[OT] QWERTY key layout (was Re: BigApache for Windows - Whydoesn't BSD have an installerpackage like this ???)

[Henrik W Lund]

Bill Moran wrote:

>Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at 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