On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:40:47 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Well, yes, but vgacon is rather dated, now.
Never heard of a serial console? It's "dated" sure enough, but I for
one use them on a daily basis, and not by choice.
jer
Duncan wrote:
> The point you made here was console-based workflow, as quoted above,
> and that's what I addressed, arguing that even if was valid at some
> point, it's no longer the factor it once was.
For you, that is. Be aware that this creates your bias. You can't
extrapolate from your own sit
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:40:47 + (UTC) Duncan wrote:
> Andrew Savchenko posted on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:36:13 +0300 as excerpted:
>
> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:35:41 +0600 Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> >> > * linewidth >> 80 (why do we have this short limit still in 2015)
> >>
> >> Actually, I
On 07/06/15 18:54, Allan Wegan wrote:
>> [1] Of course, 320x108 chars /is/ with a 42-inch TV as a monitor, but
>> it's not exactly tiny print, either. I sit farther away from it than
>> many people sit from their monitor. But even half of that is 160
>> chars width, which is what I used to use on
> [1] Of course, 320x108 chars /is/ with a 42-inch TV as a monitor, but
> it's not exactly tiny print, either. I sit farther away from it than
> many people sit from their monitor. But even half of that is 160
> chars width, which is what I used to use on my 21-inch.
Now 160 sounds like two perf
