Re: Poor "Snit"

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech
Subject	Re: Poor "Snit"
Date	2017-04-20 18:29 -0700
Message-ID	<D51EAE95.A08DF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <odb46d$85h$1@dont-email.me> <200420171620314053%nospam@nospam.invalid> <odbcnp$7ba$1@dont-email.me> <D51E85F8.A0883%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <odbm5j$v3d$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/20/17, 6:13 PM, in article odbm5j$v3d$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N.
Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>> On 4/20/17, 3:32 PM, in article odbcnp$7ba$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N.
>> Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <odb46d$85h$1@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little
>>>> <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Some DEs do not have the New Folder hot key work on the desktop and if
>>>>>> you go fast with your pressing of hot keys they can get "confused".
>>>>>> Others, such as most Gnome based ones, handle it better. But here is the
>>>>>> issue that was being discussed:
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 'tis the beauty of Linux. Don't like that DE, then pick another to suit
>>>>> you. That is in contrast to MS or Apple where you are stuck with whatever
>>>>> they tell you to have.
>>>> 
>>>> wrong.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> How so?
>> 
>> You can get other file managers and the like for Windows and macOS but not
>> really the whole DE as far as I know.
> 
> You just confirmed what I said. Sure you can install an alternative
> application, even in macOS but that is not what we were talking about
> was it now.

You claimed it was a benefit of Linux. I have asked if you can show some
tasks which are made easier with this benefit. So far we have silence from
you on that. 

>> For me, though, the question comes to which serves me best, not which has
>> the most parts I can swap out (though the swapping out can serve the goal of
>> making a tool more useful).
>> 
>> Do you have examples from your desktop where you think the choices you have
>> made allow you to get tasks done better than you can on the competition? If
>> so would love to see them or even just have you describe them.
> 
> You should know, I have written about it numerous times in another NG
> you also haunt, aolu. The Unity desktop.

You mean the shell Canonical is ceasing development on?

> I have said I find it the best *new* approach to a UI.

Great. Would love to see some examples of tasks it handles better. Hey, I
might disagree when I see it -- that is fine. I am sincerely curious. And
who knows, maybe I will agree.

From using Linux I got used to windows snapping together. Wow. It is a small
thing but it makes a difference for window management. For years I openly
talked about how I wished Apple would add it to the Mac. They finally have
but that is a place Linux, at least with many shells, was ahead for years.

> Windows 10 is moderately better than Windows 8, but still is clunky and
> *inconsistent* compared to Unity.

It is a bit of a mess... settings in both a desktop and tablet UI but they
are not the same. I have seen examples of having to use the tablet UI to
change mouse settings which would not change when using the desktop UI. Just
weird.

> It is the best IMHO of a post-menu approach to an interface.

I am behind on it, but does it not still have a menu? One of the things I
liked about it was the help system where you can type words and it seemed to
have some "intelligence" to find what you wanted. This is important on Linux
where terms like "Settings" and "Preferences" are not consistent in names or
locations (nor even basic things like "Quit" and "Exit"). So that was cool.

> The Dash is so good and responsive, even on minimal hardware, that I do not
> miss the menu at all. You do not have to know the name of an application to
> find it, nor have to scroll through a long list. It showed real promise as a
> convergent interface with touch and phone...

As I said, I am pretty far behind on it... would love to see a video of the
specifics you mean.

> I don't bother locking apps to the launcher since the dash is so responsive.
> The locking is very effective at managing many instances of applications over
> multiple desktops with the little tick symbols. And more, but I have stuff to
> do now...

Fair enough. Would love to see more on it from you.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Poor "Snit" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-20 14:23 -0500
  Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 15:41 -0400
    Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 12:57 -0700
      Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 13:01 -0700
      Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 16:06 -0400
        Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 16:20 -0400
          Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 18:32 -0400
            Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 15:36 -0700
              Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 21:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 18:29 -0700
            Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 19:00 -0400
              Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 16:17 -0700
              Re: Poor "Snit" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-04-21 10:07 +0200
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 07:11 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-04-21 16:19 +0200
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:32 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:19 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:34 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:38 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:52 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 15:07 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:41 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:47 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 09:19 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:32 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 09:39 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:45 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:21 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 11:59 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:25 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:18 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:48 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 11:56 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:14 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 12:24 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:36 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:23 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:26 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:39 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:17 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:43 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:24 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:44 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:20 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:23 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:18 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:21 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-21 12:13 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 15:19 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 17:40 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 15:13 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:20 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:42 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2017-04-21 17:21 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 15:15 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
        Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 13:35 -0700
  Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 12:53 -0700

csiph-web