Talk:Scroll-Wheel Copy and Paste
Why is this being proposed for deletion? Update 1 may make it not necessary, but I find the information on remapping keys valuable for any release. I remapped my buttons and I find that much more convenient EVERYWHERE, not just in terminal. Just highlight and click, not highlight, ctl-c, click, ctl-v, when that works. Is there a better page to learn about key remappings? Please post a link to it and allow users to see if it explains things just as well. BTW, I have never seen any documentation how Update 1 fixes the problem, only that it does. I still want ctl-c in Terminal activity to abort the command, to kill the process. Because of that I understand why ctl-c and ctl-v don't cut and paste in Terminal. If there are buttons on the "title bar" in a new version of terminal activity, then please say that and specify the first version number of Terminal that has the feature. But I am speculating here.
I am here editing TALK because the article page said it has been proposed that it be deleted. I got to it from a clicking on a link in http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Terminal_Activity. That link will break. I do not see a replacement page. It would be a very bad idea to delete it without a replacement page. It says something like {{{{Link}}} but it is not a link, I click on it and nothing happens. So, until that has been fixed for some period of time, do not delete the main page. It could be included in the Terminal Activity page.
Why is it being proposed for deletion? Because "Update 1" made it "obsolete"? (no it didn't!) How do I know if I have update 1 or not? I am very tired of updates, releases, etc. using different terminology every **** time. Sometimes it is ship.2, sometimes Release 8.1.0, sometimes by the build. I received my XO in late March of 2008. I have build 656 and need SOME of the info for workarounds. However, a lot of stuff works for me that did not work with the first G1G1 that were shipped. When getting lost in wiki, I hardly ever know if what I am reading applies to my build. Sometimes even within a paragraph one thing is true for my release and then the next line not. It has been this way since I first started using the xo and ever since.
I understand there needs to be two numbers, ONE for software (and I don't understand why that can't be build number) and one for firmware; I do not understand why the user needs to know any more than that. I understand that every "activity" or application or executable or binary or suite... has it's own version number and history. Please keep in mind there are going to be getting xo's new in the future, they may received used ones as gifts. When wandering this "documentation" one should quickly easily know if what the are reading applies to them, heck they should be be able to constrain their search to get only results relevant to the versions(s) they specify. Yes, it is a little harder that way, writing the documentation one has to mark how it is version number specific or not, but that's the way it needs be done. Once that is done, computers are pretty good at filtering. Marking pages as either current or obsolete (and deleting) is way too simple, they need to be organized much better. 76.115.84.114 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I reorganized this a bit. I want to make sure that the "dummy" approach is right up top for folks who don't want to be messing around with scripts or remapping buttons. I also just linked to the instructions for the script on the other page.Tdang 06:14, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Also nominate for inclusion. If "outdated", it's not a delete situation -- it needs to be updated to say which releases it is appropriate for, and which it is not (like 8.x+). Some people may never move beyond 656, if it works in most situations, or if restoring, etc. OtherMichael 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)