3 ms·

You…ever see a screenshot of Gnome? This statement of yours is also a bit silly considering Linux desktops have way more in common with macOS than with Windows

by dangus 10mo ago

You…ever see a screenshot of Gnome? This statement of yours is also a bit silly considering Linux desktops have way more in common with macOS than with Windows. They share a whole bunch of concepts like POSIX compliance, use the same shells, and they even share a package manager (Homebrew, which seems to be gaining a bit of Linux popularity lately). Even CUPS comes to mind.

GrowingSideways 10mo ago
Gnome is still a windows knockoff yea? Can you use readline bindings in a textfield? Edit: I mean, usable text fields. Like you have on a mac. You hit control-a and it goes to the start of the field. The command key is for interacting with the application. > You…ever see a screenshot of Gnome? Let's talk usability, not bullshit. Also gnome looks like... the rest of computers. It has no usability and is indistinguishable from other windows knockoffs
- dangus 10mo ago
  I am more confused than when we started, what exactly are you saying macOS is doing that nobody else is doing? > use readline bindings in a textfield I don’t even know what this means.
  - deathanatos 10mo ago
    They mean pretty much like they say. readline is a thing that reads lines being input by a user, in a terminal context. It includes a number of keybindings that make editing & navigation while editing the line-to-be-input easy, such as ^A, which moves the cursor to the start of the line. bash or zsh in emacs mode is similar, those these two have their own line editors, technically. macOS adopted some (but not all) of the common keybinds from that era into their UI. I.e., in a GUI text entry field in macOS, you can hit ^A to move the cursor to the start of the text entry. (I don't know that this particular UI-ism would make or break an OS for me, personally, though.) Given how UI is implemented, this would be up to the toolkit. In GTK3, this was called "key themes"; there was, I think, an "Emacs" theme that would do what they desire. I do not know if GTK4 still has this, however (and I suspect it was removed). (I think more users are going to expect ^A to be select-all, and home/end and ^← for word navigation, etc. These are the defaults. Thus key themes were probably little used.)
    - dangus 10mo ago
      Okay, I understand now. And that's just a wildly nitpicky criticism by the person that brought this up. To me, as long as the OS includes the functionality, the way it's presented to the user, how customizable it is, and what keys they use is generally irrelevant. Each user of each OS will be used to whatever that OS chooses to set up.
      - GrowingSideways 10mo ago
        > And that's just a wildly nitpicky criticism by the person that brought this up. It makes linux unusable > Each user of each OS will be used to whatever that OS chooses to set up. You cannot seriously expect each user to manually modify the os
        dangus 10mo ago
        At this point I am almost certain that you (a new user) are just here to troll and ragebait. No, I don’t expect users to manually modify the OS, I expect expect most users to leave it alone and learn its conventions. Sure buddy, the most popular kernel of all time is "unusable." I wonder if 3.9 billion Android users and the entire Fortune 500's data centers know that their platform is "unusable?"
- tapete1 10mo ago
  > You hit control-a and it goes to the start of the field. We "PC" users have a dedicated key for that on our keyboard, it is called "home". We even have the opposite, a dedicated key called "end".
cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
Gnome is only similar to macOS in the most superficial of ways. You don't even have to go beyond skin-deep for the illusion to start to fall apart. It compares more closely to iPadOS or Android in desktop mode. Linux desktops in general skew either Windows-like or ultra-minimal tiling thing.
- dangus 10mo ago
  I’m wildly confused at this claim. More like iPadOS, really??
  - cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
    Philosophically, yes. See decisions like hiding the minimize button, systematically eliminating menu bars, large highly padded touch-like control metrics, and generally omitting functions wherever possible. There’s also the mobile OS style top bar. It’s more customizable than iPadOS and doesn’t obscure the filesystem, but otherwise the two are very similar.
    - dangus 10mo ago
      To me, UI look and feel != philosophy. And having a similar looking UI != "very similar" iPadOS didn't even have overlapping windows until very recently. It barely has application multitasking with a highly compromised implementation. It doesn't even really have a central file system or user directory. It's missing a laundry list of things that macOS has that Linux distributions with also Gnome have. Let’s not forget that most Windows PCs on the market are available with touchscreens and a lot of people do use them. The Windows PC market is full of 2-in-1 convertibles that do not exist in Apple’s hardware lineup. Gnome isn’t losing their mind by making their desktop environment friendly to them. Apple is one of the only laptop manufacturers that has avoided touch panels on laptops entirely, because they want to sell you two devices with heavily overlapping functionality.
      - cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
        It’s not just look and feel, it’s approach to various things, like how GNOME shares the iPadOS tendency to cut advanced features instead of putting them in a less prominent position. The menu bars of Mac apps are full of such functions that under GNOME simply wouldn’t be implemented because they don’t fit in a toolbar or hamburger menu. There are several aspects of out of the box customization that are more like iPadOS than macOS too, which is why the GNOME settings app has less than half the settings that the macOS settings app does. If GNOME wants a touch friendly mode that’s fine, but they’re doing the Microsoft Windows 8 thing and forgetting that there’s a ton of desktop PCs that will never have touch as well as plenty of touch-capable laptops where that capability is unused or even flat out disabled. The least they could do is provide a “traditional desktop” toggle in settings to restore more sane padding values that don’t burn 20% of my non-touch 12” ThinkPad’s limited screen space for no good reason.

by dangus 10mo ago

GrowingSideways 10mo ago

Gnome is still a windows knockoff yea? Can you use readline bindings in a textfield? Edit: I mean, usable text fields. Like you have on a mac. You hit control-a and it goes to the start of the field. The command key is for interacting with the application. > You…ever see a screenshot of Gnome? Let's talk usability, not bullshit. Also gnome looks like... the rest of computers. It has no usability and is indistinguishable from other windows knockoffs

dangus 10mo ago
I am more confused than when we started, what exactly are you saying macOS is doing that nobody else is doing? > use readline bindings in a textfield I don’t even know what this means.
- deathanatos 10mo ago
  They mean pretty much like they say. readline is a thing that reads lines being input by a user, in a terminal context. It includes a number of keybindings that make editing & navigation while editing the line-to-be-input easy, such as ^A, which moves the cursor to the start of the line. bash or zsh in emacs mode is similar, those these two have their own line editors, technically. macOS adopted some (but not all) of the common keybinds from that era into their UI. I.e., in a GUI text entry field in macOS, you can hit ^A to move the cursor to the start of the text entry. (I don't know that this particular UI-ism would make or break an OS for me, personally, though.) Given how UI is implemented, this would be up to the toolkit. In GTK3, this was called "key themes"; there was, I think, an "Emacs" theme that would do what they desire. I do not know if GTK4 still has this, however (and I suspect it was removed). (I think more users are going to expect ^A to be select-all, and home/end and ^← for word navigation, etc. These are the defaults. Thus key themes were probably little used.)
  - dangus 10mo ago
    Okay, I understand now. And that's just a wildly nitpicky criticism by the person that brought this up. To me, as long as the OS includes the functionality, the way it's presented to the user, how customizable it is, and what keys they use is generally irrelevant. Each user of each OS will be used to whatever that OS chooses to set up.
    - GrowingSideways 10mo ago
      > And that's just a wildly nitpicky criticism by the person that brought this up. It makes linux unusable > Each user of each OS will be used to whatever that OS chooses to set up. You cannot seriously expect each user to manually modify the os
      - dangus 10mo ago
        At this point I am almost certain that you (a new user) are just here to troll and ragebait. No, I don’t expect users to manually modify the OS, I expect expect most users to leave it alone and learn its conventions. Sure buddy, the most popular kernel of all time is "unusable." I wonder if 3.9 billion Android users and the entire Fortune 500's data centers know that their platform is "unusable?"
tapete1 10mo ago
> You hit control-a and it goes to the start of the field. We "PC" users have a dedicated key for that on our keyboard, it is called "home". We even have the opposite, a dedicated key called "end".

cosmic_cheese 10mo ago

Gnome is only similar to macOS in the most superficial of ways. You don't even have to go beyond skin-deep for the illusion to start to fall apart. It compares more closely to iPadOS or Android in desktop mode. Linux desktops in general skew either Windows-like or ultra-minimal tiling thing.

dangus 10mo ago
I’m wildly confused at this claim. More like iPadOS, really??
- cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
  Philosophically, yes. See decisions like hiding the minimize button, systematically eliminating menu bars, large highly padded touch-like control metrics, and generally omitting functions wherever possible. There’s also the mobile OS style top bar. It’s more customizable than iPadOS and doesn’t obscure the filesystem, but otherwise the two are very similar.
  - dangus 10mo ago
    To me, UI look and feel != philosophy. And having a similar looking UI != "very similar" iPadOS didn't even have overlapping windows until very recently. It barely has application multitasking with a highly compromised implementation. It doesn't even really have a central file system or user directory. It's missing a laundry list of things that macOS has that Linux distributions with also Gnome have. Let’s not forget that most Windows PCs on the market are available with touchscreens and a lot of people do use them. The Windows PC market is full of 2-in-1 convertibles that do not exist in Apple’s hardware lineup. Gnome isn’t losing their mind by making their desktop environment friendly to them. Apple is one of the only laptop manufacturers that has avoided touch panels on laptops entirely, because they want to sell you two devices with heavily overlapping functionality.
    - cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
      It’s not just look and feel, it’s approach to various things, like how GNOME shares the iPadOS tendency to cut advanced features instead of putting them in a less prominent position. The menu bars of Mac apps are full of such functions that under GNOME simply wouldn’t be implemented because they don’t fit in a toolbar or hamburger menu. There are several aspects of out of the box customization that are more like iPadOS than macOS too, which is why the GNOME settings app has less than half the settings that the macOS settings app does. If GNOME wants a touch friendly mode that’s fine, but they’re doing the Microsoft Windows 8 thing and forgetting that there’s a ton of desktop PCs that will never have touch as well as plenty of touch-capable laptops where that capability is unused or even flat out disabled. The least they could do is provide a “traditional desktop” toggle in settings to restore more sane padding values that don’t burn 20% of my non-touch 12” ThinkPad’s limited screen space for no good reason.