Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:54:59 -0700 From: Henrik W Lund <henrik.w.lund@broadpark.no> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [OT] QWERTY key layout (was Re: BigApache for Windows - Whydoesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???) Message-ID: <410DE543.2080105@broadpark.no> In-Reply-To: <20040801113928.0af56321.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <20040801111805.3398.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com> <410D7E99.7080705@broadpark.no> <20040801151345.GB30653@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <20040801113928.0af56321.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Moran wrote: >Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 04:36:57PM -0700, Henrik W Lund wrote: >> >> >> >>>The command to use is umount, not unmount. >>> >>>umount /cdrom >>> >>>Don't ask me why they left out the first 'n' there. >>> >>> >>Because typing the sequence u-n-m at speed is really quite difficult. >> >>It's also the reason that it's perl and not pearl. >> >>Same as it's hard to type t-h-e correctly all teh time, nad typing >>a-n-d is a bit of a pain too. Anyone would think that the qwerty >>keyboard layout was designed to slow down your typing speed... >> >> > >I don't remember where, but I read somewhere that the qwerty layout >was not designed for raw speed (as some people think) but was designed >for speed on _mechanical_ typewriters. i.e. part of it's design is >to maximize the possibility that you'll alternate left-hand/right-hand, >thus minimizing the possibility that the hammers that fly up and strike >the paper won't jam. (probably most of you have never used a truely >_manual_ typewriter, and thus don't understand the mechanics ... >manual typewriters use hammers, much like a piano, that have the embossed >letters on them, and you have to hit the key hard enough to cause the >hammer to fly up and strike through the ink ribbon and put the image of >the letter on the paper. You also had the possibility that if you tried >to type too fast, the next hammer would hit the first hammer as it was >on its way down, thus jamming the typewriter and requiring you to stick >your hand in the mechanism and unjam it, which meant you probably got >ink on your hands ... _unlike_ a piano, all the hammers with the letters >on them were angled to strike the ribbon/paper at exactly the same >location, thus the possibility of collission was very high.) > >Anyway ... the fact that the qwerty layout was adopted for electric >typerwriters, and later keyboards that don't have the same restrictions as >manual typewriters is an unfortunate consequence of "let's use something >that everyone already knows." It would have been better if the folks who >developed the electric typewriter had used the Dvorak layout, but it's >unlikely at this point that the world will switch. > >If you've never seen a mechanical typewriter, it's an interesting history >lesson. It will explain a lot about why the keyboards we use today function >they way they do. Just wait until you learn how the SHIFT key used to >function! ... I wonder if I still have that old cheapo typerwriter in >the attic somewhere ... > > > I remember those!! I used to love hammering as many keys at the same time as I could. My parents would spend ages "unjamming" it afterwards. :-D -Henrik W Lund
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?410DE543.2080105>