To help others in this quest, while hoping _not_ to offend the
salted-guru's on the list for whom this may be obvious and , finally,
.... as a reminder to myself in the future.

To get the HOME key to go 'home'(beginning-of-line) and the END key to
go to the 'end'(end-of-line) while using rxvt after a 'stock' install
of Slackware 10.1:

Add the following to your /etc/inputrc

# Home Key
"\e[7~":beginning-of-line

# End Key
"\e[8~":end-of-line


If any fellow Slacker's know why this is not the default, as I very
much trust the judgement of "The Man", please pray-tell !!

"nixster" <ckrainey@gmail.com> wrote:
>To help others in this quest, while hoping _not_ to offend the
>salted-guru's on the list for whom this may be obvious and , finally,
>... as a reminder to myself in the future.
>
>To get the HOME key to go 'home'(beginning-of-line) and the END key to
>go to the 'end'(end-of-line) while using rxvt after a 'stock' install
>of Slackware 10.1:
>
>Add the following to your /etc/inputrc
>
># Home Key
>"\e[7~":beginning-of-line
>
># End Key
>"\e[8~":end-of-line
>
>If any fellow Slacker's know why this is not the default, as I very
>much trust the judgement of "The Man", please pray-tell !!

I really can't let this go by without any comment at all...

First, those aren't the standard definitions for the Home and
End keys that *my* system uses... I don't know just how much
variation there is, but clearly the keybindings suggested are
not always going to be correct.

On both my desktop and my laptop, the Home key is "\e[1~" and
the End key is "\e[4~" for the virtual consoles, but "\e[H" and
"\e[F" respectively for X.

Second, why would anyone expect a Home key to go to the head of
a line? I've got a default ~/.inputrc file from somewhere, and
it began life with the virtual console code bound as suggested
above, but apparently I did the reasonable thing and commented
them out (or maybe the file came that way, I don't remember).

I realize that there are some very popular systems out there
with some very poorly designed interfaces, and I guess that
comes from one of them. I recently saw someone complain about
the default key bindings for Emacs not also using Home and End
keys for the same commands (as opposed to beginning-of-buffer
and end-of-buffer), and the very idea of changing a very old and
very well established, not to mention well thought out,
interface to match a very poor system, just wasn't funny.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> I realize that there are some very popular systems out there
> with some very poorly designed interfaces, and I guess that
> comes from one of them. I recently saw someone complain about
> the default key bindings for Emacs not also using Home and End
> keys for the same commands (as opposed to beginning-of-buffer
> and end-of-buffer), and the very idea of changing a very old and
> very well established, not to mention well thought out,
> interface to match a very poor system, just wasn't funny.
>

at work when we replaced our DEC VT terminals with PCs and Thin Clients
there were people who were upset that the home/delete/pageup/pagedown
didn't match the old VT keyboard. In the end the users adjusted, but
there was discussion of remapping the keyboard to fit what they were
used to and not what the letters on the keyboard said...
(I watched that one from afar... I'm just the tech... I don't make the
rules...)


Ray

ray <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> I realize that there are some very popular systems out there
>> with some very poorly designed interfaces, and I guess that
>> comes from one of them. I recently saw someone complain about
>> the default key bindings for Emacs not also using Home and End
>> keys for the same commands (as opposed to beginning-of-buffer
>> and end-of-buffer), and the very idea of changing a very old and
>> very well established, not to mention well thought out,
>> interface to match a very poor system, just wasn't funny.
>>
>
>at work when we replaced our DEC VT terminals with PCs and Thin
>Clients there were people who were upset that the
>home/delete/pageup/pagedown didn't match the old VT keyboard.
>In the end the users adjusted, but there was discussion of
>remapping the keyboard to fit what they were used to and not
>what the letters on the keyboard said...
>(I watched that one from afar... I'm just the tech... I don't
>make the rules...)
>

Ain't it a hoot.

When telephone switches became computers (which the people who
operated them did *not* realize), test board technicians went
from standing at a jack field test position, to sitting at a
vt100 terminal. Some of them revolted.

We kept a poster tacked up on a bulletin board for over 15 years
that I knew of (it might even still be there now, over 20 years
later), because it just sooooo reminded us of one of our
collegues. A picture of a bear, sitting on a stool with a fist
right through a terminal screen.

Oh, he cussed that VT100. But a dozen years later they took it
away and gave him a pretty nice computer with a chicklet keyboard!

Oh, he cussed that computer keyboard, and whined for his VT100!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Floyd L. Davidson dared to utter,
> why would anyone expect a Home key to go to the head of
> a line?

Because that's the way the majority of people expect them to work now.
OS X still does the "home goes to begining of document, end goes to end
of document" and even after using it for a couple years I still find
myself occasionally hitting those keys when I want to move to the
begining or end of a line, and rarely ever do I use them to move to the
beginning or end of a document.

> I realize that there are some very popular systems out there
> with some very poorly designed interfaces, and I guess that
> comes from one of them.

I don't think it's really fair to state the idea of this "new" action
on the Home and End keys comes from poorly designed UI. Perhaps the
older way is the poor UI?

> I recently saw someone complain about
> the default key bindings for Emacs not also using Home and End
> keys for the same commands (as opposed to beginning-of-buffer
> and end-of-buffer), and the very idea of changing a very old and
> very well established, not to mention well thought out,
> interface to match a very poor system, just wasn't funny.

Again, 95%[0] of computer users expect End to move to the end of the
line and Home to move to the begining of the line. To do it any other
way would aggrivate a much larger portion of your users. So why should
they stick with a very old way that few people use anymore, frustrating
the majority of users, when they can make the default way the way the
majority of people expect it to be and only frustrate a small minority?
Contrary to being a bad thing, I think this reeks of good common sense.
Besides, most anyone who remembers the old way has been using computers
long enough to fix it on their own.[1]

[0] Random statistic pulled out of my ass to mean the vast majority of
people, and I have no empirical way of backing this up.
[1] Again, a conjecture of mine that I cannot empirically back up. Take
it with a grain of salt.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCqfptzLTO1iU1uO4RAraBAJ9OBMcgEKnd4wRUFobQTf h6/uDF8QCg40sX
1obKoJ+rY5acfVClKkmNbRw=
=798R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK> wrote:
>In alt.os.linux.slackware, Floyd L. Davidson dared to utter,
>> why would anyone expect a Home key to go to the head of
>> a line?
>
>Because that's the way the majority of people expect them to work now.

What the "majority of people expect" is, as I noted previously,
*not* a valid argument.

>OS X still does the "home goes to begining of document, end goes to end
>of document" and even after using it for a couple years I still find
>myself occasionally hitting those keys when I want to move to the
>begining or end of a line, and rarely ever do I use them to move to the
>beginning or end of a document.

Okay, so you've wasted much of your youth in a pool hall, or
whatever.

I could care less what kinds of bad habits you've picked up
while slumming!

>> I realize that there are some very popular systems out there
>> with some very poorly designed interfaces, and I guess that
>> comes from one of them.
>
>I don't think it's really fair to state the idea of this "new" action
>on the Home and End keys comes from poorly designed UI. Perhaps the
>older way is the poor UI?

The poorly thought out interface we are referencing is good just
because you, and others, learned it? It was thrown together
without enough thought, and it sucks!

>> I recently saw someone complain about
>> the default key bindings for Emacs not also using Home and End
>> keys for the same commands (as opposed to beginning-of-buffer
>> and end-of-buffer), and the very idea of changing a very old and
>> very well established, not to mention well thought out,
>> interface to match a very poor system, just wasn't funny.
>
>Again, 95%[0] of computer users expect End to move to the end of the
>line and Home to move to the begining of the line.

They have a *lot* of silly ideas from Redmond. They think
paragraphs should be formatted by the reader rather than the
writer. That's absurdly foolish. They think it's okay for
software to crash with regularity. Equally foolish. They think
that security doesn't count. Absurdly foolish.

And they have simply goofy ideas about key bindings.

>To do it any other
>way would aggrivate a much larger portion of your users. So why should
>they stick with a very old way that few people use anymore, frustrating

Because it *works better*.

>the majority of users, when they can make the default way the way the
>majority of people expect it to be and only frustrate a small minority?
>Contrary to being a bad thing, I think this reeks of good common sense.
>Besides, most anyone who remembers the old way has been using computers
>long enough to fix it on their own.[1]
>
>[0] Random statistic pulled out of my ass to mean the vast majority of
>people, and I have no empirical way of backing this up.
>[1] Again, a conjecture of mine that I cannot empirically back up. Take
>it with a grain of salt.

Foolishness.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Floyd L. Davidson dared to utter,
> What the "majority of people expect" is, as I noted previously,
> *not* a valid argument.

On the contrary, I think it is. Whether or not it is ideal is often
immaterial. Often one must compromise and make concessions to get
anywhere.

> Okay, so you've wasted much of your youth in a pool hall, or
> whatever.
>
> I could care less what kinds of bad habits you've picked up
> while slumming!

Ah, the legendary Floyd Davidson! How ever shall I compete with your
scathingly correct analysis of my wasted youth? For your information
my youth is not yet over and I do not waste it unlike many, and I do
not go "slumming". Just because some one was born far later than you
in life and did not discover computers until much later does not
justify such unfounded and dimwitted attacks. In fact, it does not
even necessarily make you correct in any argument you engage in with us
"lesser beings". Some one's disagreement with you (and indeed I did
not even necessarily disagree, just raised a few points for thought)
does not equal a personal attack on you and is not worthy of such
attacks in defense. Really, some one of your years should know this by
now.

>>I don't think it's really fair to state the idea of this "new" action
>>on the Home and End keys comes from poorly designed UI. Perhaps the
>>older way is the poor UI?
>
> The poorly thought out interface we are referencing is good just
> because you, and others, learned it? It was thrown together
> without enough thought, and it sucks!

Again, I did not say which was better or worse, simply raised a point
for consideration and the best you can come up with is a "they weren't
thinking and what they did sucks". If you're going to dismiss a line
of thought out of hand at least show some basis for your analysis.
Perhaps you simply think your preference for the behavior of these keys
is the better interface just because you learned it.

>>Again, 95%[0] of computer users expect End to move to the end of the
>>line and Home to move to the begining of the line.
>
> They have a *lot* of silly ideas from Redmond. They think
> paragraphs should be formatted by the reader rather than the
> writer. That's absurdly foolish. They think it's okay for
> software to crash with regularity. Equally foolish. They think
> that security doesn't count. Absurdly foolish.

Well frankly I would rather manually format my paragraphs but that's
just me. I'm with you pretty much everywhere else. Of course, I could
argue that most people using emacs aren't going to assume that software
will regularly crash or security doesn't count, but why divergs
off-topic?

>>To do it any other
>>way would aggrivate a much larger portion of your users. So why should
>>they stick with a very old way that few people use anymore, frustrating
>
> Because it *works better*.

Not if no one uses it. And again, "works better" is an opinion, not a
fact. What you may feel works better for you may not be shared by
others using the same programs, and that's ok.

>>the majority of users, when they can make the default way the way the
>>majority of people expect it to be and only frustrate a small minority?
>>Contrary to being a bad thing, I think this reeks of good common sense.
>>Besides, most anyone who remembers the old way has been using computers
>>long enough to fix it on their own.[1]
>>
>>[0] Random statistic pulled out of my ass to mean the vast majority of
>>people, and I have no empirical way of backing this up.
>>[1] Again, a conjecture of mine that I cannot empirically back up. Take
>>it with a grain of salt.
>
> Foolishness.

Again, more "I'm right and you're wrong and you shouldn't even dare to
think otherwise". Please Floyd, you can do better than that. Why is
it you like the old method of Home and End more? And please, none of
this "it's better because that's the way old UNIX did it and if you
didn't use old UNIX you're a stupid noob not fix to kiss my dirty
feet".

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCqh7gzLTO1iU1uO4RAgFXAJ4mVfHvDOS+V9Fj8VLgiD SiEacOLACdGiZI
XkRXH/lCxH/NW8KxOGclZr0=
=dkZY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.network> trolled:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

Could you please stop impersonating the _real_ Alan Hicks?

Thank you.

cordially, as always,

rm
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

_.-In alt.os.linux.slackware, +Alan Hicks+ wrote the following -._
> Because that's the way the majority of people expect them to work now.
> OS X still does the "home goes to begining of document, end goes to end
> of document" and even after using it for a couple years I still find
> myself occasionally hitting those keys when I want to move to the
> begining or end of a line, and rarely ever do I use them to move to the
> beginning or end of a document.

It is contextual. In a static document (pdf, html web page) end takes
you to end of doc. Which is logical. and Home makes a likewise
logical move. An editor that takes you to end of doc via End is not
very well designed.

- --
.-')) fauxascii.com ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCqvjESJec2PH9pbURAjnYAJ9z8eY3qyQkDsTDO348ZH agDCF9YACeOSZH
Vla0K+SLH3X3caKV6gF/0aM=
=cUc3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Faux_Pseudo dared to utter,
> It is contextual. In a static document (pdf, html web page) end takes
> you to end of doc. Which is logical. and Home makes a likewise
> logical move. An editor that takes you to end of doc via End is not
> very well designed.

Thank you. That is a good logical reason why the End and Home keys
should move to the end and begining of a document. That I can agree
with, though I'm not going to bitch everytime I see a program that
doesn't behave that way.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCqxC0zLTO1iU1uO4RAiYfAJ4/kKiK7tCWEJg+sq49H38y4c/cgACgyQiv
lRSroHYsV6b06U+1mzB8kB0=
=EPuN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----