| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352399] |
Thu, 14 September 2017 03:51  |
simon
Messages: 185
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 13 Sep, in article <f1soaeF9eitU6@mid.individual.net>
Huge@nowhere.much.invalid "Huge" wrote:
> On 2017-09-13, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
> [22 lines snipped]
>
>>> I can't understand why people think they need proprietary apps to do things
>>> which they can do through their browser.
>>
>> Well, the browser is the _wrong_ way to read email.
>>
>> https://theconversation.com/the-only-safe-email-is-text-only -email-81434
>
> Hear, hear. Why would I want to run code sent me by a total stranger?
>
> (All comments that HTML is not code will be ignored, at least by me.)
Quite so. But what a pity that the article talks about "webmail" rather
than "HTML e-mail"; most non-techies reading it would erroneously
conclude that they are safe because they use a mail program rather than
"webmail" per se. They are blissfully unaware that their MUA embeds
browser functionality and they are just as much at risk as those using
webmail.
But, as noted downthread, the plain text argument was lost many years
ago; look at how many mail providers either don't offer a plain text
alternative to their insanely bloated HTML at all, or do such an
incompetent job of converting the HTML original to readable plain text
(increasingly these days just using the raw HTML as the text/plain
version!) that you end up having to use the HTML anyway...
(Before anybody says "just don't deal with such people", it's not that
simple. And trying to educate end-users, or the providers themselves,
about the technical shortcomings of their mail provider, mobile e-mail
"app" etc. makes repeatedly hitting yourself with a hammer look like an
attractive alternative. Nobody cares.)
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352411 is a reply to message #352399] |
Thu, 14 September 2017 11:49  |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Sep, in article <f1soaeF9eitU6@mid.individual.net>
> Huge@nowhere.much.invalid "Huge" wrote:
>
>> On 2017-09-13, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>> [22 lines snipped]
>>
>>>> I can't understand why people think they need proprietary apps to do things
>>>> which they can do through their browser.
>>>
>>> Well, the browser is the _wrong_ way to read email.
>>>
>>> https://theconversation.com/the-only-safe-email-is-text-only -email-81434
>>
>> Hear, hear. Why would I want to run code sent me by a total stranger?
>>
>> (All comments that HTML is not code will be ignored, at least by me.)
>
> Quite so. But what a pity that the article talks about "webmail" rather
> than "HTML e-mail"; most non-techies reading it would erroneously
> conclude that they are safe because they use a mail program rather than
> "webmail" per se. They are blissfully unaware that their MUA embeds
> browser functionality and they are just as much at risk as those using
> webmail.
>
> But, as noted downthread, the plain text argument was lost many years
> ago; look at how many mail providers either don't offer a plain text
> alternative to their insanely bloated HTML at all, or do such an
> incompetent job of converting the HTML original to readable plain text
> (increasingly these days just using the raw HTML as the text/plain
> version!) that you end up having to use the HTML anyway...
>
> (Before anybody says "just don't deal with such people", it's not that
> simple. And trying to educate end-users, or the providers themselves,
> about the technical shortcomings of their mail provider, mobile e-mail
> "app" etc. makes repeatedly hitting yourself with a hammer look like an
> attractive alternative. Nobody cares.)
>
When you install Thunderbird they have a very simple setup for existing
email accounts - just enter your address and password and you're in
business. For less common email providers you have yo do a bit more setup,
but presumably if you're using one of them you know what you're doing.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352522 is a reply to message #352411] |
Fri, 15 September 2017 20:57 |
simon
Messages: 185
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, in article
<1813224595.527096509.881547.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
peter_flass@yahoo.com "Peter Flass" wrote:
> Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 13 Sep, in article <f1soaeF9eitU6@mid.individual.net>
>> Huge@nowhere.much.invalid "Huge" wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-09-13, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>> > I can't understand why people think they need proprietary apps to
>>>> > do things which they can do through their browser.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the browser is the _wrong_ way to read email.
>>>>
>>>> https://theconversation.com/the-only-safe-email-is-text-only -email-81434
>>>
>>> Hear, hear. Why would I want to run code sent me by a total stranger?
>>>
>>> (All comments that HTML is not code will be ignored, at least by me.)
>>
>> Quite so. But what a pity that the article talks about "webmail" rather
>> than "HTML e-mail"; most non-techies reading it would erroneously
>> conclude that they are safe because they use a mail program rather than
>> "webmail" per se. They are blissfully unaware that their MUA embeds
>> browser functionality and they are just as much at risk as those using
>> webmail.
>>
>> But, as noted downthread, the plain text argument was lost many years
>> ago; look at how many mail providers either don't offer a plain text
>> alternative to their insanely bloated HTML at all, or do such an
>> incompetent job of converting the HTML original to readable plain text
>> (increasingly these days just using the raw HTML as the text/plain
>> version!) that you end up having to use the HTML anyway...
>>
>> (Before anybody says "just don't deal with such people", it's not that
>> simple. And trying to educate end-users, or the providers themselves,
>> about the technical shortcomings of their mail provider, mobile e-mail
>> "app" etc. makes repeatedly hitting yourself with a hammer look like an
>> attractive alternative. Nobody cares.)
>>
>
> When you install Thunderbird they have a very simple setup for existing
> email accounts - just enter your address and password and you're in
> business. For less common email providers you have yo do a bit more setup,
> but presumably if you're using one of them you know what you're doing.
As I say, it's not quite that simple: some people are using devices
where Thunderbird isn't an option, some are using their mail provider's
webmail system rather than a proper MUA, others are just using the MUA
that came with the system and which they're familiar with. Why would
they change to different software, when I'm the only person who has a
problem with their misformatted messages? From their POV, I'm the one
with a problem, so surely I should change to fit in with them, rather
than them change just to fit in with me? Pointing out that their mail
violates RFCs is met with looks of complete incomprehension; I'm
gabbling in a foreign language as far as they're concerned.
Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352560 is a reply to message #352522] |
Sat, 16 September 2017 12:05 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-09-16, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
> Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
> maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
> someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
s/convenience/perceived convenience/
I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
a dozen keystrokes.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352565 is a reply to message #352522] |
Sat, 16 September 2017 12:40 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) writes:
> Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
> maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
> someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
this is part of being brought in small client/server startup that wanted
to do payment transactions on their server (they had also invented this
technology I called "SSL" they wanted to use, the result is now
frequently called "electronic commerce"). They had already done some
transaction prototype code for the server to payment networks. When I
was done, I pointed out that it takes 4-10 times the effort to take a
well designed and tested code and turn it into business quality
application/service.
Before he passed, the Internet Standards RFC editor, Postel would let me
help with the periodically issued STD1. He also sponsored my talk at ISI
(where he was located) for ISI and USC network security grad group on
why the internet wasn't business quality.
with regard to breaches (recently in the news) ... post from yesterday
in ibm mainframe mailing list
http://www.gralic.com/~lynn/2017i.html#16 Would encryption have prevented known major breaches?
one of the issues (from the original cal. state data breach notification
bill), normally entities take security measures in self
interest/protection, however, in the breach cases, the institutions
weren't at risk, it was the public. past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#data.breach.notific ation
recent posts mentioning "4-10 times the effort" and/or talk at ISI
why internet wasn't business quality
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#101 Reflexivity
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#13 Before the Internet: The golden age of online services
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#86 Economic Failures of HTTPS Encryption
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#117 Are we programmed to stop at the 'first' right answer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#146 LEO
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#10 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#16 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017.html#27 History of Mainframe Cloud
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017d.html#92 Old hardware
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017f.html#23 MVS vs HASP vs JES (was 2821)
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352615 is a reply to message #352560] |
Sat, 16 September 2017 18:46 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/16/2017 11:05 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2017-09-16, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
>> maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
>> someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
>
> s/convenience/perceived convenience/
>
> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
> a dozen keystrokes.
>
It's more convenient for *stupid* people who can *not* learn those few
keystrokes... it's ver sad...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352641 is a reply to message #352560] |
Sat, 16 September 2017 22:25 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
> a dozen keystrokes.
Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
hard. :-\
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352651 is a reply to message #352522] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 04:41 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 2017-09-16, Simon Turner wrote:
> Why would they change to different software, when I'm the only
> person who has a problem with their misformatted messages? From
> their POV, I'm the one with a problem, so surely I should change to
> fit in with them, rather than them change just to fit in with me?
> Pointing out that their mail violates RFCs is met with looks of
> complete incomprehension; I'm gabbling in a foreign language as far
> as they're concerned.
That's so odd, given that they were taught in school things like:
- How to write to get a message across.
- How to quote others.
- How to format a (formal) letter.
- What to write on the envelope.
The RFCs are just another instance of the same kind of rules they
already learned once. Hell, the mail RFCs /stole/ many of the rules.
> Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
> maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
> someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
Perhaps people assume that as soon as they use software,
someone else takes responsibility for their actions.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352659 is a reply to message #352641] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 05:34 |
simon
Messages: 185
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 16 Sep, in article
<87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>> a dozen keystrokes.
>
> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
> hard. :-\
Just so. Why bother to learn to speak a language when you can get what
you want by pointing, grunting and pulling faces? It's so much
*easier* (in the short term).
The trouble is that many people can't get past this short-term mindset:
it's quicker and easier *right now* to do something the simple,
unthinking but inefficient way they already know than to invest the time
to do it properly[0], and this remains true every time they need to
perform the same task. They never make the investment, so never get the
return.
Sometimes they may even acknowledge that it would have been better to
have made the investment in the past, which would have meant that doing
the task now would have been trivial, but right now they just need to
get it done, so shut up and stop bothering them with your attempts to
make their lives easier.
Sigh.
[0] learning to use the right tool; learning how to use the tool they're
already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
manual process; etc.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352676 is a reply to message #352659] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 09:35 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Simon Turner wrote:
> On 16 Sep, in article
> <87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
> mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>
>> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
>> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
>> hard. :-\
>
> Just so. Why bother to learn to speak a language when you can get what
> you want by pointing, grunting and pulling faces? It's so much
> *easier* (in the short term).
>
> The trouble is that many people can't get past this short-term mindset:
> it's quicker and easier *right now* to do something the simple,
> unthinking but inefficient way they already know than to invest the time
> to do it properly[0], and this remains true every time they need to
> perform the same task. They never make the investment, so never get the
> return.
>
> Sometimes they may even acknowledge that it would have been better to
> have made the investment in the past, which would have meant that doing
> the task now would have been trivial, but right now they just need to
> get it done, so shut up and stop bothering them with your attempts to
> make their lives easier.
>
> Sigh.
>
>
> [0] learning to use the right tool; learning how to use the tool they're
> already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
> manual process; etc.
And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn
Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352677 is a reply to message #352615] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 09:35 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 9/16/2017 11:05 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2017-09-16, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
>>> maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
>>> someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
>>
>> s/convenience/perceived convenience/
>>
>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>
>
> It's more convenient for *stupid* people who can *not* learn those few
> keystrokes... it's ver sad...
>
That's the exception. Unfortunately, MS and Apple has made the exception
to be the rule.
I have known no secretaries who have been *stupid*. They're so busy,
they would welcome shortcuts.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352680 is a reply to message #352676] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 10:28 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:35:38 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority of
> people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing as
> keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn Unix
> interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
If you're talking about UNIX, I run a course!
I do a long bit on history, and a shorter single lecture on the
philosophy. The rest of it is all practical.
The stuff can be found at http://unixhistory.tavi.co.uk
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352693 is a reply to message #352676] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 15:47 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-09-17, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Simon Turner wrote:
>> On 16 Sep, in article
>> <87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>> mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>>
>> already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
>> manual process; etc.
>
> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things.
There are some, in Excel at least. I listened to a teacher explaining
it to young pupils.
> Before one can learn
> Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
Logical paradox
>
> /BAH
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352697 is a reply to message #352641] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 16:25 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>> a dozen keystrokes.
>
> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
> hard. :-\
Thank you, Barbie. :-)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352701 is a reply to message #352693] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 16:38 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-09-17, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-09-17, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Sep, in article
>>> <87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>>> mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>>>
>>> already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
>>> manual process; etc.
>>
>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
>> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
>> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things.
>
> There are some, in Excel at least. I listened to a teacher explaining
> it to young pupils.
Fewer and fewer, though. And many of the keyboard shortcuts that work
in Windows don't work on my wife's Mac. I fear that use of the keyboard,
increasingly discouraged, will soon be prohibited.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352707 is a reply to message #352641] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 17:23 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:25:54 PM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <> writes:
>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>> a dozen keystrokes.
>
> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
> hard. :-\
For whatever reason(s), everyday people did not take to using command
lines while using a computer. Even in PC-DOS days, menus were quite
popular as opposed to entering a command at the C:\> prompt. But,
like it or not, when the GUI came out, people loved it.
While BBSing and Usenet are pretty much the same as Facebook/Myspace,
BBS's and Usenet never had Facebook's popularity. I submit the
Facebook user interface made it attractive.
Personally, I like and still use the Commnad Prompt. But I'm an
"old world" programmer, used to command lines from my Teletype days.
Indeed, I remember that it took time to train a new user on how to
properly use a Teletype or 3270 screen. They did _not_ work the same
as a typewriter, and people needed to learn how to correct typos,
move from one field to another, and when to hit (and not hit) the
ENTER(RETURN) key. They had to learn when to wait for the next
line or screen to be ready to receive them, which could be delayed.
FWIW, the GUI was easier and seemed friendlier to the everyday user.
Actually, when I compare the 3270 "green on glass" screens we used
to make against a GUI screen of today, I must admit the GUI is superior.
Some editing is done instantly by the terminal itself, such as date fields.
The user doesn't need a reference card filled with codes as much--drop
down menus provide them (such as the postal state code). The screen could
have a built in help function to explain the definition of a field.
Colors and variable typefaces, including bold, help explain the screen,
such as highlighting missing or erroneous fields.
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352708 is a reply to message #352676] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 17:24 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Simon Turner wrote:
>> On 16 Sep, in article
>> <87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>> mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
>>> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
>>> hard. :-\
>>
>> Just so. Why bother to learn to speak a language when you can get what
>> you want by pointing, grunting and pulling faces? It's so much
>> *easier* (in the short term).
>>
>> The trouble is that many people can't get past this short-term mindset:
>> it's quicker and easier *right now* to do something the simple,
>> unthinking but inefficient way they already know than to invest the time
>> to do it properly[0], and this remains true every time they need to
>> perform the same task. They never make the investment, so never get the
>> return.
>>
>> Sometimes they may even acknowledge that it would have been better to
>> have made the investment in the past, which would have meant that doing
>> the task now would have been trivial, but right now they just need to
>> get it done, so shut up and stop bothering them with your attempts to
>> make their lives easier.
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>>
>> [0] learning to use the right tool; learning how to use the tool they're
>> already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
>> manual process; etc.
>
> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things.
Actually there are, but they've managed to bury them quite well.
> Before one can learn
> Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
>
> /BAH
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352710 is a reply to message #352707] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 17:27 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:25:54 PM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <> writes:
>
>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>
>> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
>> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
>> hard. :-\
>
> For whatever reason(s), everyday people did not take to using command
> lines while using a computer. Even in PC-DOS days, menus were quite
> popular as opposed to entering a command at the C:\> prompt. But,
> like it or not, when the GUI came out, people loved it.
>
> While BBSing and Usenet are pretty much the same as Facebook/Myspace,
> BBS's and Usenet never had Facebook's popularity. I submit the
> Facebook user interface made it attractive.
>
> Personally, I like and still use the Commnad Prompt. But I'm an
> "old world" programmer, used to command lines from my Teletype days.
>
> Indeed, I remember that it took time to train a new user on how to
> properly use a Teletype or 3270 screen. They did _not_ work the same
> as a typewriter, and people needed to learn how to correct typos,
> move from one field to another, and when to hit (and not hit) the
> ENTER(RETURN) key. They had to learn when to wait for the next
> line or screen to be ready to receive them, which could be delayed.
> FWIW, the GUI was easier and seemed friendlier to the everyday user.
>
> Actually, when I compare the 3270 "green on glass" screens we used
> to make against a GUI screen of today, I must admit the GUI is superior.
> Some editing is done instantly by the terminal itself, such as date fields.
> The user doesn't need a reference card filled with codes as much--drop
> down menus provide them (such as the postal state code). The screen could
> have a built in help function to explain the definition of a field.
> Colors and variable typefaces, including bold, help explain the screen,
> such as highlighting missing or erroneous fields.
>
ISPF added a lot of that stuff to green-screen apps maybe ten years ago or
more now.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352714 is a reply to message #352701] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 17:53 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 17 Sep 2017 20:38:16 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2017-09-17, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-09-17, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16 Sep, in article
>>>> <87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>>>> mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
>>>> manual process; etc.
>>>
>>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>>> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
>>> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
>>> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things.
>>
>> There are some, in Excel at least. I listened to a teacher explaining
>> it to young pupils.
>
> Fewer and fewer, though. And many of the keyboard shortcuts that work
> in Windows don't work on my wife's Mac. I fear that use of the keyboard,
> increasingly discouraged, will soon be prohibited.
Here's the current list for Excel
< https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Excel-keyboard-shor tcuts-and-function-keys-for-Windows-1798d9d5-842a-42b8-9c99- 9b7213f0040f>
I lost count at around 200.
Why would the shortcuts be the same on a Mac though? Apple has their
own standards for such things.
And I don't know who you think is "discouraging the use of the
keyboard". It certainly isn't discouraged where I work.
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352717 is a reply to message #352710] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 18:59 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:27:40 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:25:54 PM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>> Charlie Gibbs <> writes:
>>
>>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
>>> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
>>> hard. :-\
>>
>> For whatever reason(s), everyday people did not take to using command
>> lines while using a computer. Even in PC-DOS days, menus were quite
>> popular as opposed to entering a command at the C:\> prompt. But,
>> like it or not, when the GUI came out, people loved it.
>>
>> While BBSing and Usenet are pretty much the same as Facebook/Myspace,
>> BBS's and Usenet never had Facebook's popularity. I submit the
>> Facebook user interface made it attractive.
>>
>> Personally, I like and still use the Commnad Prompt. But I'm an
>> "old world" programmer, used to command lines from my Teletype days.
>>
>> Indeed, I remember that it took time to train a new user on how to
>> properly use a Teletype or 3270 screen. They did _not_ work the same
>> as a typewriter, and people needed to learn how to correct typos,
>> move from one field to another, and when to hit (and not hit) the
>> ENTER(RETURN) key. They had to learn when to wait for the next
>> line or screen to be ready to receive them, which could be delayed.
>> FWIW, the GUI was easier and seemed friendlier to the everyday user.
>>
>> Actually, when I compare the 3270 "green on glass" screens we used
>> to make against a GUI screen of today, I must admit the GUI is superior.
>> Some editing is done instantly by the terminal itself, such as date fields.
>> The user doesn't need a reference card filled with codes as much--drop
>> down menus provide them (such as the postal state code). The screen could
>> have a built in help function to explain the definition of a field.
>> Colors and variable typefaces, including bold, help explain the screen,
>> such as highlighting missing or erroneous fields.
>>
>
> ISPF added a lot of that stuff to green-screen apps maybe ten years ago or
> more now.
It did, but anybody who works with Eclipse for a while doesn't like to
go back to the green screen for editing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352720 is a reply to message #352677] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 20:13 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM00055962951E2EBC@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>> On 9/16/2017 11:05 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-16, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
>>>> maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
>>>> someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
>>>
>>> s/convenience/perceived convenience/
>>>
>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>>
>>
>> It's more convenient for *stupid* people who can *not* learn those few
>> keystrokes... it's ver sad...
>>
> That's the exception. Unfortunately, MS and Apple has made the exception
> to be the rule.
>
> I have known no secretaries who have been *stupid*. They're so busy,
> they would welcome shortcuts.
>
> /BAH
Except in most places I've worked in the past 20 years the Secretary/Admin
Assistant to staff ratio has gone down. We had one in Bell Labs for
about 5 managers and 30 staff members.
Downsizing happens everywhere except management.
Bill
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352721 is a reply to message #352676] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 20:22 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Simon Turner wrote:
>> On 16 Sep, in article
>> <87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>> mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
>>> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
>>> hard. :-\
>>
>> Just so. Why bother to learn to speak a language when you can get what
>> you want by pointing, grunting and pulling faces? It's so much
>> *easier* (in the short term).
>>
>> The trouble is that many people can't get past this short-term mindset:
>> it's quicker and easier *right now* to do something the simple,
>> unthinking but inefficient way they already know than to invest the time
>> to do it properly[0], and this remains true every time they need to
>> perform the same task. They never make the investment, so never get the
>> return.
>>
>> Sometimes they may even acknowledge that it would have been better to
>> have made the investment in the past, which would have meant that doing
>> the task now would have been trivial, but right now they just need to
>> get it done, so shut up and stop bothering them with your attempts to
>> make their lives easier.
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>>
>> [0] learning to use the right tool; learning how to use the tool they're
>> already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
>> manual process; etc.
>
> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn
> Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
>
> /BAH
I beg to differ. Never was an expert in Unix when I began doing System
5 Rel 1 admin (Xelos on Perkin-Elmer/Concurrent). Was barely a user
with three or for pages ahead of my daily grind using Kochan and Wood's
book on Shell programing. Also used Exploring the Unix System...
This was back in the late '80s.
All you have to do is be willing to trash the machine and lose your job.
I was going to be out of my old job if I didn't move to the Unix
Admin job so there was nothing to lose.
Made a career out of it and even moved to doing Sysadmin training for a living.
The thing stopping you is the unwillingness to take the risk.
As far as classes and User groups... there's one I am speaking at next Month...
I've done it at least 4-6 times per year.
I was doing Unix Operator, Sysadmin and User courses for a living back in the
day but companies have cut the training and a lot of the stuff is up on
You Tube for free...
Bill
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352722 is a reply to message #352720] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 20:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:13:28 -0000 (UTC),
pechter@lakewoodmicro-fbsd-tor1-01.lakewoodmicro.com (William Pechter)
wrote:
> In article <PM00055962951E2EBC@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2017 11:05 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-16, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
>>>> > maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
>>>> > someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
>>>>
>>>> s/convenience/perceived convenience/
>>>>
>>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's more convenient for *stupid* people who can *not* learn those few
>>> keystrokes... it's ver sad...
>>>
>> That's the exception. Unfortunately, MS and Apple has made the exception
>> to be the rule.
>>
>> I have known no secretaries who have been *stupid*. They're so busy,
>> they would welcome shortcuts.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Except in most places I've worked in the past 20 years the Secretary/Admin
> Assistant to staff ratio has gone down. We had one in Bell Labs for
> about 5 managers and 30 staff members.
>
> Downsizing happens everywhere except management.
Very high level management. I don't have a secretary. My boss
doesn't have a secretary. Her boss doesn't have a secretary. _Her_
boss has an administrative assistant, but we're talking about the
Chief Financial Officer of a Fortune 100 company at that point.
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352727 is a reply to message #352659] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 21:22 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/17/2017 4:34 AM, Simon Turner wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> Sometimes they may even acknowledge that it would have been better to
> have made the investment in the past, which would have meant that doing
> the task now would have been trivial, but right now they just need to
> get it done, so shut up and stop bothering them with your attempts to
> make their lives easier.
>
They are too busy chopping down trees... and have *no* time to sharpen
their axe...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352728 is a reply to message #352676] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 21:28 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/17/2017 8:35 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn
> Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
>
That's how I got started in Unix... "think or thwim"... and picking up
the "how to" from man pages. Of course I had used other interactive
OS's before.
But starting in the late 1980's, there began appearing beginner books on
Unix. O'Reilly published a lot of books on Unix programs like make and vi.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352737 is a reply to message #352720] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 23:22 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 8:13:29 PM UTC-4, William Pechter wrote:
> Except in most places I've worked in the past 20 years the Secretary/Admin
> Assistant to staff ratio has gone down. We had one in Bell Labs for
> about 5 managers and 30 staff members.
> Downsizing happens everywhere except management.
I've seen it drop from roughly five secretaries serving seventy people
down to one secretary serving one-hundred-forty people, thanks to
computers:
.. Voice mail on telephones eliminates the need for a sectary to take
messages.
.. Email eliminates the need for a secretary to type memos and mail.
The added sophistication of email (inclusion of various attachments
from different sources) means paper mail has declined.
.. Automatic timesheet data entry by staff eliminates the need for
secretaries to handle time reporting.
.. The overall reduction of paper usage in favor of computerization
means less office supplies, less photocopying, less filing, etc,
all of which were done by a secretary.
.. The web allows staff to make their own appointments for training,
travel, or other business that used to be handled by the secretary.
.. A secretary used to receive the tech-manual updates and file them
in the binders. Most manuals are online now.
.. Staff does their own typing via word processing or spreadsheets,
including writing of user instructions and documentation. That used
to be typed by the secretary.
I'm sure others could recall tasks once done by a secretary that they
either now do themselves or no longer have to do.
Many years ago I worked as a typist. Almost everything I did has been
automated. (Which is too bad--I enjoyed working as a typist.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352738 is a reply to message #352710] |
Sun, 17 September 2017 23:25 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 5:27:42 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Actually, when I compare the 3270 "green on glass" screens we used
>> to make against a GUI screen of today, I must admit the GUI is superior.
>> Some editing is done instantly by the terminal itself, such as date fields.
>> The user doesn't need a reference card filled with codes as much--drop
>> down menus provide them (such as the postal state code). The screen could
>> have a built in help function to explain the definition of a field.
>> Colors and variable typefaces, including bold, help explain the screen,
>> such as highlighting missing or erroneous fields.
> ISPF added a lot of that stuff to green-screen apps maybe ten years ago or
> more now.
I'm wasn't aware of that. But doesn't ISPF run under TSO? I was
thinking of applications running under CICS, but with conventional
(actually, old style mapping).
They certainly do support a GUI screen with CICS/COBOL behind it,
indeed, to me, it seems that would be the best of both worlds. But,
FWIW, my employer wasn't big on that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352743 is a reply to message #352738] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 00:24 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I'm wasn't aware of that. But doesn't ISPF run under TSO? I was
> thinking of applications running under CICS, but with conventional
> (actually, old style mapping).
>
> They certainly do support a GUI screen with CICS/COBOL behind it,
> indeed, to me, it seems that would be the best of both worlds. But,
> FWIW, my employer wasn't big on that.
ISPF ... TSO usually used to run ISPF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISPF
I've pontificated before about 23Jun1969 unbundling announcement
started charging for application software.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundle
and revenue had to cover development, maintenance, support ... which
parts of IBM had difficulty dealing with. They had practice of
forecasting estimate of low, middle, & high price ... looking for total
revenue that met requirement. There was some number of products (like
JES2 networking) that didn't meet the requirement at any price. The
gimmick for JES2/NJI was to make a combined product announcement with
VM370 VNET/RSCS (networking) which as its own product met the
requirement at under $30. The combined product announcement allowed the
VM370 VNET/RSCS revenue to cover JES2/NJI expenses
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#hasp
By 1980, they decided that it would also work if both products were just
in the same organization. ISPF also didn't have revenue that met the
requirement ... but putting VM370 performance products (which had large
install base) and cutting support/mainteance to three people ... they
could use the VM370 revenue to underwrite ISPF development, maintenance,
and service costs (and charge a price that customers would be willing to
pay).
some past post about using VM370 to fund MVS products
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003k.html#0 VSPC
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#42 misc. dmksnt
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#26 Moribund TSO/E
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#43 Sequence Numbbers in Location 73-80
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005t.html#40 FULIST
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#21 Source maintenance was Re: SEQUENCE NUMBERS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#13 What part of z/OS is the OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#14 ISPF not productive
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#44 1960s: IBM mgmt mistrust of SLT for ICs?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007i.html#82 Interrupts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007o.html#41 Virtual Storage implementation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#40 Why isn't OMVS command integrated with ISPF?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#42 What do YOU call the # sign?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#59 ISPF Counter
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009s.html#46 DEC-10 SOS Editor Intra-Line Editing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#6 Call for XEDIT freaks, submit ISPF requirements
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#50 Call for XEDIT freaks, submit ISPF requirements
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#84 Set numbers off permanently
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#95 VM IS DEAD
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#62 Do you remember back to June 23, 1969 when IBM unbundled
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#20 3270 archaeology
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#84 Is there an SPF setting to turn CAPS ON like keyboard key?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#106 SPF in 1978
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#85 The PC industry is heading for collapse
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#19 Writing article on telework/telecommuting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#20 Writing article on telework/telecommuting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#63 Typeface (font) and city identity
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#53 Image if someone built a general-menu-system
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#33 Using NOTE and POINT simulation macros on CMS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#64 Should you support or abandon the 3270 as a User Interface?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#26 New HD
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#84 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#36 The Subroutine Call
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#27 Unbuffered glass TTYs?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#41 System Response
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#89 Real Programmers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014h.html#103 TSO Test does not support 65-bit debugging?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014h.html#107 CMS Editors was TSO Test does not support 65-bit debugging?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014j.html#25 another question about TSO edit command
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014l.html#48 IBM 'major announcement' points to deal on chip manufacturing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#87 a bit of hope? What was old is new again
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#33 Remember 3277?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017c.html#2 ISPF (was Fujitsu Mainframe Vs IBM mainframe)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017g.html#34 Programmers Who Use Spaces Paid More
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352746 is a reply to message #352737] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 02:50 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I've seen it drop from roughly five secretaries serving seventy people
> down to one secretary serving one-hundred-forty people, thanks to
> computers:
>
> . Voice mail on telephones eliminates the need for a sectary to take
> messages.
>
> . Email eliminates the need for a secretary to type memos and mail.
> The added sophistication of email (inclusion of various attachments
> from different sources) means paper mail has declined.
>
> . Automatic timesheet data entry by staff eliminates the need for
> secretaries to handle time reporting.
>
> . The overall reduction of paper usage in favor of computerization
> means less office supplies, less photocopying, less filing, etc,
> all of which were done by a secretary.
>
> . The web allows staff to make their own appointments for training,
> travel, or other business that used to be handled by the secretary.
>
> . A secretary used to receive the tech-manual updates and file them
> in the binders. Most manuals are online now.
>
> . Staff does their own typing via word processing or spreadsheets,
> including writing of user instructions and documentation. That used
> to be typed by the secretary.
>
> I'm sure others could recall tasks once done by a secretary that they
> either now do themselves or no longer have to do.
Secretaries used to carry a lot of knowledge about how to get
things done and where things were, they were in some ways like sergeants in
the army they get things done - this has been replaced in many places by
asking at random until you find someone who knows, and in others by someone
who is not called a secretary, usually an 'office facilitator' or some such.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352747 is a reply to message #352707] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 03:13 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:25:54 PM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <> writes:
>>
>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>
>> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
>> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
>> hard. :-\
>
> For whatever reason(s), everyday people did not take to using command
> lines while using a computer. Even in PC-DOS days, menus were quite
> popular as opposed to entering a command at the C:\> prompt.
Which led to the invention of "screensavers" because the menus got
burned into the phosphors. But back then, hackers spoke scornfully of
"menu-driven software".
> But, like it or not, when the GUI came out, people loved it.
Very true. I recal Windoes 3.1 users speak of the happily forgotten
bad old days with "D-I-R and all that stuff".
> While BBSing and Usenet are pretty much the same as Facebook/Myspace,
> BBS's and Usenet never had Facebook's popularity. I submit the
> Facebook user interface made it attractive.
It's interesting to reflect on why that is, just what cognitive
habits, structures, presets or whatever it is that makes that so for a
predominant tranche of users. Never even looked at FB but I dislike
most of the interacvtive web interfaces I have used.
OTOH, I suppose that companies like FB & Google have whole gaggles of
people whose task it is, not to figure out *why* that's so but rather
determine just *how* it is so in detail, and then exploit it to suck
in more eyeballs, keep them longer and hasten their return when they
do leave. Sort of like: Don't care *why* lemmings do their thing,
just want to exploit whatever it is to increase the number that run
over the cliff into the sea.
> Personally, I like and still use the Commnad Prompt. But I'm an
> "old world" programmer, used to command lines from my Teletype days.
Excepting very brief encounters in the 60s, I only got into computers
in middle age but I still tend to use the command line for many
things. It's often easier to do something from the command line than
to go learn the idiosyncratic way that some biggish program does it.
Given 90 files named shot00nn.jpg saved by my microscope cam, I suppose
that a file manager, such as DIRED in Emacs, can bulk rename them
somehow but, knowing the shell a bit, it's easier to do:
bogus% foreach foo (shot00*.jpg)
bogus% mv $foo `echo $foo | sed -e 's/shot00/green-bug-/'`
bogus% end
than to learn just how, if at all, the file manager would do it.
(Yeah, yeah, I know: C shell, not sh. So I'm a heretic. :-)
> Actually, when I compare the 3270 "green on glass" screens we used
> to make against a GUI screen of today, I must admit the GUI is
> superior.
I would truly hate to give up the X windowing system even though I do
lots of command line stuff within it. And for stuff like image
editing, a GUI like GIMP beats command line tools like NetPBM 8 times
out of 10. I suppose the same is even more true for audo/video
editing.
> Some editing is done instantly by the terminal itself, such as date fields.
> The user doesn't need a reference card filled with codes as much--drop
> down menus provide them (such as the postal state code). The screen could
> have a built in help function to explain the definition of a field.
> Colors and variable typefaces, including bold, help explain the screen,
> such as highlighting missing or erroneous fields.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352749 is a reply to message #352707] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 03:02 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> For whatever reason(s), everyday people did not take to using command
> lines while using a computer. Even in PC-DOS days, menus were quite
> popular as opposed to entering a command at the C:\> prompt. But,
> like it or not, when the GUI came out, people loved it.
In text mode days (PC-DOS and earlier) as now most people did not
use computers, they used applications as part of their work. Then they
generally only wanted to use the tools they needed (to write letters,
process orders, record incidents, publish articles or whatever). Providing
them with an interface that only permitted them to do what they needed to
do, and made that dead easy, kept them out of trouble and productive. We
called it turnkey - converting a general purpose computer into a set of
special purpose tools.
Attempting to expand that turnkey approach to a general purpose
computer has so far resulted in systems that are neither safe nor efficient
in use.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352755 is a reply to message #352747] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 05:07 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18 Sep 2017 04:13:41 -0300
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> bogus% foreach foo (shot00*.jpg)
> bogus% mv $foo `echo $foo | sed -e 's/shot00/green-bug-/'`
> bogus% end
The TORCH version of pip could do this sort of thing thanks to
Dave Oliver's clever code:
PIP GRNBUG*.JPG=SHOT00*.JPG
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352757 is a reply to message #352755] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 05:52 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:07:44 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2017 04:13:41 -0300 Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
> wrote:
>
>> bogus% foreach foo (shot00*.jpg)
>> bogus% mv $foo `echo $foo | sed -e 's/shot00/green-bug-/'`
>> bogus% end
I'm a csh fan too (always have been), but as an interactive shell, not
for scripts! (for that it's bash or, mostly, REXX)
> The TORCH version of pip could do this sort of thing thanks to
> Dave Oliver's clever code:
>
> PIP GRNBUG*.JPG=SHOT00*.JPG
I have seen DEC versions of PIP that could do that.
On UNIX systems I like 'renamex'.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352778 is a reply to message #352728] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 09:54 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 9/17/2017 8:35 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
>> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
>> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn
>> Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
>>
>
> That's how I got started in Unix... "think or thwim"... and picking up
> the "how to" from man pages. Of course I had used other interactive
> OS's before.
>
> But starting in the late 1980's, there began appearing beginner books on
> Unix. O'Reilly published a lot of books on Unix programs like make and vi.
>
>
I have quite a few beginner books. they're not aimed at computer owners
(who also happen to be users).
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352779 is a reply to message #352680] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 09:54 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:35:38 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority of
>> people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing as
>> keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn Unix
>> interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
>
> If you're talking about UNIX, I run a course!
>
> I do a long bit on history, and a shorter single lecture on the
> philosophy. The rest of it is all practical.
>
> The stuff can be found at http://unixhistory.tavi.co.uk
Kewl. England does have a reputation of being more civilized ;-).
Who can take the course? If a prerequisite is entry to a
university, then the "regular" computer owners won't be able
to take it.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352781 is a reply to message #352721] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 09:54 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
William Pechter wrote:
> In article <PM000559628D9137D2@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>> On 16 Sep, in article
>>> <87y3pexdqr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>>> mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>>> > dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>>> > it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>>> > convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>>> > a dozen keystrokes.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but the pointing & clicking stuff is like shopping and the
>>>> keyboard strokes are like language. And yew kno, language is
>>>> hard. :-\
>>>
>>> Just so. Why bother to learn to speak a language when you can get what
>>> you want by pointing, grunting and pulling faces? It's so much
>>> *easier* (in the short term).
>>>
>>> The trouble is that many people can't get past this short-term mindset:
>>> it's quicker and easier *right now* to do something the simple,
>>> unthinking but inefficient way they already know than to invest the time
>>> to do it properly[0], and this remains true every time they need to
>>> perform the same task. They never make the investment, so never get the
>>> return.
>>>
>>> Sometimes they may even acknowledge that it would have been better to
>>> have made the investment in the past, which would have meant that doing
>>> the task now would have been trivial, but right now they just need to
>>> get it done, so shut up and stop bothering them with your attempts to
>>> make their lives easier.
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] learning to use the right tool; learning how to use the tool they're
>>> already using in a more efficient way; writing a scipt to automate a
>>> manual process; etc.
>>
>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
>> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
>> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn
>> Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>
> I beg to differ. Never was an expert in Unix when I began doing System
> 5 Rel 1 admin (Xelos on Perkin-Elmer/Concurrent). Was barely a user
> with three or for pages ahead of my daily grind using Kochan and Wood's
> book on Shell programing. Also used Exploring the Unix System...
>
> This was back in the late '80s.
>
> All you have to do is be willing to trash the machine and lose your job.
> I was going to be out of my old job if I didn't move to the Unix
> Admin job so there was nothing to lose.
Exactly. Most of the people we've been talking about are scared to death
of trashing their system because they don't have the expertise of
Unix system management and there's noone to help if something goes wrong.
These people take what they're given when they buy their machine because
it ain't broke...yet.
>
> Made a career out of it and even moved to doing Sysadmin training for a
living.
> The thing stopping you is the unwillingness to take the risk.
>
> As far as classes and User groups... there's one I am speaking at next
Month...
> I've done it at least 4-6 times per year.
>
> I was doing Unix Operator, Sysadmin and User courses for a living back in
the
> day but companies have cut the training and a lot of the stuff is up on
> You Tube for free...
I haven't found any user group of anything in my area.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352782 is a reply to message #352720] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 09:54 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
William Pechter wrote:
> In article <PM00055962951E2EBC@aca40e5d.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2017 11:05 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-16, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Nobody cares about doing things right, or being secure: they just want
>>>> > maximum convenience for them, and if that makes things inconvenient for
>>>> > someone else, it's that person's fault for not fitting in with the norm.
>>>>
>>>> s/convenience/perceived convenience/
>>>>
>>>> I've seen people pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking and
>>>> dragging and dropping (and looking for where they accidentally dropped
>>>> it and dragging it again), while all the while going on about how
>>>> convenient it is - when I could accomplish the same thing in half
>>>> a dozen keystrokes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's more convenient for *stupid* people who can *not* learn those few
>>> keystrokes... it's ver sad...
>>>
>> That's the exception. Unfortunately, MS and Apple has made the exception
>> to be the rule.
>>
>> I have known no secretaries who have been *stupid*. They're so busy,
>> they would welcome shortcuts.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Except in most places I've worked in the past 20 years the Secretary/Admin
> Assistant to staff ratio has gone down. We had one in Bell Labs for
> about 5 managers and 30 staff members.
>
> Downsizing happens everywhere except management.
DEC's secretaries were the backbone of DEC. The only stupid ones were
temps who didn't give a shit about doing a good job and they didn't last
very long.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352783 is a reply to message #352746] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 09:54 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> I've seen it drop from roughly five secretaries serving seventy people
>> down to one secretary serving one-hundred-forty people, thanks to
>> computers:
>>
>> . Voice mail on telephones eliminates the need for a sectary to take
>> messages.
>>
>> . Email eliminates the need for a secretary to type memos and mail.
>> The added sophistication of email (inclusion of various attachments
>> from different sources) means paper mail has declined.
>>
>> . Automatic timesheet data entry by staff eliminates the need for
>> secretaries to handle time reporting.
>>
>> . The overall reduction of paper usage in favor of computerization
>> means less office supplies, less photocopying, less filing, etc,
>> all of which were done by a secretary.
>>
>> . The web allows staff to make their own appointments for training,
>> travel, or other business that used to be handled by the secretary.
>>
>> . A secretary used to receive the tech-manual updates and file them
>> in the binders. Most manuals are online now.
>>
>> . Staff does their own typing via word processing or spreadsheets,
>> including writing of user instructions and documentation. That used
>> to be typed by the secretary.
>>
>> I'm sure others could recall tasks once done by a secretary that they
>> either now do themselves or no longer have to do.
>
> Secretaries used to carry a lot of knowledge about how to get
> things done and where things were, they were in some ways like sergeants in
> the army they get things done - this has been replaced in many places by
> asking at random until you find someone who knows, and in others by someone
> who is not called a secretary, usually an 'office facilitator' or some such.
YES!! If they didn't know, they knew who to ask. I often went to mine
to say, "who do I ask about x" and they had an immediate answer or knew
the secretary who could answer the question. They also knew how to bend
the rules to get something done; this is the something which hadn't existed
befroe so new kinds of procedures or rules would need to be established
if the something became the norm.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: progress in e-mail, such as AOL [message #352785 is a reply to message #352779] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 10:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:54:10 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:35:38 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> And how are people supposed to learn? I've found no "getting started"
>>> books. There are no classes nor user groups to attend. The majority
>>> of people have been "trained" using Windows and there is no such thing
>>> as keystroke short cuts to do the "easy" things. Before one can learn
>>> Unix interfaces, one has to be an expert in Unix.
>>
>> If you're talking about UNIX, I run a course!
>>
>> I do a long bit on history, and a shorter single lecture on the
>> philosophy. The rest of it is all practical.
>>
>> The stuff can be found at http://unixhistory.tavi.co.uk
>
> Kewl. England does have a reputation of being more civilized ;-).
>
> Who can take the course? If a prerequisite is entry to a university,
> then the "regular" computer owners won't be able to take it.
Grab the stuff and just do it. It's all there.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
