even on top of a Powerbook's touchpad or built-in keyboard.
Downsides:
No, I don't work for Fingerworks. I'm just a very happy customer - I own an iGesture NumPad, and a TouchStream keyboard, and they're both excellent - I use them on all 3 of the OS's, including my 15" Powerbook. They really go easier on the hands, too - my tendonitis has improved quite a bit.
Better yet, have you even tried to learn Dvorak? The fact is that it's easier to learn and use than QWERTY. I made the switch a year ago, after typing QWERTY more than half of my life.
For one project I worked on, the code name started out as "Cezanne" (after the artist, I would assume) but was renamed to a geographical location mid-way through the development cycle. We engineers never understood why, and most of the team still kept using the old name in server directories, passwords, etc. We thought we were rebels... ah, the joys of youth.
Another poster has commented that the Pentium(R) M processors had code names from geographic locations in Israel, where most of the design team was located. This also holds true for other projects, where the design teams are based in various nations. It's common to see code names based on a small city (for example, in Ireland) that nobody here had ever heard of, until the project started and the name was explained.
Other times, the project manager got to choose a "custom" name based on one of his/her favorite places to visit. One project manager named all of his ill-fated projects after small coastal towns along the Pacific Northwest, presumably places he had visited during his frequent (and inconveniently scheduled) vacations.
I'd also argue that code names do have meaning, at least for the engineers involved with the project. A code name gives a team a rallying point, or a central concept by which we can understand our involvement in the project. Depending on our experiences in that project, whenever we hear or see that name later on in life, we engineers can either feel bursts of pride, or shudders of grief and disgust.
BTW - Hi Brad! I used to work with you on "Rainier".
PS - I do not speak for my company.
Good luck. If you still want to sell it, please let me know; I'll buy it from you.
They cost $99 but are well worth the money, IMHO. I have used these for nearly a year, and I love them.
Product URL: TypeMatrix EZ-Reach
Another suggestion would be the DataDesk SmartBoard line of keyboards. I have not tried these keyboards yet, but the design is very appealing.
Good luck!
Product URL here
The EZ-Reach is about 14 inches wide, and can easily be transported in most laptop bags or portfolio cases. It is thin (less than 0.75 inches) and very portable. It has an embedded numeric keypad (similar to what you'd find on a laptop computer) which can be enabled at your discretion, or ignored altogether.
EZ-Reach has a very symmetrical design, with almost equal key layouts on both sides. It can be placed in front of a monitor and you can sit straight-on, without having to twist your body (or neck) during typing.
Since it has no extra numeric keypad, you can place your mouse closer to your typing area - this applies to lefties, and especially to righties (like me).
The key technology feels like a *very good* laptop keyboard. The keys have a scissor mechanism and a thin profile which makes them flat and easy to hit, with a minimum of vertical displacement. I have found the feeling to be very crisp and rich in tactile feedback; normal keyboards feel too "mushy" to me now.
The key layout is patterned in a matrix fashion, without any of the vestigial staggered-key pattern of the (arguably) archaic design of the original typewriter. Motion studies have shown that fingers move more naturally when they move straight up-and-down, and the staggered key layout increases risk of RSI. The TypeMatrix EZ-Reach is one of only three keyboards that I have found which lays out the keys in this fashion. Here are the others:
- DataDesk SmartBoard
- Fingerworks TouchStream
This is perhaps the strongest advantage of using the EZ-Reach; your fingers take some time to adjust to the matrix, but once you get used to it, you'll have a hard time going back. Finger motion for me seems more logical and more intuitive on the TypeMatrix layout than with any other keyboard design. Also, the centrally-placed Backspace, Tab, and Enter keys can be hit by the stronger index fingers, rather than the weaker pinky fingers. This also makes a difference at the end of a long day of coding or document editing.If you ever have the urge to learn the DVORAK keyboard layout, you can switch the layout of the EZ-Reach with a single function-key (Function+F7). This toggles the mode between QWERTY and DVORAK. TypeMatrix sells (at least) three versions of this keyboard, all with the same guts but differently labeled keycaps: one for plain QWERTY, one for plain DVORAK, and a dual-labeled QWERTY+DVORAK version. The operation of all three models is identical.
One of the very few disadvantages of the EZ-Reach is the fact that the Home/End/PgUp/PgDown keys are overlaid on top of F9-F12, and require the Function key in order to be activated. This is somewhat annoying for me, but I've found a way to re-map the keys in Linux (using xmodmap) such that I sacrifice the F9-F12 keys in order to use the text navigation commands. On the other hand, I use a FingerWorks iGesture NumPad for most of my cursor control, so I can access those commands using gestures as well. (TypeMatrix is working a new keyboard design that addresses this limitation. Please contact them directly to learn more about it.)
The other disadvantage (and this one depends on your preference) is that this keyboard only comes with a PS/2 interface. I use all-USB setups wherever possible, so I have to use a PS/2-to-USB converter (which introduces a few quirks of its own), but it generally works very well. I've had several conversations with TypeMatrix customer support, and they do plan to introduce USB keyboards in the near future.
Your mileage may vary. I really love the TypeMatrix design and philosophy, and the keyboard works very well for me.
Disclaimer: I don't work for TypeMatrix, but I love the company and their products.
Regarding precision, I've found that rolling the fingertips can help move the pointer by single pixels. You may want to try that instead of sliding fingers, before you sell your pad. :)
I can't offer much advice about the IntelliMouse drivers - since the iGesture products need no drivers, it seems like there shouldn't be any interference on their part.
The ultimate form of tactile feedback comes from lifting all fingers (and thumb) from the pad. That alone should assure you that the gesture has been released. I don't know of any way they could integrate some other forms of feedback (i.e. clicking, shocking, beeping) when a gesture has been released, but it'd probably become annoying after a while.
Sticky pads can easily be cured with a quick cleaning, using a single squirt of Lysol (not-aerosol) brand cleaning solutions. Go for something fairly tame, like a glass cleaner or an all-purpose cleaner, and spray once or twice onto a soft lint-free cloth. Then, when the iGesture is unplugged, wipe the surface clean until it shines like new and your fingers slide smoothly. I have sweaty fingers as well, and a good cleaning every 2-3 months seems to work for me.
For high-precision work with Photoshop, you may want to consider the use of a foot-pedal controller that lets you handle the "buttons" while using a hand controller to handle motion. It's a lot easier to keep a foot solidly placed on a pedal, and have complete freedom to move the mouse (or your fingers across an iGesture) until you're ready to release.
Also, remember that many iGesture actions only need to start with a given gesture; from that point on, one finger/thumb can be used to continue dragging. For example, a right-click drag needs two fingers + thumb to start dragging, but once you've started you can release all fingers except one, and use that finger to continue the gesture. It takes a bit of practice but it works much easier.
Disclaimer: I don't do a whole lot of work in Photoshop (or GIMP) but I've found that the iGesture makes it much easier than any other mouse or trackball that I've used. It's nice to not have to physically move any object; your fingers are the only thing that moves.
But doesn't Safari do just that? Apple didn't write Safari's rendering engine from scratch. Apple chose to use WebCore, which was derived from KDE's KHTML code. They've been very good citizens by contributing code back to the KDE project, but they're still utilizing code that was developed by another group.
So why is it okay for Safari to "leap frog" and build upon the efforts of the KHTML development team, but not OmniWeb? What makes Safari an "honest effort" when they re-use code in the same way as Apple? Why should OmniWeb have to re-invent the wheel when there is already a stable rendering engine available for them to utilize?
If you want a web browser with a "niche market" that uses a proprietary rendering engine, look no further than Opera or Internet Explorer. But the re-use of WebCore makes OmniWeb a credible product, and frees up their developers' time to do other worthwhile things, such as fixing bugs and working on the stability of their program. Why should they have to waste time writing their own rendering engine?
I can understand your dislike for OmniWeb for their past track record of stability, but if you're going to critique their re-use of open source code, you'll need to come up with some far more convincing arguments.
If the couch could automatically order take-out food for the occupant, it would pretty much *have to* account for weight gain, right? Who's going to program their couch to order a salad for them?
Well, I guess if the Bluetooth transciever were shaped just right, it wouldn't be a problem for some people. ;)
Well said! I own one of their "iGesture NumPad" mice, and it's really wonderful to use.
The "issues" that people encounter when using a new package management system are positive forces for change. A fresh approach to software management will help developers re-think a lot of the old assumptions that were made in ports/pkgsrc. Having "issues" is not inherently a bad thing -- it just means that there is still work left to do.
Yes, ports is a well-oiled machine, and it isn't going away anytime soon. But portage is much more flexible, far more powerful, and does some things better than ports ever could. To extend your analogy: we can keep oiling a well-proven combustion engine, or we can make an architectural leap to a cleaner power plant that doesn't rely on fossil fuels. Just because something is well-refined doesn't mean that there is no room for innovation.
I've used both, and found that portage works better for my needs. If you had used portage then you would be able to understand the differences and the way it works, and you'd be able to offer some fact-based opinions. And you can still use whatever works best for you. But as it stands, you just sound like someone who resists change, a "stick in the mud". Sorry to be blunt.
Why does it matter if people "waste" their time on this? Does it hurt your ego to see people working on Gentoo BSD? Are you the sole arbiter of what *BSD-related projects are wastes of other people's time? More importantly, who asked you?
What if, by some chance, Gentoo BSD happens to provide a better package management system than the standard package management systems? What if portage meets people's needs better than ports or pkgsrc? Imagine the possibility that portage does a better job. Why discount the system before ever trying it?
When you say "we don't need it", are you speaking for all *BSD users? Have you built a concensus amongst the *BSD communities who have agreed that their current package management systems are the best of all possible implementations?
It may very well be that you don't need portage, which is fine. Nobody's forcing you to use it. The ports and pkgsrc trees won't be going away anytime soon. If you're more comfortable with the way things are, then that's okay. Your pace of progress can be as fast or as slow as you want it to be.
But for those of us who have used portage, and who see the advantages it has over the existing ports/pkgsrc systems in a real-world environment, why should we stop working to improve *BSD because you said it was a waste of our time?
As to the number of packages, let me refer you to this URL:
Gentoo list of packages
The current count was 5280 when I last checked. Computation of percentage is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)
And, as always, users are encouraged to submit their own ebuilds for any packages that aren't in the portage tree yet.
Then again, I would guess that most Gentoo users prefer to compile their ebuilds locally, for reasons of performance, optimizations, and custom USE flags.
If a user only updated their PHP portage directory, and if the PHP ebuild were properly written to require the most current or known-good versions of all of its dependencies (as tested by the PHP ebuild maintainers), then the user would run into dependency errors and would have to go update those other portions of the portage tree, by hand. This would be sub-optimal. (I've run into this problem with OpenBSD's ports tree, and it was annoying. Newer ports required newer dependencies, and newer versions of the ports infrastructure.)
Remember that updating the portage tree does not automatically update all installed software. The user must still use the emerge command wisely by seeing what ebuilds have been updated, and making a decision based on their needs. Those who run emerge -u world blindly can get into trouble. :)
To the poster: nobody's asking anyone to "throw out stable and robust ports". Wherever did you get that idea? The whole GentooBSD project seems more to be an exploration of an alternate way to manage and maintain a BSD-based system. I don't think that the authors intend this to replace or usurp existing distributions of FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
The ports tree has its place. Portage has its place too. I should know, I use both on different servers and for different goals. The USE flags are an incredibly powerful tool, and they provide a unique solution that works for both general and specific cases. Portage has been written for flexibility, whereas ports is flexible in some ways but very inflexible in others. But no one system is perfect. Can't both coexist?
Your question of "perhaps you could actually code it up" has already been answered. People are actually coding it up, but you've been making negative comments about their work. I'd bet that you've never even tried their code. Can't you contribute positively instead?
Your comment sounds similar to typical reactionary, defensive arguments raised by many zealots, including (sadly) a number of FreeBSD fans. Just because portage exists and thrives doesn't endanger the existence of ports, nor does it invalidate the years of work put into making the ports system what it is today.
Could it be, perhaps, that you're feeling defensive and you're willing to strike back at new approaches because they endanger your perceived monopoly on managing software on *BSD? Are you insecure because you secretly acknowledge the limitations of ports, but want to defend your ego and the honor of your *BSD community? Why are you trying to prevent people from improving the existing *BSD system in the way they see fit? What makes ports inherently better? Are makefiles really the best way to maintain a ports tree? Why should a *BSD administrator be forced to use ports if they have already realized that portage works better for them?
I'm glad you made the comment about "if you can convince the committers of their need". This statement, right here, sums up one very valid reason for the creation of GentooBSD. What prevents a group of creative programmers from using BSD- and GPL-licensed code to create a forked distribution that best meets their needs? Why should they have to let a group of "committers" or a "core team" ratify a new approach? Name one good reason why they shouldn't exercise their rights to modify open-source code to create something new that solves their problems in a different way.
It is precisely this manner of arrogance and hubris that will either doom or significantly hamper the forward progress of the FreeBSD community. I'm always amazed by how a group of people can wear blinders for so long that they refuse to acknowledge new approaches, and ridicule others (as you have done) who try to innovate rather than blindly following the accepted party line. So many programmers rant about their "freedoms" with open source, yet they try to squash any exercise of freedom within their code base or areas of knowledge. It sickens me.
Personally, I welcome GentooBSD and I look forward to using it when it matures, as I'm sure it will. You're more than welcome to continue using your existing *BSD. If you don't want portage, that's fine and you don't have to use it, but don't snap at those who do just because they didn't use *BSD in your manner.
Initially, after loading the page and clicking on the "Custom Configuration" tab, here are the prices I saw:
Now, without changing any of the drop-down boxes below, I clicked on the "recalculate" button, and here's what I saw:
Hmm. Fishy. It's nice that they allow me to customize the laptop, but if I end up having to pay more than $1200 extra for the benefit of customizing it, is it really worth it? Has anyone else run into this problem?
If you're concerned about the lack of IBM-specific drivers and utilities after doing a re-install, and if you wish to buy a new copy of a Microsoft OS in which to run these utilities (your choice, really) then please remember that IBM has just about all of these drivers and utilities available for download on their support website. It might be a good idea to download these utilities and burn a CD-R now, just in case your laptop fails later.
Not that I'm advocating that you buy or use a Microsoft OS, mind you. If it weren't for my company's use of Microsoft Outlook as a critical business app, I'd have installed Linux or BSD on that laptop months ago. :)
Hope this helps...
Um... maybe because carrots decay more quickly than Platinum-Iridium? Just taking a wild guess here...
And yeah, property taxes suck, but you can always rent.
I'd like to, but I can't afford a house in the Bay Area.