3 ms·
I disagree completely. I think the problem with Linux desktop can be perfectly illustrated by how you create a shortcut. On Windows, you right click the deskt
by AlienRobot 3y ago
I disagree completely.
I think the problem with Linux desktop can be perfectly illustrated by how you create a shortcut.
On Windows, you right click the desktop, click new -> shortcut. A window appears with a paragraph explaining what you're doing and a single field to select the filepath. There's a button that reads "next." You click it to go to the second window, in which another paragraph tells you to pick a name for the shortcut. There's only one field, here, too. The next button became a finish button. This whole process just to fill 2 fields: filepath and name.
On Linux, you right click on the desktop, click "create launcher," and this appears https://i.stack.imgur.com/kFhFO.png https://i.stack.imgur.com/kFhFO.png
- cykros 3y agoI'll take the Linux method any day -- it lets me put custom commands, including command line args. Could I just write a script and point my shortcut to that instead? Sure. At the end of the day, making things idiot proof can be how some software developers go -- personally I can't stand it when it's done, however, as it makes actually accessing configuration options more bothersome than it frankly needs to be. Personally I can't stand MacOS, Windows is a time waster with a lot of how it does things, and most of the mainstream linux distros in the past few years (especially since the advent of systemd) have been moving scarily in the same direction. Thank Bob for Slackware -- if Pat ever gives it up it may need to be a move to BSD for me.