4 ms·

There's a certain Zen to using Apple interfaces (IMHO): You have to relax and just accept that this is how it is, and it's best to get used to it. I fully unde

There's a certain Zen to using Apple interfaces (IMHO): You have to relax and just accept that this is how it is, and it's best to get used to it. I fully understand if you find this to be not really good enough, but this is the only way to make them work for you.

ylyn 6y ago
Ah yes, but if you suggest that someone do this when using Linux, you get shit on.
- magnusmundus 6y ago
  To be fair, customizability and freedom aren't Apple's selling points.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    And to be even fairer, user experience consistency isn't one of Linux's selling points. While there is some limited consistency within individual graphical shells, the Linux ecosystem naturally favours a diversity of opinions instead. Because Apple interfaces are highly opinionated and generally fairly consistent, learning to do things the Apple way is a valid life choice for many people.
- DCKing 6y ago
  Gnome is still by some distance the most popular user interface on Linux, and is also very strongly opinionated and appears to lack customization options [1]. The project's "our way or the highway" approach is frequently vocally criticized and compared to Apple's approach, but as a whole seems to be appreciated well enough. I wouldn't say the Linux community as a whole are assholes about this. The fact that many online Linux users take offense to lack of customization is not really something to worry about in my opinion. I used to customize Linux installs endlessly, but only truly found zen when I stopped worrying committed to stick to Fedora's default install. [1]: Besides the point but Gnome is arguably far and away the most customizable desktop shell on Linux, as its extension "mechanism" consists of literally overwriting the JS code that powers its shell interface. For better and worse.
kitsunesoba 6y ago
There's truth to this. After years of using macOS as my primary OS, both Windows and Linux w/various DEs become progressively more irritating the more windows are open because they both expect micromanagement, be it from the user, or automated as with a tiling WM. Under macOS, windows just kind of exist as they want to be and pile up until you intentionally change them, and the environment doesn't push you to manage it, so you end up not putting much thought into anything but the 1-3 windows you're using at that exact moment. The mac approach taps a bit into spatial memory too, which makes auto-tiling like with i3 irritating because then windows no longer have an inherent size or position — it all continually changes as windows open and close unless I start maintaining window sets, so at the end of the day I'm still putting more thought into management than I would've under macOS. Because of this it's long been a desire of mine to have a Linux DE that closely mimics macOS. Some will point to GNOME, but it's more like iPadOS if it were adapted to the desktop. Elementary gets closer but still misses the mark. It would be a neat hobby project to take up but figuring out how to get started is rough, especially with all Wayland example WMs and tutorials being for tiling instead of traditional floating.

ylyn 6y ago

Ah yes, but if you suggest that someone do this when using Linux, you get shit on.

magnusmundus 6y ago
To be fair, customizability and freedom aren't Apple's selling points.
- sjwright 6y ago
  And to be even fairer, user experience consistency isn't one of Linux's selling points. While there is some limited consistency within individual graphical shells, the Linux ecosystem naturally favours a diversity of opinions instead. Because Apple interfaces are highly opinionated and generally fairly consistent, learning to do things the Apple way is a valid life choice for many people.
DCKing 6y ago
Gnome is still by some distance the most popular user interface on Linux, and is also very strongly opinionated and appears to lack customization options [1]. The project's "our way or the highway" approach is frequently vocally criticized and compared to Apple's approach, but as a whole seems to be appreciated well enough. I wouldn't say the Linux community as a whole are assholes about this. The fact that many online Linux users take offense to lack of customization is not really something to worry about in my opinion. I used to customize Linux installs endlessly, but only truly found zen when I stopped worrying committed to stick to Fedora's default install. [1]: Besides the point but Gnome is arguably far and away the most customizable desktop shell on Linux, as its extension "mechanism" consists of literally overwriting the JS code that powers its shell interface. For better and worse.

kitsunesoba 6y ago

There's truth to this. After years of using macOS as my primary OS, both Windows and Linux w/various DEs become progressively more irritating the more windows are open because they both expect micromanagement, be it from the user, or automated as with a tiling WM. Under macOS, windows just kind of exist as they want to be and pile up until you intentionally change them, and the environment doesn't push you to manage it, so you end up not putting much thought into anything but the 1-3 windows you're using at that exact moment. The mac approach taps a bit into spatial memory too, which makes auto-tiling like with i3 irritating because then windows no longer have an inherent size or position — it all continually changes as windows open and close unless I start maintaining window sets, so at the end of the day I'm still putting more thought into management than I would've under macOS. Because of this it's long been a desire of mine to have a Linux DE that closely mimics macOS. Some will point to GNOME, but it's more like iPadOS if it were adapted to the desktop. Elementary gets closer but still misses the mark. It would be a neat hobby project to take up but figuring out how to get started is rough, especially with all Wayland example WMs and tutorials being for tiling instead of traditional floating.