So, Fedora 6? Isn't that less than 1 1/2 years old - assuming a 6 month Fedora release cycle?
If I haven't thrown them out yet, I'm sure I could boot up an old live CD and find the same behaviors.
kakalaky (another poster) gave the following hack:
Just add the following to ~/.gtkrc-2.0 or create it if it doesn't exist and firefox will use emacs key bindings:
gtk-key-theme-name = "Emacs"
which works fine for GTK-based programs, well, at least for Firefox, in KDE. But, it's not easy to remember and requires changing that value on every box I run KDE on.
I already have to deal with changing the keyboard layout to Dvorak on every box I touch: I just don't want another change to remember.
Finally, even if the KDE team didn't mean this, I think it's apropos: the GUI should be a complement to the command line and not a complete divorce from it. That being said, I guess Gnome could be said to do that - if your command line used to be MSDOS.:)
You're right, '*Nix shortcuts' isn't accurate but 'default *Nix shortcuts' is. So, thanks for defecting from the meat of the post: the usability of the Gnome interface.
BTW, ctrl-k should work (as "expected").
'Should work'? I tested it before posting. Did you BOTHER to test it before 'shoulding' on your post?
Even if it did, compared to ctrl-u ctrl-k is almost never used in GUI dialogs: that would be but a pittance of support from the Gnome designers... even if were something like GTK's fault.
Thanks for the tip; it's good to know that is available... not that I can test it at this time. But, I'll remember it as necessary.
I, therefore, need to find out if such a change would work for me while using Firefox under KDE... That would be cool by me.... It's just that gconf, by itself is not installed... any more.
Then how can you stand it when Gnome's GUI doesn't incorporate standard commandline (CLI) shortcuts, such as ^u, when you want to clear to the beginning of the text dialog?!? or ^k when you want to clear to the end of the text dialog?
The ^u functionality is present everywhere I've tried it (so far) in KDE and I just cannot understand why Gnome, owing its heritage to the CLI, does not incorporate that functionality.
It is the sum of little things like this that equate to a completely dissatisfying experience when using Gnome; it just takes the fun out of using *Nix, which absolutely owes its heritage to the CLI.
Examples:
Open a session of Bash, type some text, then ^u (Ctrl+u). What happens to the text?
In the same shell, type 10 characters of text, then ^b five times, then ^k. What happens to the text?
Now, open Nautilus, create a new folder and, in the dialog to name it, try the two text manipulation steps above. What happens? (spoiler: nothing, the text is not manipulated)
Open Konqueror, and try the same. What happens? (spoiler: it behaves like the commandline)
Here's where I first notices this huge deficiency:
Lock your Gnome session, such that you need to provide your password. Mistype your password... you could clear that mistyped password with ^u... if you were on the CLI... or in KDE.
It wasn't until I learned the major shortcuts on the CLI AND just how pervasive they are, such as at the password prompt when logging in, that I really saw how friendly to users, at least those with knowledge of these things, KDE absolute is and Gnome is not.
I guess falcon5768 has never implemented a server in a production environment - because you never know how it's going to behave until it is stressed by the demands put on it.
The English use of 'tomorrow' has nothing to do with Sun. Tomorrow begins at 12:00 a.m. (when the Sun isn't shinning in England - from wince we garner the previously mentioned language).
Once Midnight passes, whether there will be a sunrise 'tomorrow' or not is a matter of faith, albeit based on past performance. That is, until the event happens (or doesn't).
And don't both with your arguing over the use of 'rise' to describe something that is common vernacular in the English language. Just go look up 'sunrise' and you know what I mean.
So, what does 'faith in experience' imply concerning those who have an 'experience of faith' (in that which is beyond science, such as religion)? Is their experience void because it cannot be confirmed by science? Are they liars? Are they mistaken? Are they crazy? Though those are rhetorical questions, it is possible that some are.
But what of the rest?
To continue with the use of tomorrow: will not tomorrow, as in 'the future' near or otherwise, prove what is fact; in particular if what the religious say is true, regardless as to whether one lives to even see tomorrow?
Slashdot Mirror
No problem.
So, Fedora 6? Isn't that less than 1 1/2 years old - assuming a 6 month Fedora release cycle?
If I haven't thrown them out yet, I'm sure I could boot up an old live CD and find the same behaviors.
kakalaky (another poster) gave the following hack:
Just add the following to ~/.gtkrc-2.0 or create it if it doesn't exist and firefox will use emacs key bindings:gtk-key-theme-name = "Emacs"
which works fine for GTK-based programs, well, at least for Firefox, in KDE. But, it's not easy to remember and requires changing that value on every box I run KDE on.
I already have to deal with changing the keyboard layout to Dvorak on every box I touch: I just don't want another change to remember.
Finally, even if the KDE team didn't mean this, I think it's apropos: the GUI should be a complement to the command line and not a complete divorce from it. That being said, I guess Gnome could be said to do that - if your command line used to be MSDOS. :)
Magnet, eh?
Note to self: leave hard drive at home.
I won't be able to check it out until Monday or so.
Once I do I'll update you on my experience.
Thanks again.
Thank you very much for the tip: it actually works under KDE.
Now, I wonder, is there a Windows equivalent?
You're right, '*Nix shortcuts' isn't accurate but 'default *Nix shortcuts' is. So, thanks for defecting from the meat of the post: the usability of the Gnome interface.
BTW, ctrl-k should work (as "expected").'Should work'? I tested it before posting. Did you BOTHER to test it before 'shoulding' on your post?
Even if it did, compared to ctrl-u ctrl-k is almost never used in GUI dialogs: that would be but a pittance of support from the Gnome designers... even if were something like GTK's fault.
Thanks for the tip; it's good to know that is available... not that I can test it at this time. But, I'll remember it as necessary.
I, therefore, need to find out if such a change would work for me while using Firefox under KDE... That would be cool by me.... It's just that gconf, by itself is not installed... any more.
...I tend to use the CLI for non trivial tasks...Then how can you stand it when Gnome's GUI doesn't incorporate standard commandline (CLI) shortcuts, such as ^u, when you want to clear to the beginning of the text dialog?!? or ^k when you want to clear to the end of the text dialog?
The ^u functionality is present everywhere I've tried it (so far) in KDE and I just cannot understand why Gnome, owing its heritage to the CLI, does not incorporate that functionality.
It is the sum of little things like this that equate to a completely dissatisfying experience when using Gnome; it just takes the fun out of using *Nix, which absolutely owes its heritage to the CLI.
Examples:
- Open a session of Bash, type some text, then ^u (Ctrl+u). What happens to the text?
- In the same shell, type 10 characters of text, then ^b five times, then ^k. What happens to the text?
- Now, open Nautilus, create a new folder and, in the dialog to name it, try the two text manipulation steps above. What happens? (spoiler: nothing, the text is not manipulated)
- Open Konqueror, and try the same. What happens? (spoiler: it behaves like the commandline)
Here's where I first notices this huge deficiency:It wasn't until I learned the major shortcuts on the CLI AND just how pervasive they are, such as at the password prompt when logging in, that I really saw how friendly to users, at least those with knowledge of these things, KDE absolute is and Gnome is not.
Is there no limit to potty-humor?
Why must it be integrated into our lives so often?
I guess falcon5768 has never implemented a server in a production environment - because you never know how it's going to behave until it is stressed by the demands put on it.
I guess I should have RTC before leaving opinions related to it.
I say try him, the engineer, for treason.
I appreciate the link.
Many thanks.
Any URLs to recommend?
Sheesh, when's that going to be applied to Man-Is-The-Cause-Of-Global-Warming?
(Otherwise: thanks for the info.)
LOLZ
I didn't use the word 'day'.
Your attempt at my technique failed.
Are easily distracted by that which does not apply to you?
Fact or faith:
Hint: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith (just read the first two).
Why do you go about pretending to redefine 'faith'?
Even the first two definitions thereof at Dictionary.com have no mention of a Deity. Check it out:
Your use of the word assumption is but #5: arrogance; presumption".
The question wasn't about 'centrism'.
It was about faith and whether you knew you had it or not.
Stop making up your own definitions. What are you, a Democrat?
You took an easy question, posed in the simplest vernacular, and imagined yourself wise.
Here's the question again, for your sake:
The English use of 'tomorrow' has nothing to do with Sun. Tomorrow begins at 12:00 a.m. (when the Sun isn't shinning in England - from wince we garner the previously mentioned language).
Once Midnight passes, whether there will be a sunrise 'tomorrow' or not is a matter of faith, albeit based on past performance. That is, until the event happens (or doesn't).
And don't both with your arguing over the use of 'rise' to describe something that is common vernacular in the English language. Just go look up 'sunrise' and you know what I mean.
(That explains the 'Geocentric' babblings from another response.) But, no, that wasn't the trap.
Well, despite past performance, it is not a fact... until, in this case, the event happens.
What an excellent response (and helpful as well).
So, what does 'faith in experience' imply concerning those who have an 'experience of faith' (in that which is beyond science, such as religion)? Is their experience void because it cannot be confirmed by science? Are they liars? Are they mistaken? Are they crazy? Though those are rhetorical questions, it is possible that some are.
But what of the rest?
To continue with the use of tomorrow: will not tomorrow, as in 'the future' near or otherwise, prove what is fact; in particular if what the religious say is true, regardless as to whether one lives to even see tomorrow?
Is the following a fact or faith?
What say ye?Hint: ISATRAP