The curse of QWERTY

August 6, 2014 at 6:37 pm | Posted in art, community | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , ,

Two years back I started having pain in my hands, wrist joints, finger joints, neck and upper back. I searched about it and came to know lot of programmers face this and for some of them this pain turns into Repetitive Strain Injuries (RSI) or Carpal Tunnel Syndrome . This was serious . The height of chair and monitor and keyboard were pretty right and I did not feel any problem with that. Then the biggest surprise came in the form of DVORAK keyboard. I came to know that QWERTY keyboard was actually designed to slow down typing. You should check out DVZINE at . That is just one website with few solid articles. The problems with QWERTY keyboard are mentioned at so many places on internet that it is impossible to read them all.  QWERTY is such a disgrace for humanity and I am amazed that with so much advancement in technology we still manufacture QWERTY keyboards. I came across so many different keyboard layouts: Colemak, Workman and Norman among the popular ones. I like to improve myself and the pain in hands, finger joints, neck and upper back was much of motivation to try something. I chose DVORAK above Colemak and Workman because latter two were based on QWERTY. I think one can not design a new and better model to solve a problem if its design is based on a faulty old model. Norman layout I could not find on Arch Linux. In India only QWERTY keyboards are available (as per hardware availability), so the only option was to change software and Linux has so many possibilities and options that it made me more happier. You do not need to change hardware, just some settings as per your distro. I have logitech wireless K260 motherboard and I decided to change the placement of keys on keyboard manually to DVORAK along with software settings. This is how it looks like:

As you can see every key was a fit for every other socket except these four: F, U, J and H. These four keys were fitting only in their original positions, I don’t know why. Hence I put handmade stickers on them and this is how my keyboard looks now:

Using this for 3 months now and pain in hands and finger joints is gone. Neck and upper back pain have reduced to a much larger degree but not totally gone. All these parts pain a lot if I sit for longer hours in front of computer (6-9 hours or more). I am not a doctor and you should consult a doctor if you are experiencing pains then please do not postpon a modical checkup. Here aro some points that may help:

  1. make sure monitor is at a height from ground where your neck is straight when you look at it
  2. make sure your chair has cushion and flexible back support. You can adjust the height of your chair to a comfortable level.
  3. Keyboard and mouse need to be at comfortable height and distance

The best option is to find a good computer table according to your height and build. It is very easy, you know your comfort level within few seconds of sitting on that chair and putting your hands on table. Please do not type (for Desktop Computer) while sitting on bed. It will cause lot of discomfort for many days.

There are many scientists/researchers/gvernment-organizations who after doing lots of research have concluded that all these alternatives like DVORAK, Colemak, Workman, Norman etc do not offer any advantages over QWERTY because human mind can adapt to any random pattern of keyboards, that a person can type as fast on QWERTY as on any other random pattern. Well that may be true and I can agree to that and I do not give much damn if my typing speed is 20 wpm or 50 wpm but what about RSI and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ? I am using DVORAK from 3 months now and one day I just wanted to try QWERTY again to see how it feels. It was horrible experience to use QWERTY again. My hands were literally moving from one corner of keyboard to another (diaognally) causing mugh stress and pain in fingers. With DVORAK most of the words (of English language) exist on Home Row and hence there is not much diagonal movement of hands when you type. My mind did not forget the QWERTY layout though but that one hour was torture. I switched back to DVORAK and till date never tried that again. Though I face problems because keyboard is changed at Operating-System level(software level) than hardware level. So, when I have BIOS or a bootloader at my disposal then it behaves like QWERTY keyboard because this is what it is as per hardware construction. But this is a minor isssue compared to 99% of my time which I spent in OS than in BIOS/bootloader.

Copyright © 2014 Arnuld Uttre, Village – Patti, P.O – Manakpur, Tehsil – Nangal, Distt. – Ropar, Punjab (INDIA)

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.


The Programmer Hierarchy

March 17, 2013 at 11:09 am | Posted in community, Hacking | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , ,

Recently I came across a chart created by Luke Welling showing programmer hierarchy. Seems like Luke Welling has pencilled facts:


I googled for ‘Programmer Hierarchy’ and came across another chart by Dmitry Ignatiev. Thougdt I needed to share this too


Copyright © 2013 Arnuld Uttre, Village – Patti, P.O – Manakpur, Tehsil – Nangal, Distt. – Ropar, Punjab (INDIA). Copyright does not apply to charts shown here. Please contact authors for copyright terms of respective charts.

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.

GNOME 3 – Reincarnation of User Interface

January 17, 2013 at 9:08 am | Posted in community, Programming | Leave a comment
Tags: , ,

I am using Stumpwm from last 2 years and a month back I came to know about GNOME 3. Little bit googling will tell you the kind of harsh and brutal criticism GNOME 3 developers have received for their new ideas. MATE and Cinnamon have come out of that criticism to preserve traditional desktop look and feel. So what is this new interface in GNOME 3 ? Well you can read HIG (Human Interface Guidelines) of GNOME project, I am here to talk about practical aspects not mentioned anywhere but have come out of my own experience of using GNOME 3 for few minutes. I order to explain that you need to know something about dektop and window managers.

I am not a fan of desktop. I focus on work I need to do and then find methods to accomplish the task in an effcient and faster way without wasting time and energy. This way of thinking had pushed me from Desktop to virtual WMs (window manager), virtual and floating WMs and then to pure tiling WMs. Hence I travelled from KDE, GNOME and Xfce few years back to Fvwm, windowmaker and then to wmii, xmonad and now to Stumpwm and Ratpoison. Still I keep an eye on how different technologies develop in software world and that is how I came to know about new developments in GNOME 3. As per the viewpoint of an average user there are two kinds of interfaces you get on computer: an ugly, hard to use, anti-user black command line and a beautiful, cozy, pleasing and user-friendly graphical-interface a.k.a desktop . Almost all average “Joes” love desktop as it works faster for them (in fact, it is actually opposite). Come to Linux world, we have desktops too, unlike all those average Joes believing otherwise. A desktop usually has menus, folders, windows, icons, supports atractive features like drag and drop, openeing a document/file/folder by double-clicking etc. On Command-Line you have to type commands to do anything and you don’t get icons, windows, menus and or any fancy stuff requiring graphical interface. These are two opposing ways average Joe thinks computers are. Come to Linux world again, here we have X Window System on the top of which a desktop runs. X Window System is the first graphical interface. What I mean by that ? X is the base on the top of which any graphical interface (or GUI) runs as far as Linux is concerned. While Windows XP users only have one kind of desktop, Linux has several as per the likes and needs of the users, GNOME, KDE and Xfce etc. This kind of design gives a lot of flexibility, power and control to Linux users. Like I mentioned earlier a desktop environment consists of several components. Along with menus, icons, panel etc., it has a window manager and a file manager (check Wikipedia for full list). What most users want is to do the necessary work and then get on with life e.g one person wants to write an email and hence uses a browser, one wants to watch a movie, one wants to his office work and others just want to browse the internet and many want to do all of these (and that includes me too). So, they need something which is simple, helps them do tasks in an effective way and finishes tasks fast. That was my motto and that pushed me towards Linux after I was mentally tortured, made insane and almost killed psychologically by Windows’s virus problems, frequent slow downs, weekly-installations and loads of other crap that every Windows user has experienced. Coming back to Linux, now if there is a way to finish the tasks faster then that means current way of doing work must be inferior because if you already doing what is best then there is no way you need anything else. There is another way of saying this: you are doing tasks in an effective way and there is always room for improvement and there is lot of room if what you are doing is being done same way from a decade. . I think that is exactly what GNOME team was thinking when they were laying the foundation for GNOME 3. What is this new foundation ? For that I need to explain tiling WMs. In a tiling WM (I use StumpWM) there is no minimize/maximize/resize when it comes to your windows (when you open an application e.g a video player then it opens in a window. If you open 2 applications e.g. video player (lets say VLC) and a browser (lets say Firefox) then you got 2 windows, Firefox window and VLC window). In a usual desktop you can minimize/maximize/resize any window and each window will have buttons to do that including a button, which looks like leter ‘x’, to close the window, usually these 3 buttons are in upper right corner of a window). A tiling WM does not provide any of these facilities, windows will always be maximized and no buttons. Tiling WMs are based on concept that a user wastes too much time in minimizing/maximizing/resizing windows, changing their locations and sizes across the screen and they are right. Screen is divided into panes, like a Paned-Window, and you will have one window in one pane. There are no menus, no icons, almost nil mouse support (yes, no left-right clicks and tricks), tiling WMs are keyboard driven. You want any application then know its name and run it as a command and you will not waste your time in trying to find it inside menus or searching pseudonym driven icons/shortcuts and finding where that shortcut points to when you accidentlly loose one. When you sit in front of your computer then most of your attention should be on your work, not on distractions and pure tiling WMs make you do exactly that.

Sadly almost all people use desktops and waste their time and energy on icons, menus and mouse-clicks. Whole software industry is based and competing on who gives more desktop-eye-candy. Like high-school kids, users keep on eating those candies and spoil their teeth (brain in our case). Tiling WMs have a short learning curve and that takes some time (toook me a month to replace my desktop with StumpWM) and not everyone likes empty screens and black backgrounds. So, something was needed which could bring the usability of tiling WMs and pleasing-candy feelings of desktop under one roof and that is what GNOME 3 did. you can’t minimize a window in GNOME 3 ()it does not have those buttons) and it has no panel. Each Window is maximized, It does not have right-click menu on desktop. GNOME 3 does not have a menu and you can still find list of all of your applications and settings there, it does not have Home icon but it possesses a file manager for your tasks. GNOME 3 has been criticized by lot of people, even Linus Torvalds finds it a mess . I say GNOME 3 will change the way desktop will be looked at and used, GNOME 3 has redefined the word usability and it has put that word back into desktop. It has combines the effectivemess, speed and usability of tiling WMs and user-frindliness of desktops. There are many desktop UIs already developed for your desktop computers and many will be developed in future. The only difference is inbetween past and future desktop UIs lies GNOME 3. GNOME 3 will pave the way for future desktop UIs. I am using computers from last 10 years and WMs from last 5 years and in last 3 years I tried to use different desktops but could never use any for more than 2 minutes. Now I am using GNOME 3 from 2 weeks because GNOME 3 is not just a desktop, it is the reincarnation of desktop. I see that desktop is moving from traditional way (eye-candy) towards more usable way (tiling WMs) and GNOME 3 team has shown us the way. GNOME 3 team is decade ahead in innovation, is solving practical problems and I think it needs a well-done pat-on-the-back from me at least for their great work 🙂


Copyright © 2013 Arnuld Uttre, Village – Patti, P.O – Manakpur, Tehsil – Nangal, Distt. – Ropar, Punjab (INDIA). Image produced above is a modified work of art (originally taken from Wikipedia) and hence released under the license mentioned at

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.

Go Programming Language

May 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Posted in community, Programming | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , ,

I was reading draft of new C++ standard a.k.a C++11 (you too must check out N3337.pdf) and somehow I came across Go Programming Lanaguage and on that same page I found this quote of Bruce Eckel:

The complexity of C++ (even more complexity has been added in the new C++), and the resulting impact on productivity, is no longer justified. All the hoops that the C++ programmer had to jump through in order to use a C-compatible language make no sense anymore — they’re just a waste of time and effort. Now, Go makes much more sense for the class of problems that C++ was originally intended to solve.

Now thats a pretty solid and strong statement, I got shakes reading that and it reminded me of The Case for D by Andrei Alexandrescu. Go is designed by a team consiting of our good old friends Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. It has some very good positive reviews. I still have to read the criticizm of it. As per computer language shootout results, C (using GNU’s gcc) is far faster but the code-size of Go was much less (almost 1/3rd). Next on comparison was C++ (GNU’s g++) and results were almost same. Next on my list were Lisp and ATS. checkout the results yourself down here in graphs.

I discussed this performance issue on Go language IRC channel (#go-nuts, freenode) and they gave me very logical and accurate explanation that Go is not mature yet and performance comparison is with very mature C and C++ libraries which are around for a decade or more. So I cna conclude comparison is not exactly a fair comparison. I think Go will catch up with performance issues very fast as user base is growing at electric pace. Reminds me of the times and discussion when Python’s user base was growing and they were trying to resolve all the issues they could with full hard work.

Whenever a new language comes or whenever you want to learn an already established language, I think you must look into why that language was created in first place. Does that match your why of learning ? you must be using that language for some purpose, does the design goal suit your purpose ? In my case I think Go language suits, here is the excerpt from Does the world need another programming language ?

A couple of years ago, several of us at Google became a little frustrated with the software development process, and particularly using C++ to write large server software. We found that the binaries tended to be much too big. They took too long to compile. And the language itself, which is pretty much the main system software language in the world right now, is a very old language. A lot of the ideas and changes in hardware that have come about in the last couple of decades haven’t had a chance to influence C++. So we sat down with a clean sheet of paper and tried to design a language that would solve the problems that we have: we need to build software quickly, have it run well on modern multi-core hardware and in a network environment, and be a pleasure to use.

Go has the feel of a dynamic language like Python or Ruby or JavaScript, but it has the performance and safety of a language like Java or C or C++. So you get the lightweight feel of a modern scripting dynamic language but the robustness and performance of a more old-fashioned language.

Based solely on the above criteria I think I can start using Go right away and if I don’t have enough mature libraries or some specific functionality, then ATS is always there. When companies become big they become rigid, like a stubborn spoilt son of a businessman. They refuse to change to get edge over other software corporations because the change requires a lot of effort. I think the weight of word “Google” behind Go programming language will give it an edge over that rigidity. (same thinkg with Java and .NET).

GO vs C++ (g++)

Go vs C (gcc)

Go vs ATS

Go Vs OCaml

Go Vs Lisp (SBCL)

Go vs Haskell (GHC)


Copyright © 2012 Arnuld Uttre, Village – Patti, P.O – Manakpur, Tehsil – Nangal, Distt. – Ropar, Punjab (INDIA)

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.

KDE and the new friend

August 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm | Posted in community | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , ,

I was just browsing through net and I came across this article. I was a little shocked on reading just the title. Why would anyone want to leave GNU software ? .. So it sparked my interest and I spent next 30 minutes reading the whole article (or rather technical viewpoint of KDE team). That did not convince me though in anyway.

I agree that autotools are very old but so is gcc and so are other basic tools that come with all distros. Reading the article convinced me of one thing, not many people on the KDE team know much about autotools. They have used one small part (Makefile) of it but they don’t know what exactly the autotools are and how they work. I even somehow got a feeling that many KDE developers are scared of autotools. Reason: autotools have a longer and hard learning curve. It is true, I agree. I was able to write a CMakeLists.txt in just a day, right from the scratch without any book or help except the online documentation available at their web-site, while with autoconf, the story was different, even after 2 days of work, I was unable to came with with anything. Autoconf manual felt like a classic GNU manual written in the spirit of GNU by people who are extremely technical. It pinned me, it binned me and it made my heart bleed. Are most of KDE developers scared of autotools ? I don’t know and after reading their reasoning , I will say yes. Most of them wanted a short and less painful path to software building: here come Scons and CMake.

I was also just put off by the technical-expertise either required as a prerequisite or being used to read the manual but was I scared …… hell no…. . Say no to the hell and yes to the reasoning and rationality. There glows the bulb on my head, the people who write these kind of manuals are very good at basics , they are the people who have gotten their fundamentals straight, with experience. Reading their manuals always gives you an insight into the things. This is what exactly what you will learn from Newsgroups.

I am not saying that KDE people need to switch back to autotools. No, I am not agreeing on that. All I am saying is, switching to a different tools needs to be based on purely technical reasons, not on the basis that people can’t learn them because they are scared. I really wonder they are not trying waf, which actually does not try to fix the problems of other tools but rather built as a software-construction framework.

I, myself, want to use waf but then I have to learn Python in order to debug my scripts which I don’t want to do. If I ever get time to learn a new language, I will learn Common Lisp. So rather I will start learning autotools again and will see what people are scared of.



Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008 Arnuld Uttre, #331/type-2/sector-1, Naya Nangal, Distt. – Ropar, Punjab (INDIA) – 140126

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at
Entries and comments feeds.