How is this even possible? Just pipe result from a command into a file and open in vim and search it that way? Perhaps use Neovim's built in terminal where you can search at will? I find it hard to believe that "I don't ever search" is a thing.
I don't think I've ever intentionally used the scroll back search in iterm2 and deliberately disabled the shortcut for it because I kept triggering it by accident. I don't understand wanting or needing it, at all.
I've had the opposite experience with weird C++ projects from some customers that use external toolchains. For some reason even creating the compile_commands.json file with Bear doesn't work, while the proprietary Intellisense extension works out of the box without any configuration.
Probably because the 6502 CPU had instructions for optimized access to the zero page (first 256 bytes of RAM), this would also apply to C64 and NES etc. If you want to use "Indirect Indexed" memory accesses then I think it also has to go through an address held in the zero page.
The AVR architecture puts its registers starting from address 0 of its data memory. As a twist, the program memory also starts at 0 (due to the Harvard architecture).
I don’t exactly remember how it went but ~5 years ago Goodnotes 5 came out and they offered a “bundle” of Goodnotes 4 and 5 together at the same price of Goodnotes 5. Maybe owners of version 4 had some kind of discount on the bundle because they already owned half of it?
Thx, I know sushi, it was the first thing that I've found that made me love fedora. Out of the box quick look :-) But it is only similar to quick look, not as polished and integrated. Good enough though.
Pretty much like the touchpad experience, if you tune a few settings, buy a glass touchpad from a Yoga x1y3 for your T480s WQHD[1] and install `libinput-config` to fix the kinetic scrolling on HiDPI :-) But don't use touchpad drivers like mtrack or synaptics. Stick to libinput...
I plan to publish all my findings and research in a `Transition from macOS to Fedora` article in my blog, but 2 toddlers take their time ;)
A Quick look alternative is preinstalled on Fedora (GNOME sushi). Just press space while on the file manager.
It's not equivalent. With QuickLook, I can not only preview files, I can manipulate them. For example, I can crop an image, or add a signature to a PDF, or even edit an image that I'm previewing on my computer with my phone or tablet and the result is on my computer instantly.
It's funny because that's my exact experience using Windows. Buggy and incredibly bad defaults, completely mouse driven with insufficient keyboard controls. macOS is bearable and I can be productive on it, but I think GNOME is the perfect desktop for productivity. To each their own, I guess.
GNOME is quite decent in its current form and the most user-friendly desktop out there at the moment. People who hate on it just have some historical gripe with it, I feel like.
Ideally I'd be using something like Sway, but I can't be bothered to spend time on making things work the way they need to. GNOME gives me everything out of the box and doesn't get in my way. KDE is much more customizable, but less friendly on the eyes. Windows is probably OK if you're used to Windows (I'm clearly not). I have to use macOS at work and it's just a worse version of GNOME - bad defaults, weird design choices, less features, minimal customizability.
It's perfectly OK to mistake a subjective preference as objective user friendliness its most people's definition of the term. What is negative is to confuse disagreement with your preference with being unreasonable.
> People who hate on it just have some historical gripe with it, I feel like.
The way it handles virtual desktops with multiple monitors out of the box poorly thought out. With 3 monitors having changing workspaces only effect the primary monitor is very poor user experience. that leaves virtually pun intended without the affordance of virtual desktops at all.
There is a setting to expand virtual desktops to all monitors and now you no longer have to dig through something that looks like the windows registry to enable it which is indeed a nice upgrade but it misses the vastly superior third option of being able to independently switch each monitor.
An obvious affordance instead of digging through a settings menu would be a little iconic padlock beside a representation of the virtual desktop switcher that when unlocked enables you to manually switch a singular monitor or when by default locked allows the monitor to change with every other monitor.
Trivially enables not only all 3 possible workflows but allows one to discover this organically at the cost of a small amount of screen real estate.
This is a singular issue but their entire history is rife not merely with subjective differences in user preference but objectively bad design.
Bugs? In software? Never! By all reasonable accounts GNOME is a well-run broadly-scoped project with a perfectly normal amount of bugs given it’s size.
This is disingenuous. The implication of the grandparent comment is not that the persons experience happened 2 years ago instead of right now its that its automatically invalid because of it. In context the word historical doesn't mean anything useful.
Title of post: "Gnome Turns 25". So maybe and maybe not. I just ran into so much WTF I find it hard to imagine it's fixed now, plus some others here rather agree. It's enough to put me off anyway.
The odd things for me, having tried more or less every single Linux desktop under the sun, including several that no longer exist, is that there's no one definition of "user friendly" that holds true for everyone.
In this story's comments, there are people saying Windows is the best, others saying certain particular versions are best, others saying they find it unusable or at least hard.
Yet this has been the best-selling desktop OS in history for about 35 years now, used by _billions_ of people, so it must be getting something right.
Counter to that, there are also people castigating Macs and macOS. That's normal; there are as many biased fanboys against as there are for.
And yet, again, for nearly 40 years now, Apple has been THE ONE COMPANY to resist the rise of Microsoft, and has a fantastically loyal fan base and makes a lot of money.
I also have a number of blind friends, and they mostly tell me that Windows is the most accessible OS there is, that it has the best selection of assistive tech, that the apps are more accessible, and so on.
Some favour macOS. What macOS provides out of the box is way better, it's true. If you're a casual computer user -- bit of surfing, bit of online chat, very occasionally write a letter -- it's better for blind users than Windows.
If you have a job to do, in business, and need rich powerful apps, and need them to be accessible, my working blind mates tell me Windows easily trounces the Mac.
I am not blind so I must take their word for it.
But I can make Windows and macOS and my preferred Linux desktops, Unity and Xfce, stand on their heads and do back handsprings for me. I regularly read people telling me that any of these OSes just can't do X or can't do Y, when X and Y are things I do on a daily basis.
What this really means is: they don't know how to do X or Y, and they haven't bothered to look for instructions or guidance. It doesn't do it -- whatever "it" is, it varies a lot -- and so they decide it can't, it doesn't work, and they move on.
Don't believe me? Look on Quora for the dozens of idiots asking "why can't Macs do cut and paste?"
In terms of the mass market, outside Xerox PARC, Apple invented the industry-standard method of C&P and defined the keystrokes every other OS now uses... for the Lisa and the Mac. Of course they can.
What the idiots mean, but are too dim to know they mean, is that the Finder doesn't do cut and paste. No, it doesn't, for excellent very solid UI and HCI reasons that cause millions of dollars of data loss every year on Windows and have done since 1995.
But it's symptomatic.
People mostly don't know how to drive Windows and Windows-like interfaces with the standard keystrokes. They don't know how to search it, how to manage windows with the keyboard, how to manage virtual desktops, stuff like that.
Because they don't know, most don't do it.
Therefore most of the desktops for Linux are half-baked rip-offs of Windows that don't implement the clever stuff, because the people that implemented it didn't know the clever stuff.
So it doesn't work.
Along came GNOME and ripped all that out. If most people don't use it, then clearly, it's unnecessary so let's bin it. So it forced users into accessing the limited remaining functionality via defined keystrokes and gestures.
As a result, people have to learn the commands, and they can because there aren't many.
And the end result of that is that they then praise GNOME for being "powerful" and "efficient" because they were forced to learn stuff.
Windows did that better 27 years ago, but because of good design -- and I am no MS fanboy! -- you didn't have to learn it. You could point and click your way and stumble across a way to do it.
It's sort of Perl vs Python. One gives you a dozen ways to accomplish something; the other has one way that's encouraged as being "natural" or "pythonic".
Perl fans loved it for its power as a result... but they can't read their own code, let alone anyone else's. In the end that's doomed the language.
Python is easy enough for almost anyone with Clue № 1 but many already-skilled people hate it as a result of its enforced rules.
Programmers know this stuff and accept it. They rail about it, but they accept it.
Programmers typically do not know desktop tech well. I lived with 2 and was engaged to one. They could out-program me drunk, but they were not techies. It's a different skill.
So when someone comes along and says "hey, you know what, I am an expert in this stuff and environments A, B and C have this large feature set and cover 75% or 80% of the functionality of the OS they were copied from," they are probably right.
Then someone who knows just 10% of that functionality uses Desktop D, which only does that 10% but forced them to learn how to use it properly, and they say "no, Desktop D is better because it works and it's really efficient and has 100% of the functionality I need, and I'm a programmer, I know this stuff, so this is all anyone needs!"
It is amazingly frustrating to head this kind of advocacy, know that you know far better than the person doing it, but not be able to explain to Mr Loud-Confident-And-Wrong that there is stuff he hasn't considered and the big picture is a lot more complicated than that.
But what's worse than that is when the advocates of Desktop D are so loud and so confident that they persuade billion-dollar corporations to standardize on their fairly poor product... then they throw conferences where they pat each other on the back for their cleverness, and they patronize people online for being stupid from their position of smug, entrenched ignorance.
This is an informative and interesting comment but I would like to reply to a few points.
> Programmers typically do not know desktop tech well. They could out-program me drunk, but they were not techies. It's a different skill.
As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s this comment is strange as hell. In the first place possibly because if you weren't at a point in time a techie you weren't liable to be a computer user let alone be programming one. But honestly compared to programming being an expert computer user is such a microscopic topic comparatively. It's like saying although he was a master automotive engineer who oversaw the development of countless cars he never actually learned to park one. I know a lot of people are rather bad at it but its really a microscopic topic.
Regarding finder and cut and paste I was curious so I looked this up thinking to find people complaining instead I found this. Seems like you can "move" something to another folder with a only slightly different shortcut. This doesn't seem much different than cut and paste. It's not like the cut operation instantly deletes it from the present folder on any other desktop interface. If not paste follows it just doesn't get moved.
> Therefore most of the desktops for Linux are half-baked rip-offs of Windows that don't implement the clever stuff
Gnome seems more like a rip off of Mac, and the majority of other environments have their own "clever stuff". If anything Windows 10 looks more like a rip off of some of the better features from Mac/Linux after they tried and badly failed to go their own way with Windows 8.
> As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s this comment is strange as hell.
I was working from the late 1980s, and living with a professional developer by about 7Y later.
It surprised me a very great deal as well, but I 100% stand by this observation. Your follow-on statements are entirely on the same theme:
> But honestly compared to programming being an expert computer user is such a microscopic topic comparatively.
To quote Pauli, "that is not only not right, it is not even wrong."
It's also highly patronising and frankly offensive.
As a professional tech-support person from the late 1980s for about 25 years, I and my peers and fellow pros in this field knew many many times more about the general spread of desktop and server OSes, their compatibilities and more to the point their differences and incompatibilities, than 95% (not a random guess, a genuine estimate) of the developers I ever met.
And the majority of those developers though the reverse too. Many developers just assume that they are the gods of IT, shaping the raw clay into systems.
They are mostly completely wrong, but it is the pervasive belief.
> It's like saying although he was a master automotive engineer who oversaw the development of countless cars he never actually learned to park one.
That is in fact almost correct, yes.
One, yes, it is the case, yes, if overstated. It is more equivalent to saying "most car designers are not also racing drivers" while sneaking in a dig that says that racing isn't a job and racing driver isn't a real job, but just a stupid hobby for idiots.
Hi. In this metaphor, I'm a racing driver. Nice to meet you. I know how to get your car to do things you never dreamt of, I know how to customise it, and I also have spent longer than your lifetime fixing up other people's cars, teaching them to drive, and winning races.
No, in fact, I do not think it is reasonable for you, as a car designer, to mock my work. I think it is rude and ignorant.
Yes, I know many car designers. Yes, I know more about how their cars perform than the designers. Yes, I know how to drive those cars better than their designers. Yes, I can fix them too, but I would not presume to tell a professional mechanic that they are doing it wrong.
But if you wanted to know what was wrong with a car, then YES I would definitely rate the opinions of racing drivers and pro mechanics over the designers, yes. 100% of the time, by far.
In fact, if I wanted to know what was wrong with a car, I'd never ask the designer and wouldn't be terribly interested in their opinions.
Sadly, FOSS is the domain only of amateur designers-cum-builders-cum-racers-cum-repair-bodgers. There are almost no pros in this entire sector and they have zero respect for the real pros in the commercial market, who know 1000 times more than anyone in FOSS.
> I know a lot of people are rather bad at it but its really a microscopic topic.
More patronising rubbish.
Newsflash: the paid professionals deploying any complex machines know more about that software, how it works, how it doesn't work, how it fails, and how it breaks than the people who designed it.
This is true of everything from bicycles to cars to operating systems to desktops.
> Regarding finder and cut and paste I was curious so I looked this up thinking to find people complaining instead I found this.
Good. Glad you took my suggestion.
> Seems like you can "move" something to another folder with a only slightly different shortcut.
Deep sigh
The reason I suggested people reading my comment look this up is because I already knew this, and that's because I do in fact know my job and what I'm talking about.
I know you can move stuff. I know this because I've been deploying, training on, and fixing Apple Mac kit since 1988, and I was good at my job. I left it because 25 years of dealing with rather stupid customers is too much for anyone to have to bear.
I picked this example because it is a good example. Macs do have the functionality and have done since 1984.
However Windows only got a poor version of it in 1995, but that is all most users know, and when they find Macs don't do it that way, their response is not to find out the Mac way, it is to complain that Macs don't work.
> completely mouse driven with insufficient keyboard controls.
Certainly not. I suspect you aren't familiar with win, it has a lot of these although MS seems determined to wreck them.
I'm no MS shill, I wish they would DIAF, but I do find windows highly reliable and the UI was pretty good until they decided to fuck with it. By comparison I found gnome actively user hostile. Even small niceties that windows has are missing (eg one of very many, go up a folder in windows and the folder you were on will be the one selected, very handy). I would like to sit down with you and compare experiences, but ain't going to happen. Glad it works for you though.
Xfce (Thunar, Xfce Terminal, Mousepad) also uses CTRL-PGUP/DOWN to cycle tabs, as does MATE (Caja, MATE Terminal, Pluma uses CTRL-ALT-PGUP/DOWN). Neither uses CTRL-TAB for tabs but to cycle through buttons/icons on the GUI.
As far as I can tell CTRL-TAB for tab cycling is not very wide spread. KDE uses it, but that supports CTRL-PGUP/DOWN as well.
edit: And I'm not sure why CTRL-TAB even works in KDE because the default shortcuts to cycle through tabs are CTRL-PGUP/DOWN and CTRL-[/] (tested on KDE neon).
Funniest moment in UX design was probably when Windows invented the lock-screen curtain (the screen that you have to drag up to unveil a password input box), and the Linux desktops copied that.
> completely mouse driven with insufficient keyboard controls.
Is this really true now? If so, it's sad how far windows has fallen. It was very easy, almost pleasant to use Windows with no mouse, from 3.0 all the way through XP (which was the range of my regular windows use)
