Ctrl+C problems in editor

[MerlinMama]

This does not happen all the time, but every so often when I try to copy some text with Ctrl+C, it shuts down the editor and all changes I've made are lost. Any ideas why that would happen? There are no error messages when it happens, the editor is just closed.

It didn't happen for a week, and today it's happened 3 times out of about 8.

Any help, or information on where to find what could be happening, would be appreciated.

[theducks]

What OS?
ctrl-C in Unix was cancel (stop) task in the console.

[MerlinMama]

I'm using Windows 11.

[Quoth]

I'm using Linux (which isn't UNIX, is anyone using desktop UNIX?)
At least since 1998 the Ctrl-C is copy in all GUI programs including Calibre.
It's not copy in a Console and never was, but mostly not in an NT or DOS console either, only in some text mode applications.

Though the Compose Key doesn't work in the Calibre Editor. I have to open a text editor. But Ctrl C, X and V all work.
I use Compose commonly for – — … ° ′ and ″ (last two are prime and double prime for minutes or feet and seconds or inches (linear measure or fractions of degrees).

[BetterRed]

Calibre has been known to run on BSD, I'll leave to others as to whether it is real Unix.

The Ctrl+Z/X/C/V/Y text editing sequences (undo, cut, copy, paste, redo) originated at Xerox Parc Place in the early 1980s, maybe even the late 1970s.

I often find myself using the SAA/CUA editing sequences: Shift+Del, Ctrl+Ins, Shift+Ins for cut/copy/paste.

BR

[kovidgoyal]

That sounds like something is causing a crash. Do you have some third party software that manages the clipboard?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Calibre has been known to run on BSD, I'll leave to others as to whether it is real Unix.

There was a BSD that was the original fork of UNIX because AT&T AKA Bell Labs insisted they owned all the work done in Universities. This was long before Linux. Xenix on 286 was a Microsoft effort and used AT&T licensed UNIX source. They sold that to the original SCO (no real connection to later patent Troll SCO). I've installed and used MS Xenix, Cromemco Cromix (68K/Z80 dual CPU), Minix (which is certainly noy UNIX, but UNIX like with a micro kernel). Used AT&T UNIX once when learning C++ in 1987 (it used a pre-processor that produced C source).

So not sure if BSD is real UNIX as it supposed to have no AT&T source (is it origin of GNU programs = Gnu is Not Unix?). MS Xenix on 286 was AT&T licensed, but due to 286 hardly a "proper" Unix. You really needed 386 for a proper "Unix", the 286 was a stupid CPU compared to ARM, 68000, Z8000, and the National Semi CPU. The original 8086/8088 was the world's worst 16 bit CPU as it was hardly more than an 8080/8085, no flat address mode; only 64K blocks. The 8088 was chosen by IBM for PC to beable to use 8080 perpherals, drivers and apps. Intel had a machine code translation tool, So making CPM/86 from CPM/80 was trivial and MSDOS/PCDOS was based on a somewhat reversed engineered CPM/86 that MS bought in. Hence Wordstar, Dbase, Supercalc on DOS at once and DOS had no subdirectories till a later version.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Quoth

There was a BSD that was the original fork of UNIX because AT&T AKA Bell Labs insisted they owned all the work done in Universities. This was long before Linux. Xenix on 286 was a Microsoft effort and used AT&T licensed UNIX source. They sold that to the original SCO (no real connection to later patent Troll SCO).

The first project I wored had a user interface running on SCO (XWindows).

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

The first project I wored had a user interface running on SCO (XWindows).

All my "Unix family" stuff was text/console till Red Hat Linux in 1997. But I only ever wrote VB6 for GUI from scratch. Did edit some Java, C, C++ and Modula-2 for Windows and Linux desktops/GUI some years ago.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Quoth

All my "Unix family" stuff was text/console till Red Hat Linux in 1997. But I only ever wrote VB6 for GUI from scratch. Did edit some Java, C, C++ and Modula-2 for Windows and Linux desktops/GUI some years ago.

Modula-2. How much time without hearing about it (yes, I've used it).

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Modula-2. How much time without hearing about it (yes, I've used it).

Me too, on a Lilith and an Apple Lisa.

Much better than C++, about which a colleague remarked, "C++ does do a good job of hiding the data, but it does an even better job at hiding the bugs." She wrote the Modula-2 interpreter for the Lisa in Smalltalk.

Nevertheless a poor mans Ada

[phossler]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Never the less a poor man's Ada

I haven't heard ADA in a gazilion years since it was pushed as the ultimate answer to everything

[chaley]

Originally Posted by phossler

I haven't heard ADA in a gazilion years since it was pushed as the ultimate answer to everything

I worked on/with Ada for several years. The very strong type structure was good and helped ensure that various modules and "subsystems" were verifiably compatible with each other. Interface-verification configuration management become possible. I think it is unfortunate that typeless language structures won out, perhaps because of the productivity myths of agile programming. Yes, they are easier to code but no, they open so many doors to unexpected and incorrect behavior. Not a problem when the result is one can't read a book, but not good when a self-driving car runs over a kid.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by chaley

I think it is unfortunate that typeless language structures won out, perhaps because of the productivity myths of agile programming.

You and me both…

[rant]Open Source is not Open Systems as many script-kiddies would have us believe.[/rant]

BR

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by chaley

I worked on/with Ada for several years. The very strong type structure was good and helped ensure that various modules and "subsystems" were verifiably compatible with each other. Interface-verification configuration management become possible. I think it is unfortunate that typeless language structures won out, perhaps because of the productivity myths of agile programming. Yes, they are easier to code but no, they open so many doors to unexpected and incorrect behavior. Not a problem when the result is one can't read a book, but not good when a self-driving car runs over a kid.

I totally, totally agree....