It was scary how close we got to some published prices.
Did you mean MacOS?
- Drag and drop the file into a terminal to insert the path
- Copy and paste the file into the terminal, which inserts the path
- Press Command+I to show a popover describing the path to the file
- Enable the "show path bar" option in the Finder's "view" menu, which will show a nice graphical representation of the path to the current location at the bottom of the window (which lets you copy the POSIX path to each item)
- For more advanced users, run the command `defaults write com.apple.finder _FXShowPosixPathInTitle -bool YES` to show the full path to the current folder in each Finder window title
- Drag and drop the file into a terminal to insert the path
- Copy and paste the file into the terminal, which inserts the path
- Press Alt + Enter to see details describing the path to the file
- Press Ctrl+L to see full path. Or just use better file manager like Nemo
Ah, and also if you alt-rightclick on an item, you can copy its path to the clipboard. Or you can open the ‘Edit’ menu with alt pressed and copy the path to the current folder. Apparently there's even a shortcut for this.
THANK YOU!
- use columns view
It's certainly fine if you work a lot locally with the Mac; but for me, the cost-effective thing has been to fumble around each time (since I only do this a few times a year) rather than memorize handling that I use so seldom.
Also, nothing to memorize about copy & paste or drag & drop. I would say you’re used to Linux GUIs not doing what you expect so the obvious solutions aren’t even considered.
Showing the Finder path bar is the more obvious option. Nautilus, the file browser on some Linux distros, supports this as well.
To a terminal. I thought Linux was the one where you needed to open a terminal to do basic things, yet from my experience it's usually MacOS that needs a terminal for such basic things as turning off mouse acceleration.
Seriously, Linux has a lot of UX issues, but hiding the full path of files is a problem that plagues literally every single OS file manager. It seems that at some point, all the major OS makers agreed that users are too stupid to understand a file hierarchy, and came up with tricks to hide it.
And this is why I find myself mostly in the text shell.
Were I to go graphical the minimum I want is a simple address bar that I can override the current path with a specified path at will.
Maybe a tree view like in Windows 95 Explorer just to pretty things up. Some of the modern comforts like thumbnail images would also be welcome.
I wish they would stop insulting their users who have taken the time to understand the underlying technicalities of a file system. All this should be user-configurable in a good file manager. SpaceFM and PcmanFM come closest to what I've specified.
That's not a difficult question. The only time it makes sense to expose the internals is if you build a specialist tool for people who like internals exposed.
This means that no, it shouldn't be "user configurable" either. You don't want a combinatorial explosion of states in your UI for a tiny set of users in the general purpose case, and you don't want to create a honking fat tool for specialists who'll only use the specialist path.
The computer industry is discovering what the mechanical tools industry has known for a while: You can build a general purpose tool that's simple & straightforward, or you can make a specialist tool.
Pretty much any specialist will be slightly unhappy with the specialist tool and modify it to their own requirements, but you can't build a specialist tool that makes even close to all specialists happy. The specialists will also continue to use the generalist tool if it gets the job done, but they'll complain every step of the way.
I find this annoying as well, but it only happens when you use quick access shortcuts. And then once you're in a sub folder it'll display the full path in the title bar provided you turn on "Display the full path in the title bar" in the Folder Options.
Navigating directly to c:\Users\MyUser\Downloads will also show the full path in the title bar.
It seems some of these shortcuts have "special" behaviours in explorer.
Terminal -> Finder:
open .
I made a Bash function:
function cdf {
DIR=$(osascript -e 'tell app "Finder" to POSIX path of (insertion location as alias)')
cd "$DIR"
}In macos I don't have to edit random .conf files in system/application directories just to make my wifi work correctly. The graphical UI is configurable enough that I rarely need to modify anything outside of my normal user directories.
Where as in ubuntu the forums/stack overflow usually say "go to this file at /sys/whatever and write in this". Hence the need for full file paths.
The first thing I do on any Mac is to drop into Terminal to run this:
defaults delete com.apple.systempreferences AttentionPrefBundleIDs
Quick example, because I'm trying to make my nas usable on a mac and it's given me a headache.
defaults write com.apple.finder _FXShowPosixPathInTitle -bool YESIt's quite a basic thing, most games include it in their settings yet it doesn't seem important enough to have a setting in the OS itself.
True of any hotkey.
> which is why requiring it for a common UI function is bad design.
it isn't required.
Blame GNOME 3. After a decade it's still lacking polish everywhere. The day Canonical decided to drop the ball on Unity was a sad day.
> why can't I easily make a shortcut in ubuntu? > how about the fact that you can't get full file paths shown in the default file manager,
Is it any worse than needing to find the setting to display file extension in windows?
I am on Cinnamon desktop as it's a bit old school and predictable (for people who have been around since windows 98). I right click a file and I have an option to create a link. And my default file manager shows the full file path in the address bar . So I don't think it's a Linux problem rather than a Gnome 3 problem. But I am sure plenty of people don't mind Gnome 3 (everyone else at my work used the standard Ubuntu desktop.
In open source the developer has the power, they get to decide what they work on and nobody can tell them otherwise. The best a user can do is post a begging letter in a bug tracker. It doesn't matter what the user thinks, even a majority of users, all they can do is ask.
In commercial software it's the user putting bread on the developer's table. The user feeds and clothes the developer's children, and/or pays for their supply of mountain dew. If the user wants something, bye and large they get it, or at least they have a pretty solid chance of it more often than not. A vote for a feature speaks a lot more convincingly when it's backed up by a wallet.
There's nothing wrong with open source or free and libre software. It's great, I love it, but a lot of it's proponents seem to think proprietary software is some sort of crime and genuinely don't understand why proprietary software dominates so completely in so many domains outside of IT infrastructure.
unless it's accepted upstream, you've got an ongoing maintenance problem on your hands. getting an idea in isn't always just about time/resources/money. if your idea doesn't fit their 'vision', it won't be accepted, regardless of how much you have funded your feature. do you now take on maintaining a fork? sometimes the answer might be 'yes', but I suspect in most cases it's going to be 'no'.
(I've given up either reporting bugs or, where at all possible, using their software, as it's abundantly clear my interests and theirs are not in the least aligned.)
The Google model dominates the proprietary world presently, and even long-term shrinkwrap / clickwrap vendors such as Microsoft are shifting in whole or part to advertising-supported software.
What I pay for Google software is indirect, but given a roughly $100 billion global spend on online advertising, allocated largely among the world's richest 1 billion people, that amounts to about $100/year for the privilege of tools which frustrate rather than delight me.
As I've described in "The Tyranny of the Minimum Viable User", odds are strong that mass-market software of any stripe, including proprietary whether paid, subscription, or advertising-supported, will fail to address power-user / elite-user interests:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyr...
At a certain scale (much smaller than Google's, probably already at about 100 customers) it's impossible to please _all_ users of your software, so you try to please the majority. And whatever you change, there will always be that 'one guy' whose workflow will break.
If they are critical bugs, they might or might not be addressed.
Developers know best, even when they don't, because they're the ones doing the actual work. But in the FOSS ecosystem you have: i) the freedom to do the changes yourself ii) the freedom to offer help with design, documentation, ideas iii) a public bug tracking and issues manager
Let me know when you can do this commercially.
On a tangent: it is indeed a crime to use commercial software when there are libre alternatives; every use moves the needle one tick deeper towards Eternal September
For me, a large part of the fun of being a developer is enabling others to do stuff they otherwise couldn't. As such we absolutely entertain feature requests and similar, and implement a lot of them.
When sales come back from a sales presentation laughing and telling of jaws hitting the floor, it's almost always due to features that started as a suggestion from one of our users.
Very often though the feature requests are trying to solve XY problems. Often there's a better route to achieving what the user wants, which almost always is some way of avoiding redundant work or other workflow simplifications.
Us devs often do know best when it comes to edge cases and limitations, and about other use-cases that this particular user haven't considered.
However most requests are born from something real, so we will usually inquire what the user is after, in an effort to determine the impact and alternate routes. I might even contact other customers who I know use that module or have a similar work flow and ask them what they think.
And based on that implement changes that make the program better not just for that user but for all our customers.
What do you mean by "proprietary" in this context? I believe that the availability of the software's source code to its users is unrelated to the fact of whether the actual development of such software is paid or not.
Moreover, free and open source software (free as in "freedom", not necessarily free as in "free beer"), makes it generally simpler for the regular users to provide input regarding the features they need changed. So, in a way, it also helps to achieve the goal you describe:
> The best way to ensure people pay close attention to those last areas of fit and finish...
This is true, and I've seen that happen too, one of the companies I worked with would sell source licenses to customers, and as I understand it this was very common in the mainframe business going way back. The software vendor retained rights to sell and distribute the software though, that's what I mean by proprietary.
I've seen these arguments for open source and libre software before many times, but there's a huge discontinuity between the theory and what actually happens in reality. In the real world there are tens of thousands of small and large software houses producing niche software for diverse use cases for businesses all over the world. Hundreds of niche engineering design, test and optimisation applications, B2B services, audio and video tools, chemical engineering tools, automation and industrial control systems, booking and billing systems, here are an almost infinite variety. Most of them are only known to people actually in these niche specialisms. In that world customers paying for customisations is stock in trade, it's entirely normal. In fact the company I'm at right now is paying the vendor for customisations to our incident and change management ticketing system.
In comparison open source, outside nerdy IT oriented tech projects, might as well not exist. It's minuscule. Barely even a footnote.
Don't get me wrong, a good interface needs to take user feedback into account. But trying to accommodate the union of all features needed by all users is a recipe for madness. Somewhere you need an engineer, PM, designer, CxO, or someone who can make judgement calls and decide which user needs are more important than others.
If only that were true. I've watched a completely non-IT person work with both vanilla Gnome 3 and Windows 10; they found the former far more intuitive and unobtrusive (not looking at the individual apps, just the basic desktop UI). Proprietary design-by-committee doesn't necessary make for better solutions: hence the numerous complaints recently from people (often with accessibility issues) trying to book vaccination slots on government websites.
I know, there are open source business models which work for some companies and that's true but generally in the sorts of technical problems for IT people. Compared to the IT industry as a whole those are edge cases. They seem more important to us embedded in the IT industry, but compared to the overall multi-trillion dollar global IT industry they're peanuts.