4 ms·
> What a something means is defined by how many people use it for a given definition. Only in context. I don't really care what Windows people do with their C
by quesera 4y ago
> What a something means is defined by how many people use it for a given definition.
Only in context.
I don't really care what Windows people do with their Ctrl keys.
But using Ctrl-C for copy in a terminal environment (from TOPS-20 to Linux and macOS, and whatever MSFT calls its captive Linux env) is wrong.
It is wrong because Ctrl-C already performs another critical (more important) system function. It can't do both, and forking (knifing?) up the UI to have it do different things is a mistake.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoSometimes standards emerge rather than from formal bodies but by broad experience and consensus. The Microsoft operating systems dominated human experience for decades. I’m sorry that other systems did different things, but on the basis of cumulative human experience, these key bindings are in fact standard. Any variance, no matter how ideologically pure, is opposed to the collective human experience of cut and paste key bindings. Why do that to people? Because of some market outcomes from 30 years ago didn’t go the way you prefer so we should impose confusing experiences on everyone? That’s audacious.
- quesera 4y agoThis is silly. Ctrl-C for copy is not a standard in the UNIX/POSIX terminal environment, and it cannot become so, due to the preexisting meaning. Any other usage in that context is wrong and will fail. Your bias is in your experience too. There may be more of you than there are of me, globally, but your language (UX expectations) is not universal, and will fail in other places.
- torstenvl 4y ago> Ctrl-C for copy is not a standard . . . and it cannot become so, due to the preexisting meaning. This is a non-sequitur. Standards change all the time, even things with a preexisting meaning. I also seriously doubt you believe it yourself. You brought up the example of Ctrl-Q earlier. Is it truly your position that it's not possible for the standard meaning of Ctrl-Q to be something other than XON?
- quesera 4y agoIt is my contention that, in a terminal environment, any attempts to redefine the standard meaning of Ctrl-Q as something other than XON will fail because it is impossible to do so consistently. Ctrl-Q does not even reach the application in a standard terminal configuration. It is possible to configure the terminal to allow it, of course, and some existing applications do so. However, it will not become "standard" because it cannot be ubiquitous, or even common except in certain classes of application. And what would you do with Ctrl-Q? Quit? Ctrl-C has you covered there (retroactive mnemonic: "Cancel"). So don't bother trying to redefine Ctrl-C either, you will only cause unnecessary pain for your users, and adoption hassles for your software. Windows users are not your target market for terminal-based software. So instead of inventing your own creole Esperanto patois, just speak the local language!
- torstenvl 4y agoThank you for confirming.
- ahefner 4y agoI'm curious if anyone uses terminal XON and XOFF except by accident these days.
- reaperducer 4y agoI do. All the time. Although sometimes I use [space] to resume output after pausing with Control-S. Between bogarting the Control key and flipping the directory separator, Windows should use the motto "We're different just because we can be."