Thread

1. fedeb95 · 1790088079 · focus · HN ↗

   I have been a long time Android fan because of the tinkering you could do more easily than Apple. Then I started appreciating some of the design decisions behind especially iPhone, and it's been almost 7 years of iPhone usage.

   Recently I am starting to question some of the design decisions. Most native apps are bloated with functionalities, most of the time useless. Ads pop up everywhere, even before persistence; iCloud and backups are clearly designed to make you pay, the free space is useless.

   I am not that sure my next phone will be an iPhone.

   I have tried a recent Mac, and the system isn't intuitive at all. The first time I used GNOME, it was a breeze. Not the same with the MacBook system.

   1. ndiddy · 1790089838 · focus · HN ↗

      > I have tried a recent Mac, and the system isn't intuitive at all. The first time I used GNOME, it was a breeze. Not the same with the MacBook system.

      I guess it depends on what you're used to? The last time I tried using GNOME, I found it very unintuitive. I ran into stuff like:

      - Why don't windows have maximize and minimize buttons?

      - Why do I have to go to a separate screen to un-minimize a window?

      - Why does launching software require going through the GNOME equivalent of the Windows 8 start screen?

      - Why can't I make the trackpad scroll speed slower?

      - Why don't I have any system tray icons?

      - Why do the extensions I installed to work around some of the above problems (some of which have millions of downloads yet haven't been added as settings) break after every GNOME update?

      1. jlarocco · 1790092576 · focus · HN ↗

         Something to keep in mind is that you don't have to use GNOME. There are a ton of window managers that run on Linux, and you can find one that works better for you.

         There's not much choice on Mac unless you install Linux on it.

         1. SoftTalker · 1790095701 · focus · HN ↗

            It's linux, you can do everything in the terminal. I've never understood what purpose a "desktop" serves.

            Want to start Firefox? type "fir<tab>" in your terminal and hit enter.

            Want to see your files? Type "ls" and hit enter. Learn just a tiny bit about pipes, wildcards, and utilities and you can leave those mouse-pushers in the dust.

            1. nkrisc · 1790100082 · focus · HN ↗

               > Learn just a tiny bit about pipes, wildcards, and utilities

               Or I could use a desktop on expend my limited mental energy on things more relevant to me. It’s far easier for me to remember things in a visual or spatial manner.

               1. aquariusDue · 1790122804 · focus · HN ↗

                  These days I can say the same, I used to enjoy trying to minimize my mouse usage and fiddling with tiling window managers but now I just can't be bothered.

                  And the weird thing is that the type of mental effort required is not even a useful one per se, it's more like a strain (to me) than something that makes me sharper.

                  Still some things are easier in a GUI while others in a CLI, just depends on their nature and how often do you have to engage with them. But after a while navigating windows by Alt+Tab (Alt+`) or the mouse is fine really. I don't care to reach for Super+PgDown/PgUp when I can move my mouse to the corner of the screen and scroll to change the workspace.

                  1. nkrisc · 1790162305 · focus · HN ↗

                     That’s a good way of putting it. CLI skills are specialized skills that I’m not going to use for anything else, whereas using a desktop environment is re-using skills I already have for other purposes.

                     Even when I do write code, I spend more time thinking about the code than actually writing so losing time to using my mouse doesn’t matter.

            2. card_zero · 1790102272 · focus · HN ↗

               If I want to start a program I can click its icon in the taskbar, if I want to see my files I can click the file manager in the taskbar, and since these actions are done with the mouse I can simultaneously lie back in bed while eating trifle with a long spoon.
            3. jlarocco · 1790108146 · focus · HN ↗

               I don't see what point you're trying to make. Those two examples work identically in the OSX terminal.

               1. mahboi · 1790145668 · focus · HN ↗

                  You gotta add firefox to your PATH first, but yeah, this isn't what the terminal is useful for.
            4. sapphicsnail · 1790108195 · focus · HN ↗

               Do you adjust audio settings in the terminal? I've been moving away from using my mouse but anything related to audio or display settings intimidates me.
            5. mahboi · 1790134147 · focus · HN ↗

               You can't use Firefox in the terminal

               1. 1718627440 · 1790162056 · focus · HN ↗

                  You can't use it "in" the desktop either, you just start it from there. Same as with the terminal.

                  1. mahboi · 1790207560 · focus · HN ↗

                     Mostly yeah. The DE does manage the browser's windows and notifications if you use those. The point is, you're going to use the mouse with Firefox, there's no advantage of using the terminal just to open it.

                     1. 1718627440 · 1790242008 · focus · HN ↗

                        > The point is, you're going to use the mouse with Firefox

                        I was imprecise. I am solely talking about using a terminal emulator program on a display server, I wasn't talking about refraining from using anything outside a VTE. That would be pointless, yeah.

                        > there's no advantage of using the terminal just to open it.

                        My point is that it is. Typing 'firefox' is way simpler to open the program, than traversing an application list and selecting it. The latter can become faster once you have a shortcut, but then it's equivalent to 'f<TAB>' or '!!' and the like. Language is more versatile, that's why we use it for fast communication. If you want the scissors from someone, you tell them, you don't make gestures or draw a picture, because that's way more work (unless you are mute).

         2. asdff · 1790096462 · focus · HN ↗

            Mac is just a different philosophy. Yes there are window managers for mac if you really want to replicate linux window management. That is possible for you. There are several tools for this, e.g. Amethyst.

            But really mac is less about having every square inch of your monitor filled with a dozen different applications sized perfectly to fit the exact information you want on these screens. You can of course do this if you like but thats not really the philosophy.

            The philosophy is that this is a real life desktop. Just like papers on your desk. Do you resize papers various ways and print them to maybe 3 inches across and lay them out on your desk such that you can see every paper at once, no space from one page to the next? No. You have piles. You thumb through piles and pull out stuff you need and lay them loosely next to eachother. Nothing is fixed in any constraints. Stuff can overlap or have space in between.

            This is exactly how windows management works in macos. It is simply a different philosophy, but it is much closer to how desktop management actually works in real life with a physical desktop and physical papers.

            1. NamlchakKhandro · 1790115365 · focus · HN ↗

               It's dumb and pretentious
            2. mahboi · 1790134124 · focus · HN ↗

               I've never used it that way ever since I was a little kid using OS 8. macOS even copied the Windows snap system, and I use it.
            3. Telaneo · 1790173041 · focus · HN ↗

               I spend time in the digital realm because I hate paper. Paper is a horrible analogue with real world limitations we should have left behind in the 90s.
            4. fedeb95 · 1790241641 · focus · HN ↗

               interesting point, but in a real desktop, or multi-desktop setup, you can have different things on each one and look at them one by one, by table. The alt+tab default behaviour on MacOS is not that. This is my problem with their design choice.
            5. isityettime · 1790250593 · focus · HN ↗

               > Yes there are window managers for mac if you really want to replicate linux window management.

               Not really. None of the "window managers" for macOS actually play the role of compositors on Wayland or window managers on X11. macOS has exactly one window manager, plus a bunch of apps that run automation against it and sometimes call themselves "window manager".

               > This is exactly how windows management works in macos. It is simply a different philosophy, but it is much closer to how desktop management actually works in real life with a physical desktop and physical papers.

               Most window managers (and the vast majority of the popular ones) on Linux are also like this. It's called a "floating window manager". Tiling window managers are cool but they're marginal even on Linux.

         3. mahboi · 1790134211 · focus · HN ↗

            There's such thing as one DE being less convenient than other, but it's far less important than it being reliable and easy to get help with. We've changed DEs at work a couple of times, and it's never because of usability, it's because the old one became unsupported or wasn't compatible with something.

            Same with X11 vs Wayland. I don't care which, I just want the one that works, and want to never hear about the other one again. Linux Mint comes with X11. It didn't work on my fairly standard PC because of something about graphics switching.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.