Almost never, indeed, so you need some 3rd party trash utilities with databases and heuristics. Though that's also on the gardener and his bad OS design where forced compartmentalization is's trivial, the weeds will never want to root themselves out!

That's not "easily". Easily would be: you drag your commit(s) from one place to another or copy/paste to achieve the same

If that's the kind of UX you prefer, please consider filing a feature request against your git UI of choice. My point is that git itself already has the core capability, and how convenient it is to use usually depends on your editor. (e.g. in vim, dd to cut a line and p to paste it in a new position is a very quick way to reorder)

And my point is that all this 'core capability' stuff is not relevant to the discussion of good UI, similarly the fact that GitHub has Pull Requests doesn't help when it's bad UI that needs "stack" reinventing.

Case in point:

> dd to cut a line and p to paste it in a new position is a very quick way to reorder)

It isn't quick, you're just swiping the whole issue under the rug - first, you need the whole separate interface, but more importantly, this new interface is very primitive, you see close to no context, only some commit names, so it's not quick to find what to move and where because the content for those decisions is in a different place. Sure, you could add some vim plugin that expands it and adds per-commit info (what, you want to view the diff for all 3 commits you selected and DDed? Tough luck, you don't see the lines anymore! And even if you did, that's not this plugin), but then it's not your `--interactive` git "core" that does convenience

Like I said, if you prefer an integrated graphical UI, you can file feature requests against the one you prefer. What git itself does makes a lot of sense for the canonical CLI tool to do, though even then you can propose or prototype changes if you have ideas. This is how projects like jj started in the first place.

> Why would I want to build on changes that haven't been reviewed and accepted?

Not to waste time not being able to do anything that depends on those changes?

> git and most accepted development workflows are linear.

Linear like branches easily branching off other branches?

"Anyone that cannot spend $40+ to give every FOSS maintainer a smartcard and maybe even separate machines for releases and make the more secure workflow truly 5 minutes has absolutely no business widely depending upon FOSS"

> something on my system was out of date. i installed the missing item

Given the "extreme vigilance" of the primitive "don't install unknown something on your machine" level is unattainable, can there really be an effective project-level solutions?

Mandatory involvement of more people to hope not everyone installs random stuff, at least not at same time? (though you might not even have more people...)

It tells us nothing about the important and relevant part - education

It tells us almost nothing about the unimportant any irrelevant part - how a few individuals choose to raise their kids

> Apple, a company that traditionally favors simple functionality

but not being able to interact with an icon is DISfunctionality, though yes, a simple one. So that principle can't explain the bad design either.

> whether the digitalization of classrooms had been evidence-based

There is no indication that the current opposite move is evidence-based either, so it's basically your typical vibe shifts. Might revert back to "digital basics" in another decade or so with identical quotes?

Usually you have to prove the effect of introducing something new.

Seems strange to me, a bit like the evidence required for new foodstuffs without judging the old ones by the same criteria. People have been winging it and now new options would have to be scrutinized before use whereas the old 'wisdom' can just stay in place?

Then again, by comparing new techniques against old ones, presumably the old ones get studied indirectly as well. Guess the glass could be half full with this approach

which, in this case, is a paper book

> You cannot open a new tab to Youtube in a book

If such a basic distraction in a digital device isn't fix, it means the experiment wasn't even tried!

Even with books, stuff happens, you can skip ahead a chapter, consult the index, follow a footnote... or put another book on the table.

The biggest cause for this problem isn't lack of docs, but poor OS design. Like, why would you let apps change anything without restrictions to begin with? Of course, then you have to have some dumb hidden folder wasting space to restore the changes, and this "waste space for no good reason because we can't architect properly" is still a common issue

You're not wrong, but largely as a result of dubious architectural decisions made in the name of backwards compatibility and minimal hardware requirements, Microsoft sold 40 million copies of Windows 95 in its first year, compared to 300,000 copies of Windows NT 3.1.

Consider:

Windows 95 ran the vast majority of MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 applications with minimal performance loss, supported MS-DOS and Windows 3.x drivers for hardware that lacked 32-bit driver support, and ran acceptably on a 386 with as little as 4 MB RAM.

The properly architected Windows NT 3.1, released two years before Windows 95, had limited MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 application support, required NT-specific drivers for all hardware, and required 12 MB RAM to boot, 16 MB to do anything useful, and you really wanted a 486 for decent performance.

I agree. Why should the person who bought a computer be allowed to own it? Phone ecosystems got this the right way - the company that made the device owns it, and the person who bought it does not!

Don't speak in empty slogans, connect it to the article/comment!

Some app does some thing, then the OS reverts it! Where is "you" and "own" in this process? Do you own the "C:\Windows\SYSBCKUP" folder? Do you own the undo process?

Would your "ownership" rights increase if instead the OS didn't waste any space, but simply blocked downgrades of system components without user warning/intervention? Or had an even better process?