4 ms·
Keeping ctrl-C as the binding for copy is silly though. Intentionally having poor UX that's unnecessarily confusing to power users because of "reasons" is why W
by BanazirGalbasi 2y ago
Keeping ctrl-C as the binding for copy is silly though. Intentionally having poor UX that's unnecessarily confusing to power users because of "reasons" is why Windows can never become a credible developer OS.
- Wytwwww 2y agoHaving different shortcuts for the same operation in different applications is just wrong. > Windows can never become a credible developer OS. For better or for worse it has been one for decades. > Keeping ctrl-C as the binding for copy is silly though Why? Also sure whatever, it can be something else as long as it is CONSISTENT. > confusing to power users Well.. Good thing is that "power users" know how to change default shortcuts and can use a different "power user" profile.
- pram 2y agoThe shortcut is actually the same everywhere: Command+C You obviously just switched it to mimic Windows, which is why it's "inconsistent"
- Wytwwww 2y agoYou mean "Super/Meta + C" is the default for copy on Linux making the whole argument redundant? I don't think that's a default shortcut on Gnome or KDE....