Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That’s it, we’re quitting

design.canonical.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#111

Post by ugh »

telemachos wrote: post #95
masklinn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Certainly some people - not just geeks - like this approach I would argue that non-geeks are, in fact, far more likely to enjoy this approach than geeks. > I find it patronizing ("Don't worry your pretty little head about where we store the files.") Well except it's easy to know where they're stored. > and authoritarian ("You may not delete the Pictures folder from your home folder or give it an alternative name.")…

> Well except it's easy to know where they're stored. Sure, I can control-click the folder, select "Show Package Contents" (?!? an obvious way to say "open this folder"), open the directory named "Originals" and then drill down into the year-stamped folders until I find my albums. But clearly Apple doesn't want me doing that. Otherwise, the photo library would work like all the normal folders . I could simply double…

Why are you using iPhoto again? It’s not for you. I see no reason whatsoever why I would ever want to touch my photos in the filesystem (and there is nothing wrong with that) but you seem to need that functionality (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Apple has always provided an alternative way of importing photos in Mac OS X (it is, in fact, the way of importing photos that predates iPhoto), the application is called “Image Capture”, it’s in your applications folder and you can make it you default for whenever you are connecting a camera. It puts photos in folders.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#112

Post by ugh »

vacri wrote: post #105
masklinn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember the program automatically copying the files from a camera to some folder deep within the hard drive and then giving not a clue later as to which folder that was and certainly not allowing any exploration between folders... Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all? * If you want to see or edit your pictures, you can do so via iPhoto (or iPhoto-compatibl…

Control-click. Needing two hands to get a context menu is the kind of thing that makes me question the 'minimalism' of OSX. Same as needing two keys(/hands) to do 'delete to the right'

So the news that you can use a two button mouse with Mac OS X since, oh, I don’t know, forever haven’t reached you?

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#113

Post by vacri »

arrogant wrote: post #110
vacri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Control-click. Needing two hands to get a context menu is the kind of thing that makes me question the 'minimalism' of OSX. Same as needing two keys(/hands) to do 'delete to the right'

I can't verify this at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that you can assign the right and middle click actions on a three button mouse to do Cmd- and ctrl- clicks, so this is a nonissue for those of us with a standard mouse.

I'm thinking more about the macbook pros that I see lots of people with. Another pet peeve with apple laptops is that the physical click is only at the bottom of the trackpad - why not the top? I have large hands and it's really not anywhere near the resting place for my fingers, especially if I'm typing.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#114

Post by derleth »

ugh wrote: post #112
vacri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Control-click. Needing two hands to get a context menu is the kind of thing that makes me question the 'minimalism' of OSX. Same as needing two keys(/hands) to do 'delete to the right'

So the news that you can use a two button mouse with Mac OS X since, oh, I don’t know, forever haven’t reached you?

Unless it ships with one it doesn't exist for most users, especially most Mac users.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#115

Post by derleth »

extension wrote: post #10

Awesome. Next, get rid of "Save", which is an even bigger problem.

> Next, get rid of "Save", which is an even bigger problem.

No, because you don't know my workflow and you don't know what I want going to long-term storage.

If you think you do, you are wrong.

If you think you know how I want to work better than I do, you are wrong.

(I'm shocked I actually have to say these things, but, from experience, I do.)

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#116

Post by ugh »

derleth wrote: post #114
ugh wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the news that you can use a two button mouse with Mac OS X since, oh, I don’t know, forever haven’t reached you?

Unless it ships with one it doesn't exist for most users, especially most Mac users.

All current Macs ship with mice or trackpads that support right clicking.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#117

Post by ciupicri »

GHFigs wrote: post #90
hristov wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of "save" which seemed rather simple to me, you have to learn two new features such as "lock" and "revert", which do not seem so simple to me. Oh and also, now you have no idea what data is saved in your documents. Your documents can carry in them hidden past versions without you being aware of it. Which can prove very embarrassing in many business situations. Which means that anyone that handles sensitive…

Your documents can carry in them hidden past versions without you being aware of it. That's not how the feature is implemented. Versions are maintained in the filesystem, not within the file.

What happens if you copy it to an USB flash drive?

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#118

Post by th »

ggchappell wrote: post #87
hristov wrote: post #70

As an Ubuntu user, these articles scare the hell out of me. The quit or exit command is not confusing at all. And if you want to get rid of it, you'd better make sure that none of your programs have any memory leaks ever (good luck with that). You know what is much more confusing than the quit command? Having to go into the CLI or the task manager and kill stuff manually because it is eating half of your memory and p…

> It is extremely annoying that this starry eyed experimentation is going on in the most popular Linux distro. They are basically risking the one foothold Linux has been able to make in the desktop world. If you want to experiment, you should start an experimental distro and not risk your's and Linux's one single solid success. That is an excellent point, and one that worries me, too. On the other hand, I'm glad that…

Less Linux-savvy Ubuntu users are less likely to try out a non-mainstream distro/variant. It's hard to find the "best ones" without testing these new features on these users.

Sometimes your users are your Guinea pigs. I think Ubuntu will be fine as long as they remain responsive to user feedback and maintain "get me back to what I'm used to" options for experimental features.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#119

Post by derleth »

ugh wrote: post #116
derleth wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless it ships with one it doesn't exist for most users, especially most Mac users.

All current Macs ship with mice or trackpads that support right clicking.

I've used an iMac that shipped with Snow Leopard and it shipped with a single-button mouse.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#120

Post by ugh »

derleth wrote: post #119
ugh wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All current Macs ship with mice or trackpads that support right clicking.

I've used an iMac that shipped with Snow Leopard and it shipped with a single-button mouse.

Check System Preferences. It’s off by default.

Mice that support right clicking have been shipping with every Mac since 2005, trackpads that support right clicking with every Mac since 2006 or so.

Post reply on HN