Why isn't it recommended to change the SIGINT shortcut from Ctrl+C to something like Ctrl+SHIFT+C?
Why isn't it recommended to change the SIGINT shortcut from Ctrl+C to something like Ctrl+SHIFT+C?
I read a lot of answers online that its a bad idea, but the arguments did not make a lot of sense. "it's a heavily ingrained part of the eco system". Well if I can change it, what's the deal?
It makes more sense to make an interrupt signal be the harder shortcut, and copy to be ctrl+C, matching other programs and platforms.
You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
Why have I never heard of Ctrl+insert combo? I almost don't believe you. Will test when I get home
Permanently Deleted
Linux has two paste buffers, at least in X and I assume Wayland is the same? . One buffer for ctrl-c/ctrl-v and one for selecting text/middle mouse. ctrl-insert and shift-insert are using the "last mouse selected text" paste buffer.
It's the same yeah
Ctrl+Insert gets pretty close, but some laptops, including Mac books, don't have insert on their keyboard. 😔
Permanently Deleted
Command+C on Mac books work, yes, But that still means inconsistencies across different platforms. I am forced to use macos for work, and I try to unify my shortcuts across the two platforms. Otherwise it's disorienting using my personal computer after a day of work
My solution for this has been on my Linux machine, using keyd, to swap alt and super, and map super+c, super+v to copy and paste. (I also map super+L, super+R, super+T and super+W in Firefox to the control- equivalents using keyd's per-application bindings functionality)
First thing I do on a new laptop is remapping a key I won't be using much to Insert, which I use all the time :)
Yep, I'm using ctrl-c and q and s and d and z etc for almost 40 years now, it would be difficult to change those habits