The terrible UI of a straight-forward document separated into distinct blocks, paragraphs and charts that are easily read, that scrolls from from top-to-bottom? Yeah, awful.
2,659 karma · joined August 2, 2018
The way I want to run my machine is by running macOS and using its features, app ecosystem, and so on.
Not once have I ever felt I've had to make a sacrifice to do so.
"I've never personally understood" seems to be a lack of imagination.
I'm not a fan of this music either but I could imagine hearing it while I'm studying or coding.
Don't trash something just because it's not your vibe. Not everything has to be Mozart.
None of your examples are for built-in applications. You have to go out of your way to download those programs. You'd know what the traffic cone means because you downloaded the program with the traffic cone. You went out of your way to get it.
Let's go back to that era and look at some other built-in apps, like Pages is (these days).
Notepad: a blue-covered notepad with some lined pages visible.
Wordpad: a fountain pen writing on some lined paper. Eventually the pen disappeared but the paper remained.
Paint: a paint palette, then a bucket of art supplies, then a glass cup with paintbrushes, then back to a palette but with a brush.
Solitaire: a deck of cards.
Outlook Express: an envelope.
MSN Messenger: two people next to each other because they're communicating with each other.
Windows Movie Maker: a film reel/strip.
Internet Explorer: a big 'e' (for Explorer) with a planet-like ring around it, suggesting a planet that you could traverse. (Okay, a bit abstract)
Over the Mac, there was:
SimpleText: a pencil writing on a sheet of paper. Later re-used for TextEdit.
Sherlock: a detective's cap and magnifying glass, indicating searching. The magnifying glass was later re-used for Spotlight.
Disk First Aid: A floppy disk on the back of an ambulance.
Disk Utility: a doctor's stethoscope pressed against a hard disk.
etc.
> it was not how comprehensible logos became, but how cynical we ended up
Because, on macOS, none of the icons became any more comprehensible than before. If anything, they got less comprehensive even when the visual metaphor remained the same because the representation is so poor. That's what made everybody cynical.
Good for you. Do you want a medal?
Finding files often means more than just looking in folders for adequately named files. Sometimes, it's looking for the contents of files, for things that aren't files (because some kinds of files on macOS aren't actually files, they're folders that are treated specially by the system), and for things like contacts, calendar events, reminders, mail, etc.
And then you'll have to wait for grep to trawl every folder to find the right file rather than consult an optimised index.
All consumer-operating systems also used to be single user with administrative access by default. Shall we return to that, too?
There’s incentive for the menu bar to be properly populated with all the functions that a program offers. Mac users expect it.
Compare with non-standard Mac apps (mainly Electron apps or ports from other OS), modern Windows apps, and many Linux apps where the menu bar is often a second class citizen or completely absent, leaving you to the whims of the developer rather than enjoying conformance to a system-wide standard.
It's the way drag and drop is a fundamental interaction in text boxes, the proxy icons in title bars, how dragging a file to an open/save panel changes that panel's current folder rather than actually move a file.
It's how applications are just special folders that are treated like files, how they can update themselves independently of each other or any system packages, how you conventionally put them in the /Applications folder so you can put that folder on the Dock to use directly as a launcher.
It's how all text fields consistently support emacs-style keyboard shortcuts, respond appropriately to the system-provided text editing features such as the built-in Edit menu, text substitutions, and writing features.
It's how you can automate most Mac-assed apps; how you can extend the operating system through app-provided and user-created services to every other application that handles text, files, images, PDFs, through the built-in APIs using AppleScript, Automator, and Shortcuts.
It's how the whole program rather than its last window is the fundamental unit of an application such that document-based applications can exist without a window without also polluting some system tray with an unnecessary icon, how that means workflows expect more than one window open.
It's how there's a universal menu that works for every app, not just conforming ones (i.e. KDE's global menu only shows KDE apps' menus; other apps need a plugin or just don't show at all), how the help menu has a search field to look for menu items, how keyboard shortcuts are bound to the menu items are bound arbitrarily within the program's settings window and can thus be assigned globally in System Settings, how this means all of an application's main features are therefore accessible via the menu bar, how that creates consistency in the menus.
Those are just some things off the top of my head but there are plenty of others, some a bit more user facing, some less. Just examples, a non-exhaustive list.
I'm sure those who don't care about these things will dismiss it but if you've been using a Mac since before macOS, before OS X, or even before Mac OS X, these are things you won't drop for Linux just because the design is a bit uglier.
Of course, if none of these things matter, then the swap is easier. It doesn't mean any DE is a drop-in replacement by any means. Many of the things that make some DEs "Mac-like" are skin deep.
Sometimes, people think "it can be made to look similar, therefore it's the same" (especially with regard to KDE), and no, just no.