> Terminal has historical bindings
Keeping that as a default is silly though. Intentionally having poor UX that's unnecessarily confusing to new users because of "reasons" is why Linux can never become a credible consumer OS.
Keeping that as a default is silly though. Intentionally having poor UX that's unnecessarily confusing to new users because of "reasons" is why Linux can never become a credible consumer OS.
Compare this to macOS, where copy and paste are consistently Cmd+C and Cmd+V. More generally, keyboard shortcuts tend to use Cmd. That leaves key combinations with Ctrl to their traditional uses in the terminal. Which is pretty convenient, as the combinations won't randomly change when you ssh to a remote Linux system.
> Windows can never become a credible developer OS.
For better or for worse it has been one for decades.
> Keeping ctrl-C as the binding for copy is silly though
Why? Also sure whatever, it can be something else as long as it is CONSISTENT.
> confusing to power users
Well.. Good thing is that "power users" know how to change default shortcuts and can use a different "power user" profile.
You obviously just switched it to mimic Windows, which is why it's "inconsistent"
Of course if the developers of Linux/KDE/Gnome/etc. want to make their software unnecessarily confusing to new/less experienced users which would make inconsistent UX an intentional feature then you're right.
If I’m in vim, I know that I have at least two sources to paste from; one with `p`, and one with Cmd/Ctrl-Shift-V.
Presumably experienced users know how to change shortcuts/profiles.
But that's fine, such a design philosophy just means that Linux will never become appealing to non-advanced users.