Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by comex 145 days ago
That would not be a good approach on Macs where most users are using reduced/laptop keyboards that have no Insert key.

In this respect, Apple got pretty lucky. Most users were not using reduced keyboards in 1987 when they originally decided to add the Control key separate from Command. Plus, Mac OS didn't even have a native terminal at the time; I assume there were terminal emulators for networking/serial use but I can't imagine that was top-of-mind for Apple either.

Regardless, Cmd-C is definitely a more convenient shortcut than Control-Insert, even if you do have the keys for the latter.
2 comments
Someone 144 days ago
> Mac OS didn't even have a native terminal at the time; I assume there were terminal emulators for networking/serial use but I can't imagine that was top-of-mind for Apple either.

I think it was in their mind. The manual for the keyboard (yes, keyboards had manuals back then) says the keyboard has “special keys that work in applications running in alternative operating systems” (https://www.cvxmelody.net/Apple%20Extended%20Keyboard%20II%2...)

link
kccqzy 144 days ago
I agree with you about Cmd-C being more convenient but that’s besides the point.

My point was that on all three operating systems Ctrl-C has an unambiguous feature: send SIGINT. It is more important to have SIGINT be consistent than have copy be consistent. Accidentally sending SIGINT to a job that has been running for an hour? That hour of work may now be gone. This is a deliberate action that should not be a mistake. Copying is not that? Win+C on Windows doesn’t do any destructive actions.

link