Greetings my fellow Fedorans! I have a question / puzzle that I can't seem to fix. Ok soooo
I am using a Lenovo ThinkCenter M-83 / 32GB RAM / 500GB SSD Installed a fresh copy of Fedora 34 on it and the install and initial setup went without a hitch. I have failing eyes, and I prefer certain fonts when I use the various apps and programs, to help my vision. I have opened the Terminal and have tried to change the font to something, ANYTHING "bold"?....but there's no bold fonts options. there's the Sans and Monospace, but no Monospace "Bold". I've tried installing the font, but even though it appears as an option with Gnome Tweaks?...and I've set it there?...when I open the Terminal it STILL doesn't have any bold options!! I've even made sure to install the RPM Fusion repos in the hopes that they're in there, but nothing. Is there something that I need to do to get the Monospace Bold Font back? I know its there in F33 (on my Dell XPS running Fedora 33) so what happened?...is there no longer a way to get that font?..or am I just losing brain cells? Did I miss something? Any help would be greatly appreciated, and thank you all in advance!!
Cheers!
EGO II
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 04:22:05AM -0400, Eddie O'Connor wrote:
I use the various apps and programs, to help my vision. I have opened the Terminal and have tried to change the font to something, ANYTHING "bold"?....but there's no bold fonts options. there's the Sans and Monospace, but no Monospace "Bold". I've tried installing the font, but even though it appears as an option with Gnome Tweaks?...and I've set it
The GUI in terminal looks like it just shows the regular version of monospace fonts as options. That's probably the right thing in most circumstances. However, I looked with dconf, the GNOME configuration editor GUI, and found in org.gnome.Terminal.Legacy.profiles and then down in the actual profile a "font" setting which says "A Pango font name and size", and you can just edit that to something like JetBrains Mono Bold 15" or whatever and that seems to work just fine.
there?...when I open the Terminal it STILL doesn't have any bold options!! I've even made sure to install the RPM Fusion repos in the hopes that they're in there, but nothing. Is there something that I need to do to get the Monospace Bold Font back? I know its there in F33 (on my Dell XPS running Fedora 33) so what happened?...is there no longer a way to get that font?..or am I just losing brain cells? Did I miss something? Any help would be greatly appreciated, and thank you all in advance!!
Cheers!
EGO II
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On 24/05/2021 05:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 04:22:05AM -0400, Eddie O'Connor wrote:
I use the various apps and programs, to help my vision. I have opened the Terminal and have tried to change the font to something, ANYTHING "bold"?....but there's no bold fonts options. there's the Sans and Monospace, but no Monospace "Bold". I've tried installing the font, but even though it appears as an option with Gnome Tweaks?...and I've set it
The GUI in terminal looks like it just shows the regular version of monospace fonts as options. That's probably the right thing in most circumstances. However, I looked with dconf, the GNOME configuration editor GUI, and found in org.gnome.Terminal.Legacy.profiles and then down in the actual profile a "font" setting which says "A Pango font name and size", and you can just edit that to something like JetBrains Mono Bold 15" or whatever and that seems to work just fine.
Well, I'm not a regular GNOME user. But I followed this procedure.
In this way....
[egreshko@f34g ~]$ dconf dump /org/gnome/terminal/legacy/[profiles:/:b1dcc9dd-5262-4d8d-a863-c897e6d979b9] font='DejaVu Sans Mono 12' use-system-font=false visible-name='My Default'
[egreshko@f34g ~]$ dconf write /org/gnome/terminal/legacy/profiles:/:b1dcc9dd-5262-4d8d-a863-c897e6d979b9/font "'Monospace Bold 20'"
And, while it "took", there was no "bold" text shown. Meaning, there was no difference between
Monospace Bold 20 and Monospace 20
FWIW, it would seem that the Bold selection was removed sometime after version 3.36. My F32 VM has the ability and I can see the difference if I perform the same functions on it.
gnome-terminal-3.36.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64
Thanks you guys!!....found the files mentioned (~Legacy.Profiles)....made the changes as recommended, and now it works.
Interesting tho'.....that something like that would be "removed"....been using Fedora for a long time, and it was always "just there"...hopefully?...it will come back in future releases? I mean....I know I'm nitpicking? but when you have to stare at Terminals all day, you'd at LEAST want it to be "easy-to-read"! Right?
Cheers!
EGO II
On Sun, May 23, 2021, 7:33 PM Ed Greshko ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
On 24/05/2021 05:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 04:22:05AM -0400, Eddie O'Connor wrote:
I use the various apps and programs, to help my vision. I have opened
the
Terminal and have tried to change the font to something, ANYTHING "bold"?....but there's no bold fonts options. there's the Sans and Monospace, but no Monospace "Bold". I've tried installing the font, but even though it appears as an option with Gnome Tweaks?...and I've set it
The GUI in terminal looks like it just shows the regular version of monospace fonts as options. That's probably the right thing in most circumstances. However, I looked with dconf, the GNOME configuration
editor
GUI, and found in org.gnome.Terminal.Legacy.profiles and then down in the actual profile a "font" setting which says "A Pango font name and size",
and
you can just edit that to something like JetBrains Mono Bold 15" or
whatever
and that seems to work just fine.
Well, I'm not a regular GNOME user. But I followed this procedure.
In this way....
[egreshko@f34g ~]$ dconf dump /org/gnome/terminal/legacy/[profiles:/:b1dcc9dd-5262-4d8d-a863-c897e6d979b9] font='DejaVu Sans Mono 12' use-system-font=false visible-name='My Default'
[egreshko@f34g ~]$ dconf write /org/gnome/terminal/legacy/profiles:/:b1dcc9dd-5262-4d8d-a863-c897e6d979b9/font "'Monospace Bold 20'"
And, while it "took", there was no "bold" text shown. Meaning, there was no difference between
Monospace Bold 20 and Monospace 20
FWIW, it would seem that the Bold selection was removed sometime after version 3.36. My F32 VM has the ability and I can see the difference if I perform the same functions on it.
gnome-terminal-3.36.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64
-- Remind me to ignore comments which aren't germane to the thread.
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On 24/05/2021 21:50, Eddie O'Connor wrote:
Thanks you guys!!....found the files mentioned (~Legacy.Profiles)....made the changes as recommended, and now it works.
That's interesting that you find it works for you.
What font did you pick? I ask that since when I picked Monospace Bold there was no discernible difference between that and just Monospace.
Interesting tho'.....that something like that would be "removed"....been using Fedora for a long time, and it was always "just there"...hopefully?...it will come back in future releases? I mean....I know I'm nitpicking? but when you have to stare at Terminals all day, you'd at LEAST want it to be "easy-to-read"! Right?
Cheers!
EGO II
On Sun, May 23, 2021, 7:33 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko@greshko.com mailto:ed.greshko@greshko.com> wrote:
On 24/05/2021 05:42, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 04:22:05AM -0400, Eddie O'Connor wrote: >> I use the various apps and programs, to help my vision. I have opened the >> Terminal and have tried to change the font to something, ANYTHING >> "bold"?....but there's no bold fonts options. there's the Sans and >> Monospace, but no Monospace "Bold". I've tried installing the font, but >> even though it appears as an option with Gnome Tweaks?...and I've set it > The GUI in terminal looks like it just shows the regular version of > monospace fonts as options. That's probably the right thing in most > circumstances. However, I looked with dconf, the GNOME configuration editor > GUI, and found in org.gnome.Terminal.Legacy.profiles and then down in the > actual profile a "font" setting which says "A Pango font name and size", and > you can just edit that to something like JetBrains Mono Bold 15" or whatever > and that seems to work just fine. > Well, I'm not a regular GNOME user. But I followed this procedure. https://hev.cc/3017.html <https://hev.cc/3017.html> In this way.... [egreshko@f34g ~]$ dconf dump /org/gnome/terminal/legacy/[profiles:/:b1dcc9dd-5262-4d8d-a863-c897e6d979b9] font='DejaVu Sans Mono 12' use-system-font=false visible-name='My Default' [egreshko@f34g ~]$ dconf write /org/gnome/terminal/legacy/profiles:/:b1dcc9dd-5262-4d8d-a863-c897e6d979b9/font "'Monospace Bold 20'" And, while it "took", there was no "bold" text shown. Meaning, there was no difference between Monospace Bold 20 and Monospace 20 FWIW, it would seem that the Bold selection was removed sometime after version 3.36. My F32 VM has the ability and I can see the difference if I perform the same functions on it. gnome-terminal-3.36.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:13:03PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Thanks you guys!!....found the files mentioned (~Legacy.Profiles)....made the changes as recommended, and now it works.
That's interesting that you find it works for you.
What font did you pick? I ask that since when I picked Monospace Bold there was no discernible difference between that and just Monospace.
It definitely works on Fedora 34 Workstation with JetBrains Mono and JetBrains Mono Bold. I know because I tested it before posting.
On 24/05/2021 22:15, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:13:03PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Thanks you guys!!....found the files mentioned (~Legacy.Profiles)....made the changes as recommended, and now it works.
That's interesting that you find it works for you.
What font did you pick? I ask that since when I picked Monospace Bold there was no discernible difference between that and just Monospace.
It definitely works on Fedora 34 Workstation with JetBrains Mono and JetBrains Mono Bold. I know because I tested it before posting.
Interesting. Yes, that one works. Although the bolding when picking size 20 seems rather slight. But no difference with Monospace.
Of course there is one small issue. If you're using a Bold font and a terminal based application which then issues the bold esc sequence there will be no additional Bolding.
I wonder if that wasn't the reason it was decided to remove the easy ability select bold fonts.
On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 10:51, Eddie O'Connor eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks you guys!!....found the files mentioned (~Legacy.Profiles)....made the changes as recommended, and now it works.
Interesting tho'.....that something like that would be "removed"....been using Fedora for a long time, and it was always "just there"...hopefully?...it will come back in future releases? I mean....I know I'm nitpicking? but when you have to stare at Terminals all day, you'd at LEAST want it to be "easy-to-read"! Right?
At my work several people developed eye problems in the 1980's while spending long hours using CRT terminals. We also struggled to distinguish look-alike characters, leading to time wasted chasing bugs. Young eyes may be able to handle low quality displays, but we don't know if there are long-term impacts, and we do know that accuracy is affected. Easy to read should be a priority.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:51:57PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Interesting. Yes, that one works. Although the bolding when picking size 20 seems rather slight. But no difference with Monospace.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
Of course there is one small issue. If you're using a Bold font and a terminal based application which then issues the bold esc sequence there will be no additional Bolding.
I wonder if that wasn't the reason it was decided to remove the easy ability select bold fonts.
This makes sense to me. It's nice that there's an option to configure it for someone who really wants it, but making everything bold isn't really the right approach to the problem in general as it's "abusing" font weight for a purpose other than what it was intended for.
On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 12:05, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:51:57PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Interesting. Yes, that one works. Although the bolding when picking
size 20 seems rather slight.
But no difference with Monospace.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
Of course there is one small issue. If you're using a Bold font and a
terminal based application which
then issues the bold esc sequence there will be no additional Bolding.
I wonder if that wasn't the reason it was decided to remove the easy
ability select bold fonts.
This makes sense to me. It's nice that there's an option to configure it for someone who really wants it, but making everything bold isn't really the right approach to the problem in general as it's "abusing" font weight for a purpose other than what it was intended for.
A purpose that is a holdover from printed material and not well-suited to color screens. I suspect there is really a narrow range of weight that optimizes readability, so we need other cues to replace bold, italic, etc.
On 5/24/21 8:05 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:51:57PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Interesting. Yes, that one works. Although the bolding when picking size 20 seems rather slight. But no difference with Monospace.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
Of course there is one small issue. If you're using a Bold font and a terminal based application which then issues the bold esc sequence there will be no additional Bolding.
I wonder if that wasn't the reason it was decided to remove the easy ability select bold fonts.
This makes sense to me. It's nice that there's an option to configure it for someone who really wants it, but making everything bold isn't really the right approach to the problem in general as it's "abusing" font weight for a purpose other than what it was intended for.
Is there a way to use font color to represent bolding?
On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:57:45 -0300 "George N. White III" gnwiii@gmail.com wrote:
At my work several people developed eye problems in the 1980's while spending long hours using CRT terminals. We also struggled to distinguish look-alike characters, leading to time wasted chasing bugs. Young eyes may be able to handle low quality displays, but we don't know if there are long-term impacts, and we do know that accuracy is affected. Easy to read should be a priority.
The Terminus fonts were developed with that in mind, and I find them easy on the eyes. There are probably people who don't, but might be worth a look.
Looking this up now!.....(old age...is scary!....turning 50 this year....and all the things I took for granted?...are starting to play "catch-up!....sitting for long hours in a dimly lit room?...paying for that with my eyesight....long sessions sitting in my desk chair?...paying for that with my aching back, typing all manner of documents for hours at a time?....paying for that with my aching finger-joints!) and that last point made it necessary to switch from my beloved dasKeyboard, to a Red Dragon K557, yeah...its got RGB...something I wasn't interested in....but the FEEL of the keys!?...and the tactile touch without the massive amount of forced needed for the dsKeyboard, make it a godsend!
EGO II
On Mon, May 24, 2021, 11:33 AM stan via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:57:45 -0300 "George N. White III" gnwiii@gmail.com wrote:
At my work several people developed eye problems in the 1980's while spending long hours using CRT terminals. We also struggled to distinguish look-alike characters, leading to time wasted chasing bugs. Young eyes may be able to handle low quality displays, but we don't know if there are long-term impacts, and we do know that accuracy is affected. Easy to read should be a priority.
The Terminus fonts were developed with that in mind, and I find them easy on the eyes. There are probably people who don't, but might be worth a look. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 12:25, Mike Wright nobody@nospam.hostisimo.com wrote:
Is there a way to use font color to represent bolding?
Bold fonts are used for emphasis. Since color is almost universally
available, there are lots of options to change colors (foreground and/or background), but without conventions we can't know what a particular color means without rtfm. Choosing colors is not simple as you need to accommodate various forms of color-blindness. Text-to-speech systems would have to be rewritten to detect color changes. Some of the technical problems could be handled by relying on underlying semantic markup and treating terminals and text-to-speech as different rendering systems.
-- George N. White III
On 5/24/21 12:28 PM, George N. White III wrote:
Bold fonts are used for emphasis. Since color is almost universally available, there are lots of options to change colors (foreground and/or background), but without conventions we can't know what a particular color means without rtfm.
And that's the main reason why I hate having the colors active by default in ls and use alias to get rid of it. I've never seen a list of the colors and their meanings, so for me it's utterly useless.
On 25/05/2021 04:52, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 5/24/21 12:28 PM, George N. White III wrote:
Bold fonts are used for emphasis. Since color is almost universally available, there are lots of options to change colors (foreground and/or background), but without conventions we can't know what a particular color means without rtfm.
And that's the main reason why I hate having the colors active by default in ls and use alias to get rid of it. I've never seen a list of the colors and their meanings, so for me it's utterly useless.
man dir_colors
On 5/24/21 3:28 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 25/05/2021 04:52, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 5/24/21 12:28 PM, George N. White III wrote:
Bold fonts are used for emphasis. Since color is almost universally available, there are lots of options to change colors (foreground and/or background), but without conventions we can't know what a particular color means without rtfm.
And that's the main reason why I hate having the colors active by default in ls and use alias to get rid of it. I've never seen a list of the colors and their meanings, so for me it's utterly useless.
man dir_colors
I take it then, that you've never looked at the file because all of the colors are given in hex, even though the colors all have defined names. Unless you're big into computer graphics, its still utterly useless.
On 25/05/2021 05:39, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 5/24/21 3:28 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 25/05/2021 04:52, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 5/24/21 12:28 PM, George N. White III wrote:
Bold fonts are used for emphasis. Since color is almost universally available, there are lots of options to change colors (foreground and/or background), but without conventions we can't know what a particular color means without rtfm.
And that's the main reason why I hate having the colors active by default in ls and use alias to get rid of it. I've never seen a list of the colors and their meanings, so for me it's utterly useless.
man dir_colors
I take it then, that you've never looked at the file because all of the colors are given in hex, even though the colors all have defined names. Unless you're big into computer graphics, its still utterly useless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code
There is a nice chart for you.
On 24/05/2021 23:05, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:51:57PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Interesting. Yes, that one works. Although the bolding when picking size 20 seems rather slight. But no difference with Monospace.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
Oh, BTW, I realized there is a way to change Monospace to Bold in a terminal without having to select the bold font in any settings.
Just adjust your $PS1 environment variable.
PS1="\e[1;1m[\u@\h \W]$ "
for example.
On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 08:25 -0700, Mike Wright wrote:
Is there a way to use font color to represent bolding?
It used to be (not sure if this was on Linux) that you had a choice of using bold or bright to emphasise some text.
Awesome!....thanks for this one too!!!
EGO II
On Mon, May 24, 2021, 6:25 PM Ed Greshko ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
On 24/05/2021 23:05, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:51:57PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Interesting. Yes, that one works. Although the bolding when picking
size 20 seems rather slight.
But no difference with Monospace.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
Oh, BTW, I realized there is a way to change Monospace to Bold in a terminal without having to select the bold font in any settings.
Just adjust your $PS1 environment variable.
PS1="\e[1;1m[\u@\h \W]$ "
for example.
-- Remind me to ignore comments which aren't germane to the thread. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:45:27 -0400 "Eddie O'Connor" eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
Looking this up now!.....(old age...is scary!....turning 50 this year....and all the things I took for granted?...are starting to play "catch-up!....sitting for long hours in a dimly lit room?...paying for that with my eyesight....long sessions sitting in my desk chair?...paying for that with my aching back, typing all manner of documents for hours at a time?....paying for that with my aching finger-joints!) and that last point made it necessary to switch from my beloved dasKeyboard, to a Red Dragon K557, yeah...its got RGB...something I wasn't interested in....but the FEEL of the keys!?...and the tactile touch without the massive amount of forced needed for the dsKeyboard, make it a godsend!
Yeah, the way of all flesh. I'm reminded of a sign I used to see. It was a back country road, and there was a long, steep hill with a sharp turn at the bottom. It was common to pick up a lot of speed coming down the hill. Someone had placed a sign at the bottom of the hill, just before the turn, that said, "Prepare to meet thy Lord." :-)
We're still using the venerable Mark I version of the body. At some point we'll have enough knowledge of the system to start correcting its design flaws (it's designed to make lots of babies early and often, not for longevity) in Mark II. But we're not there yet, my guess is sometime within the next century, no major upsets occurring. After that, the sky is the limit. In five centuries, we would probably think the 'people' (won't be homo sapiens) of that time are aliens.
You might want to look into an ergonomic keyboard, and using a different keyboard layout. QWERTY was designed to slow down typists so they wouldn't go too fast for the mechanical typewriters of the time and jam them up, but it is terrible for the hands. Common alternatives are Colemak or Dvorak. A good way to learn a new keyboard layout is to play the old text game nethack with the keypad turned off. It then uses the keys of the keyboard for movement and everything else. I went a step farther and designed my own custom key mapping that fits my use case. Approximately 80% home row, and the most frequently used keys under the strongest fingers.
Think about some way to change your setup so you can alternate standing and sitting. Probably not easy, easier to just go for a walk, or do some of the restorative exercises available for viewing on the web to counter the long fixed positions of your muscles.
Eyes, use dark themes, and if you wear glasses, get some specially made for looking at close objects like computer screens. Optometrists will be familiar with the requirement.
Again, these work for me, but your mileage might differ.
Hmm....never though of changing my keyboard layout. I might give that a try...as for the walking / sitting? I'm going to have to break down and get a standing desk, with an electric motor...so that I can alternate between the two, I can only say thank goodness I was never "heavy" in my youth..I've not gained much weight (due to the pandemic and being stationary and all that) but I AM noticing the usual "belly" fat starting to increase around my waist. Might be time for a strict exercise regimen...thanks for the info and recommendations!!
Cheers!
EGO II
On 5/25/21 10:40 AM, stan via users wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:45:27 -0400 "Eddie O'Connor" eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
Looking this up now!.....(old age...is scary!....turning 50 this year....and all the things I took for granted?...are starting to play "catch-up!....sitting for long hours in a dimly lit room?...paying for that with my eyesight....long sessions sitting in my desk chair?...paying for that with my aching back, typing all manner of documents for hours at a time?....paying for that with my aching finger-joints!) and that last point made it necessary to switch from my beloved dasKeyboard, to a Red Dragon K557, yeah...its got RGB...something I wasn't interested in....but the FEEL of the keys!?...and the tactile touch without the massive amount of forced needed for the dsKeyboard, make it a godsend!
Yeah, the way of all flesh. I'm reminded of a sign I used to see. It was a back country road, and there was a long, steep hill with a sharp turn at the bottom. It was common to pick up a lot of speed coming down the hill. Someone had placed a sign at the bottom of the hill, just before the turn, that said, "Prepare to meet thy Lord." :-)
We're still using the venerable Mark I version of the body. At some point we'll have enough knowledge of the system to start correcting its design flaws (it's designed to make lots of babies early and often, not for longevity) in Mark II. But we're not there yet, my guess is sometime within the next century, no major upsets occurring. After that, the sky is the limit. In five centuries, we would probably think the 'people' (won't be homo sapiens) of that time are aliens.
You might want to look into an ergonomic keyboard, and using a different keyboard layout. QWERTY was designed to slow down typists so they wouldn't go too fast for the mechanical typewriters of the time and jam them up, but it is terrible for the hands. Common alternatives are Colemak or Dvorak. A good way to learn a new keyboard layout is to play the old text game nethack with the keypad turned off. It then uses the keys of the keyboard for movement and everything else. I went a step farther and designed my own custom key mapping that fits my use case. Approximately 80% home row, and the most frequently used keys under the strongest fingers.
Think about some way to change your setup so you can alternate standing and sitting. Probably not easy, easier to just go for a walk, or do some of the restorative exercises available for viewing on the web to counter the long fixed positions of your muscles.
Eyes, use dark themes, and if you wear glasses, get some specially made for looking at close objects like computer screens. Optometrists will be familiar with the requirement.
Again, these work for me, but your mileage might differ. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 11:41, stan via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:45:27 -0400 "Eddie O'Connor" eoconnor25@gmail.com wrote:
Looking this up now!.....(old age...is scary!....turning 50 this year....and all the things I took for granted?...are starting to play "catch-up!....sitting for long hours in a dimly lit room?...paying for that with my eyesight....long sessions sitting in my desk chair?...paying for that with my aching back, typing all manner of documents for hours at a time?....paying for that with my aching finger-joints!) and that last point made it necessary to switch from my beloved dasKeyboard, to a Red Dragon K557, yeah...its got RGB...something I wasn't interested in....but the FEEL of the keys!?...and the tactile touch without the massive amount of forced needed for the dsKeyboard, make it a godsend!
Yeah, the way of all flesh. I'm reminded of a sign I used to see. It was a back country road, and there was a long, steep hill with a sharp turn at the bottom. It was common to pick up a lot of speed coming down the hill. Someone had placed a sign at the bottom of the hill, just before the turn, that said, "Prepare to meet thy Lord." :-)
There was a hill like that within a few 100 meters of my childhood home. A dump truck owner who knew his brakes were bad tried to navigate the hill by staying in the lowest gear, but his driveshaft broke and he left the road at speed, taking off tops of some big pines before meeting his Lord.
"Growing old is horrible, but it sure beats the alternative" (John Kenneth Galbraith). Personally, I plan to live forever or die trying.
We're still using the venerable Mark I version of the body. At some point we'll have enough knowledge of the system to start correcting its design flaws (it's designed to make lots of babies early and often, not for longevity) in Mark II. But we're not there yet, my guess is sometime within the next century, no major upsets occurring. After that, the sky is the limit. In five centuries, we would probably think the 'people' (won't be homo sapiens) of that time are aliens.
At work they put in doors that required you to swipe your ID to unlatch the lock but then pull on a handle to open the door. If your hands were full, acrobatics and juggling were needed. Mark II should take hints from the octopus.
You might want to look into an ergonomic keyboard, and using a different keyboard layout. QWERTY was designed to slow down typists so they wouldn't go too fast for the mechanical typewriters of the time and jam them up, but it is terrible for the hands. Common alternatives are Colemak or Dvorak. A good way to learn a new keyboard layout is to play the old text game nethack with the keypad turned off. It then uses the keys of the keyboard for movement and everything else. I went a step farther and designed my own custom key mapping that fits my use case. Approximately 80% home row, and the most frequently used keys under the strongest fingers.
Think about some way to change your setup so you can alternate standing and sitting. Probably not easy, easier to just go for a walk, or do some of the restorative exercises available for viewing on the web to counter the long fixed positions of your muscles.
Eyes, use dark themes, and if you wear glasses, get some specially made for looking at close objects like computer screens. Optometrists will be familiar with the requirement.
Again, these work for me, but your mileage might differ.
Good suggestions. I found sitting on an exercise ball helpful, but you can't easily swivel around to face someone who wants to talk to your face. Then safety people banned them because they weren't on the list of approved ergonomic chairs (I think there had been reports of falls), so I switched to a standing desk.
I never messed with keyboard layouts -- my work often involved working on whatever keyboard was attached to a server or old laptop used as a terminal for headless boxes and UPS's, connected to lab gear, etc. It was bad enough dealing with differences in the locations of control and alt keys. I did have a keyboard with a trackpad and both USB and PS2 connecters on a Y-cable that I could bring with me if I expected to be doing a lot of typing. Chorded keyboards might be helpful.
Things my colleagues and I found helpful:
Avoid elevators and, if you want to talk to a colleague, walk to their office or agree to meet and walk together. When going to meetings or the lunch room, pick a roundabout route with stairs.
If you can't walk or bike to work, get off the bus a stop early or park your car at the far edge of the lot. Take time at lunch to go for a walk or swim.
-
Ed Greshko -
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. -
Eddie O'Connor
-
George N. White III -
Joe Zeff -
Matthew Miller -
Mike Wright -
stan -
Tim