Every time this point comes up, ultimate conclusion isn't the CLI is bad or can't be improved, but the VT220 and similar emulation that's holding things back. Any person who has developed a terminal emulator can attest to that. There have been and are attempts at a much better CLI, but until we drop the legacy baggage, we can't have nicer things, at least in a sane way. But if we do that, we don't really have enough incentive to use the newer tools. Its a catch 22 after all.
Mh, did you ever tried modern shell like zsh or fish, with a reasonable config? Or even better, despite a bit steep learning curve, eshell (Emacs) if you already know Emacs and elisp a bit or xonsh if you are already familiar with Python.
As an Emacs (EXWM) user I agree that pure CLI is limited and pure text-based interfaces without terminal emulators limits are far superior but... Well, today outside Emacs we only have CLIs, the rest is so limited and limiting that can be used only for desktop end-user stuff. Even Microsoft Windows mandate CLI for serious system use/management...
> That would imply people will go back to installing things, hunting for feeds, copypasting urls...
Nope. We could have a simple list of feeds, with a simple 'add' button next to the site name, even embedded in the app itself, as preferred/most read feeds list. Since this list contains no excerpts, and actual excerpts and feeds would be coming from publisher themselves, it shouldn't be an issue.
Of course, then we have questions like order of this list, how many and which feeds it lists and all, but it offers enough convenience that if made avoidable, we shouldn't have a problem with it.
Or since IANAL, this _may not_ be how the links and excerpts are considered, and I'm wrong, in which case, I'd like to know so I can correct myself.
A cursory google search couldn't find what you mention. Can you cite the source please?
I know another example that goes in opposite direction, of Humble Bundles, where Linux had consistently higher average payment than Windows, but that may have changed in recent years.
It was a long time ago. But some searching today, official response from Adobe (2010):
> Again, we've done the research. The profits aren't there -- very few Linux users are willing to pay for commercial software. And the cost of entry is still high because of the fragmented Linux landscape. The Linux world has to change before commercial software will have reason to invest in Linux ports. And we haven't seen much real change in the Linux market in several years.
> At the height of the Dot-Com era, dozens of startups tried selling proprietary applications for Linux -- and not one survived more than a couple of years. Even Adobe, after releasing a popular beta of FrameMaker, withdrew it from circulation after a poll suggested that users were unwilling to pay for applications.
Flash was awesome. It created the interactive multimedia web long before HTML5 existed. Many animators, game developers, and other artists started their career as teenagers working in Flash and posting to Newgrounds.
It wasn't perfect software by any means, but perfect is the enemy of good anyways.
"The height of the dot-com era" was 18 years ago, Linux has come on a long way since then - not to mention the (perceived?) quality of Windows and macOS going downhill.
Even fewer people in my extended group of friends and family are aware of Linux now than 18 years ago, and that is saying something. The only people who know anything about it are geeks, and we are a minuscule amount of the population.
I think fewer people are aware of underlying software generally. Presumably there are at most four categories for lots of end-users: "PCs", "Apples/Macs", "iPhones", "Androids". (Of course, more people are using Linux in some form or other now than they were 18 years ago, whether they know it or not.)
For one thing there are a lot more distros, two different display servers, and several more packaging formats. Not exactly countering their point about fragmentation are we? At least we got that sound situation mostly sorted out.
It doesn't matter how much value Word delivers when Libreoffice Writer delivers more, for less (zero) cost. For most people, Writer is enough, and so they won't buy Word. Its just free market and competition working the way it should.
Libre can't even reliably update Word documents, which is literally the only thing I ever asked if it. I don't think MS is threatened by it, and I have no idea why you're going off on a free market tangent.
Somehow the openess of graphic formats does not make Gimp a better proposition than Photoshop, specially when handling color workflows on digital agencies.
An image format mostly stores the end result of what you made.
An office document format is basically source code.
That's why the openness of a graphic format doesn't matter, but clear specifications on how to interpret an office document make an enormous difference.
Somehow you missed the point that openness of graphic formats has not helped to make Gimp better than Photoshop, likewise even if Office formats were 100% open, Libre Office features wouldn't match Word.
I didn't miss the point. I'm arguing that the two kinds of format are completely different. A graphics format is a side-effect of the actual editing, an afterthought. With an office document, the format itself is the core of the experience.
No, but it would allow LibreOffice to work with them cleanly which was the criticism I replied to (and probably allow Word to break itself less often or have 3-4 fewer implementations embedded in itself).
็Really? I have had more OpenOffice crash/freeze on me in 2 years of using it (on Linux) than MS Office for over 10 years (including 2 years running in VM)
I would seriously fork money over if MS would ever build Linux version.
The last MS Office I paid for was 2007. The last time I used Word 2007 was 2010 or 2011 maybe. I am 100% lacking in any experience in Word features, at least since then, and I hardly remember anything from Word 2007.
As a lawyer, I deal with other people's Word products all day every day. What Word features am I missing out on? I am genuinely curious and not trying to be snarky in any way.
Its not about upselling. It is about Google leveraging their effective monopoly as a search engine (in EU, >60%) to unfair advantage in other industries (retail). MS got into same trouble over IE in US as well.
Slide for reddit is another reddit client. Fully open source under GPLv3, nice looks and hi designed very well such that you never have to reach for keys at the bottom. Wholeheartedly recommended.
I've been kinda waiting for something like what Ubuntu is/was to Debian. Approachable. Last time I tried nix, learning curve was too steep. This update looks like they've started to work towards approachability a bit, so I might give it another go.
