
That’s it, we’re quitting - marcog1
http://design.canonical.com/2011/03/quit/
======
mycroftiv
I get so frustrated reading blog posts by user interface designers. They
almost invariably consist of reasoning I disagree and conclusions I disagree
with in support of user interface decisions that make my experience as a user
worse. Ubuntu Unity is pretty much an anthology of user interface decisions
that are exactly wrong by my perception, and "lets get rid of quit" is just
another one. Of all the actions in any menu ever, "quit" is one of the few
that I thought confused no one. Then I read something like: "in Ubuntu, we
have some elements waiting to help out: the messaging menu, the me menu, and
the sound menu" and discover the concept is stuffing functionality into a maze
of predetermined slots based on a set of usage assumptions. I don't think any
of this is responding to the needs of users, I think its the equivalent of
rearranging the furniture in the middle of the night so people trip over the
couch when they are walking to the bathroom.

~~~
ams6110
_rearranging the furniture in the middle of the night so people trip over the
couch when they are walking to the bathroom_

Exactly how I felt about the "new" Microsoft Office UI and the straw that
broke the camels back on my continued use of that software.

~~~
run4yourlives
It's funny, because from my perspective as a casual office user, I actually
thought the menus made things a little easier to use, even if I needed to "re-
learn" where things were.

My wife however, much more of a "power" office user, has completely sworn off
of them. This is a person that knew pretty much where every menu item on word
and excel was by memory. Her experience has been destroyed, so much that I
needed to re-install 2003 on all the machines that she would use.

Most certainly tripping on couches.

~~~
epochwolf
As a casual user, it's made Word usable when I need to use it.

~~~
tankenmate
This is the engineering equivalent of offering discounts to new users, while
ignoring loyal customers; it leads to churn, but not much progress for day to
day users (i.e. the biggest users of the software). Applications that I like
the most have "levels" of the user interface; you can switch to a more
complete, complex, user interface once you get more used to the program.

------
lukeschlather
Getting rid of quit/close requires the user to learn entirely new metaphors
every time they use a program in order to know how to get a program to stop
taking up resources. In a system with effectively limitless resources this is
fine, but in lower specced systems, not so much.

Also "effectively limitless" means equivalent to the specs of the worst system
the designers use, which will likely skew things. Where I'm sitting we share
384K down / 128K up between about 40 people. Updaters that refuse to stop
downloading when you close them really bog down the network. Now, you could
try and put in some custom menu to control that sort of thing, but that's
going to be a mess of configuration and hard choices, and developers will have
to do that for every single app.

Quit/Close are two well-defined commands that give the user a well defined way
to say when they want something to go away vs. when they want something to go
away and quit doing anything. Re-implementing "go away and quit working" on a
case-by-case basis is going to end up with every app either having a
nonstandard interface for doing so, or no way to do so at all (like most
update managers.)

Personally, I think "some apps don't quit properly" is a description of a
problem with the apps, not with the "quit" command. Comparing to mobile is a
red herring, because you can in fact quit background services on most mobile
platforms, and it's a necessary thing to do. It's only programs that by
design, always gracefully suspend, full stop, and resume later that make sense
to not have a quit command.

~~~
shareme
ahem, in mobile we do not have quit..nothing broke not even the mobile users
:)

~~~
SkyMarshal
Actually, on my Android phone I'm constantly using a third party task killer
to stop services and apps running in the background that I thought I 'quit' by
backing out of them. I also use the quit option on apps that have it.

I don't entirely trust Android to manage battery life as efficiently as
possible yet, especially when iPhone still does it so much better, and when
every time I check the services running on the phone, there seem to be tons I
had never even started in the first place.

I consider that at least partly a UI/UX issue.

(On a side note, that's my only complaint about Android so far, using 2.3,
otherwise it's great.)

~~~
cdawzrd
Your task killer might be hurting your battery life rather than helping it. In
any case, in recent versions (2.1+ I think), Android is better at managing
tasks than a third-party app, and overzealous background task killing doesn't
help anything.

[http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-
wi...](http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-with-
android/)

~~~
smokinn
I heard this as well so when I got my android I didn't install one. But the
battery life was horrible. Often, if I used the phone regularly during the day
the battery would be dead by 9-10pm. I installed a task killer and killed
everything when it booted up and killed a couple times a day. After that I
suddenly have ~1.5 days worth of battery available. I'm not sure which app was
being such a hog (I suspect it's an app that was refusing to let the phone go
into sleep mode) but the task killer was most definitely necessary.

~~~
michaelcampbell
You're killing a mosquito with a howitzer, and you may have better battery
life by letting Android do what it's supposed to, and find the offending
application.

Download "Spare Parts", go into its battery history section, and select
"partial wake usage".

You'll find out what (if any) app is keeping your phone in partial wake lock
status.

------
bmelton
I'm certainly impressed that the Canonical team are thinking about UI issues
in this much depth. It is admittedly FAR more thought than I've ever given to
the 'Quit' command, ever.

And while my initial thought is that there are much more important UI/UX
issues to be solved in Ubuntu before this, I think that thinking of things
like this are key in fixing the global UI altogether.

I'm not entirely certain of whether or not this is the best suggestion though.
I LIKE to quit applications. I like knowing that they aren't running in the
background, that they aren't consuming resources, that they aren't going to
pop up a notification, that they aren't cluttering up my taskbar. I'm the same
way with browser tabs -- I don't like having any more open than I need.

If I'm in the middle of something, and need to have a lot of tabs open, I'll
generally open a new browser for my casual browsing that I can close when I'm
finished. Conversely, I almost always keep Photoshop open, even if it's idle,
because launching it takes more than a couple of seconds. I don't know if
getting rid of quit is exactly what I'm looking for.

~~~
DanI-S
I feel the same way as you do - I like to feel my system is clean and
uncluttered. However, I still agree with their thoughts.

We may like quitting applications, but realistically, memory/CPU management is
something that can and should be handled by the OS. It's an overhead on the
user's mind that can be dealt with perfectly well by clever automation. It
should keep itself clean without needing our help.

A kid growing up in a world without the 'quit' button would not feel anything
is missing; we've just been conditioned by the creaky operating systems of our
own youth.

~~~
scott_s
I quit applications because open applications leave UI remnants laying around.
If they can figure out a way to do the Right Thing with the UI, then it
wouldn't bother me.

------
hristov
As an Ubuntu user, these articles scare the hell out of me. The quit or exit
command is not confusing at all. And if you want to get rid of it, you'd
better make sure that none of your programs have any memory leaks ever (good
luck with that).

You know what is much more confusing than the quit command? Having to go into
the CLI or the task manager and kill stuff manually because it is eating half
of your memory and processor time doing nothing. Or having to restart your PC
every day because it just gets slow after a while.

Here is the most important thing about GUI design - you should confirm
people's expectations. People expect to be able to quit stuff.

It is extremely annoying that this starry eyed experimentation is going on in
the most popular Linux distro. They are basically risking the one foothold
Linux has been able to make in the desktop world. If you want to experiment,
you should start an experimental distro and not risk your's and Linux's one
single solid success.

~~~
ggchappell
> It is extremely annoying that this starry eyed experimentation is going on
> in the most popular Linux distro. They are basically risking the one
> foothold Linux has been able to make in the desktop world. If you want to
> experiment, you should start an experimental distro and not risk your's and
> Linux's one single solid success.

That is an excellent point, and one that worries me, too.

On the other hand, I'm glad that some major player in the Linux world has an
interest in UI experimentation.

How to reconcile these two thoughts? Maybe what we need is another Ubuntu
variant (like Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) that is stuffed full of experimental
ideas. And then the best ones get into the more mainline releases.

~~~
th
Less Linux-savvy Ubuntu users are less likely to try out a non-mainstream
distro/variant. It's hard to find the "best ones" without testing these new
features on these users.

Sometimes your users are your Guinea pigs. I think Ubuntu will be fine as long
as they remain responsive to user feedback and maintain "get me back to what
I'm used to" options for experimental features.

~~~
uxp
Ubuntu/Canonical might have better luck by releasing a more rolling release
distro to test these changes. The Daily build is fine and all, but it reflects
the status of the trunk. Having a few branches that can go on wild adventures,
killing off 'quit' buttons and rearranging the UI, might benefit them more
than the cost of implementing it.

I'm specifically referencing the way Fedora tends to be the frontline for
RedHat and CentOS updates, and isn't afraid to roll back when things go bad.

------
marshray
A document you 'close', an application you 'exit' or 'quit'. The document-
centric people have been trying to do away with applications since the the
beginning of GUIs.

It reality, the document metaphor works great for a few things that resemble
documents. But documents are as much an artifact of the paper-handling wold as
processess login sessions are to the electronic world. Are they really more
fundamental than, say, a stapler? Is a stapler worthy of being a fundamental
pervasive metaphor for interaction?

Games? Videos? Terminal windows? Phone calls? Desktop sharing? Text and IM?
Many of the things we do with computers have little to do with documents.

~~~
aw3c2
Then don't call them documents but objects (as in the OOP principle).

------
mgkimsal
"A few behemoth applications, such as LibreOffice and Gimp, still keep “Quit”
separate from “Close” for the original reason — to save you from having to
wait for the application to relaunch after closing its only document. But that
is fixable, and all other applications have become fast enough that they don’t
need it any more. After all, they’re running on hardware that is hundreds of
times faster than it was in 1984."

 _"all other applications have become fast enough that they don’t need it any
more"._ I'm glad this person has decided what I should consider 'fast enough'.
So kind of him.

As much as I didn't really like the Mac 'quit' model (as distinct from closing
the last document window), most apps _still_ take a long time - meaning I can
notice it - when opening from a cold start. Perhaps when everyone has SSDs
this will be less noticeable, but it's still noticeable/measurable to me.

I remember working with a guy in 1997 who was fawning over how fast the next
Windows was going to be. "It'll boot up in, like, 4 seconds!". Right...
however fast our hardware becomes, our apps fill up the hardware with more
'stuff'.

~~~
michaelcampbell
I have SSD's. In RAID-0 striping mode. You still notice it.

~~~
mgkimsal
That's a bit depressing to hear. The SSD perf I've seen on laptops seemed
great, but I suspect that in conjunction with slower memory, we'll still see
issues. :/

~~~
michaelcampbell
Yes, I agree. I'll caveat my original statement by saying this; I use Windows
(work machine), and I'm using the SSD's they gave me, so they may not even be
good ones.

That said, I can come nowhere near the performance of a video where some guy
wired up a bunch of SSD's, then opened every microsoft office application at
once and they just popped up on his screen. Some crude timings below (in
seconds; time to open from the "Start" menu, till the hourglass morphs back to
an arrow):

Word: 3 Excel: 2 Outlook: 5 OneNote: 1 PowerPoint: 2

Emacs: 2 (had to throw that in)

Now, you may be saying "DUDE! That's awesome!" and yes, it is, compared to
platters. But it's not instantaneous, and as soon as your context readjusts,
you still notice the startup time.

~~~
jodrellblank
_Now, you may be saying "DUDE! That's awesome!" and yes, it is, compared to
platters_

???

I'm saying "which co-worker swiped your SSDs while you weren't looking?".
Quick test here, I rebooted Vista and opened Office apps, with a stopwatch
timer in the other hand, rounded to closest half a second the results are:

Word: 3s, Excel: 2s, Outlook: 3.5s (no mail in it), OneNote: not present,
PowerPoint: 2.5s

That's from a 5400rpm WD Blue laptop drive, on a Core 2 Duo laptop.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Now that's just hurtful.

------
joaquin_win
It seems to be down, google cached version:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KY4Mjyl...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KY4Mjyl8z1cJ:design.canonical.com/2011/03/quit/+site:http://design.canonical.com/2011/03/quit/&hl=en&gl=ca&strip=1)

~~~
jontas
I thought the down website was related to the headline..

~~~
zephjc
"That's it, we're quitting.

Sincerely, The Canonical database servers"

------
viraptor
So if I understand it correctly: First they threw away the rhythmbox tray icon
and made it quit on "X" in order "not to clutter the tray". Then they reverted
to their own meta-trayicon and made even more applications fold to tray on
"X". Now they want to remove "quit" completely and make "X" a "maybe quit,
maybe close, you don't need to know the answer"?

I'd really like it if they started publishing their research / references /
discussions. Right now it seems like they just do what they want and wait to
see if it works or not.

------
gm
This argument is pointless. The argument makes no sense without putting in the
context of content creation vs content consumption.

Content creation is very resource incentive. If you don't quit any apps ever,
you run out of resources. Simple as that.

Content consumption, on the other hand is easy and very optimized. Always have
your browser running with 10 pages loaded at the same time you have your music
player running and have a movie paused. No problem. Never quit anything.

Then the argument starts to make some sense.

~~~
alextp
It's not about never quitting, though. It's about quitting when you close the
last document, or something similar, and breaking the distinction between
closing and quitting.

Heavy-duty apps should quit in the background after you close what you were
working on, but this shouldn't necessarily matter to the user.

~~~
zacharypinter
Right, or go into some sort of tombstoned mode when resources are needed and
the app hasn't been in the foreground for a while.

------
ajdecon
I'm happy that Canonical is thinking about usability, but has any of this
actually been backed up by any kind of experiment? I see one link on Google to
a study done on Thunderbird (sadly down, as it's the same blog), and a bunch
of blogspam related to it, but very little evidence that the recent radical
changes they are making have undergone any usability testing. If you're trying
to help users, shouldn't you study their actual behavior?

I admit though that this is not my field, and I could be using poor search
terms.

~~~
sixtofour
I've been subconsciously watching this minimization trend go by. The latest
instance I've seen is in FF4, where the forward/backward button has lost its
little dropdown indicator. Now you have to know it's there, and use a right
click to get the list of sites.

Not being a UI/UX/UXB guy, I have to wonder if there's some magazine they or
their managers all read, that had an article advocating minimalizing, 'cause
there sure seems to be a bandwagon rolling through town.

------
extension
Awesome. Next, get rid of "Save", which is an even bigger problem.

~~~
zoul
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/lion/>

“Say good-bye to manual saving. Auto Save in Mac OS X Lion automatically saves
your work — while you work — so you don’t have to. Lion saves changes in the
working document instead of creating additional copies, making the best use of
available disk space. The lock feature prevents inadvertent changes from being
saved and automatically locks documents after two weeks. And the revert
feature returns you to the state the document was in when you last opened it,
so you can feel free to experiment with confidence.”

Makes perfect sense to me.

~~~
hristov
So instead of "save" which seemed rather simple to me, you have to learn two
new features such as "lock" and "revert", which do not seem so simple to me.

Oh and also, now you have no idea what data is saved in your documents. Your
documents can carry in them hidden past versions without you being aware of
it. Which can prove very embarrassing in many business situations. Which means
that anyone that handles sensitive data will have to create or buy complex new
software that scrubs all documents of old data. (this is already an issue with
Microsoft Word and its proclivity to save all kinds of dangerous metadata).

So when before you merely had to save stuff, now you have to worry about
reverting, scrubbing, etc. Thank you GUI elves.

~~~
GHFigs
_Your documents can carry in them hidden past versions without you being aware
of it._

That's not how the feature is implemented. Versions are maintained in the
filesystem, not within the file.

~~~
ciupicri
What happens if you copy it to an USB flash drive?

------
Gormo
Can anyone recommend a good novice-friendly Linux distro with a clean,
consistent UI that isn't being progressively replaced with presumptuous avant-
garde nonsense?

~~~
hasenj
Grab a (recent) version of Ubuntu and don't upgrade.

This only sounds like a joke, but it's not. Ubuntu is perfectly fine with the
idea of not upgrading for years. Hence LTS releases.

------
vytis
I guess the next one in line should be getting rid of file as a concept. Not
much point knowing where exactly the song you want to listen or a movie you
want to play is stored.

~~~
extension
Depends what you mean by "where". With respect to finding it amongst other
files, making it available on portable devices, sharing it (or NOT sharing it)
with others, "where" is very important to the user.

What we really want is the user's concept of a file _decoupled_ from the
system's concept, and then cleansed of various baggage from the prior
coupling. That's very different than making it a system concept exclusively.

~~~
vytis
I meant from a user's perspective. You shouldn't care if the song is stored in
/foo/bar or in a remote database somewhere in the cloud. You access it through
some obvious interface e.g. iTunes. Having 'file' as a central concept of
accessing data doesn't have much connection to the actual way it is used. My
vim config file doesn't have much in common with a song I've just downloaded.
It is _stored_ the same way, but that's about it.

~~~
extension
Most aspects of the file concept are indispensable to the user. A generic data
container is what allows us to have standardized document formats not coupled
to applications or platforms and generalized organizing, packaging, sharing,
storage, and search. These are user concepts that can't be abstracted away
without sacrificing enormous amounts of utility.

The aspects that the user can do without are related to sharing the file
system with software that uses it as a backend store.

------
hsmyers
I'm sorry, I just don't see where the problem is. To take two applications
that I run almost continuously, an editor and a browser, both have multiple
instances of task--- both shown to me as windows as it happens. No problem in
either opening or closing them. The mechanism is as old as windowed operating
systems; find the menu item that says close or click in the corner (or it's
analogue.) This action scales; do the same thing if I wish to close the app
(although as was pointed out in passing in the article, this action is
decreasing.) Is there anyone reading this that is confused over these actions?
I really don't think so. Instead of the disparaging remark about cargo-cult
interface design, maybe it was a case of the designers understanding that
there are some wheels that need to be shared and not re-invented. Given the
time these methods have been in place and in use, it doesn't seem like a good
thing to change without a much more compelling argument.

~~~
johkra
Many applications have both a "close" and a "quit" option. The "close" option
does what you describe - they want to get rid of the "quit" option, which is
used to quit an application.

(Try opening two Firefox windows and you can easily see the difference.)

------
EGreg
This guy may be happy to know that the new Mac OS that's coming out doesn't
have running lights on the dock by default. So you can't really tell if an
application has quit or not. In fact, apps now resume when launched.

The trouble is, not all apps support resuming when launched. So it's like a
big mishmash and you're quite sure which are running and which are not. The
transition will not be pretty! I'm gonna turn my running lights back on as the
first thing I do on the new Mac OS.

Look, I actually LIKED the Mac's paradigm of being application-centric, and
not document-centric. The latter was Windows' way: MDI, SDI, and all that.
When you closed the last window, the app closed. Or did it?

On the Mac, I had control over when I wanted the app to close. Even when I did
not do development, I understood what was a program and what was a document.
It ain't that hard to do. As a developer, I really love to know what app is
running and be able to shut it down, without having to force-quit it.

------
kristofferR
We killed their server.

There's a cache here:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KY4Mjyl...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KY4Mjyl8z1cJ:design.canonical.com/2011/03/quit/+http://design.canonical.com/2011/03/quit/&hl=no&gl=no&strip=1)

I'm not sure if any there was any images in the post.

------
aeden
Looks like their server feels the same way. (Sorry, I had to say it)

~~~
silentbicycle
No, you really didn't. Comments like this add nothing to the discussion.

Couldn't you have at least linked to the google cache?
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KY4Mjyl...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KY4Mjyl8z1cJ:design.canonical.com/2011/03/quit/)

~~~
aeden
Someone else had already linked to the google cache, but thanks for playing.

------
stewbrew
This looked like an interesting read. But then they mentioned Rhythmbox and I
remembered the one thing I hate about that player: that stupid icon that
stubbornly stays there in the notification area even if I don't want to listen
to music any longer.

I think you could easily make the opposite point: With slower media (floppy
disk, slower hard disks etc.) starting an app was costly. This is why people
tried to avoid quitting an app just to select a file. Today hard disks
(especially SSDs) are fast. Quitting and starting an app is rather cheap.
(With the exception of those commercial apps that try hard to make you feel
that they were worth the money.) I thus would like to propose to get rid of
all those "Open file" dialogs. In the age of multitasking, they are an obvious
case of cargo cult.

------
rbarooah
With all the acknowledgement of Apple's role on the history of this, I have to
wonder whether they are aware that Apple has been laying the groundwork for
doing the same thing since Snow Leopard, and that Lion can already
automatically quit and even pre-start applications without the user's
involvement.

That said, I suspect Apple will keep the "quit" menu item even if it's not
necessary for at least one version so that people have a chance to learn that
it isn't necessary without being freaked out by it's sudden disappearance.

Also, although app developers have been encouraged to adopt to the new
conventions, there will be plenty of legacy apps that don't for some time to
come.

------
strlen
The recent UI changes in Ubuntu (getting rid of X11, now this?) seem just
crazy. I use Ubuntu on my machine, because I want a developer friendly OS.
Recently, however, it just has not been the case: for example, OCaml 3.12 is
still unavailable in apt repos (even on "unstable" branches), despite it being
available in Fedora/CentOS yum repos or in macports. Same for Scala 2.8.x,
Erlang R14, etc...

Has the Ubuntu team completely forgotten its original constituency in pursuit
of "Linux that your grandparents can use on their netbook?"? Looks like back
to debian-unstable (or Fedora rawhide?) for me.

------
Flow
I hope Canonical picks up GnuStep some day.

I remember the first days of GNOME, a Windows-clone in looks, with an
ambitious acronym "GNU Network Object Model Environment". Are they anywhere
near that acronym in vision today?

------
tszming
>> Phone and tablet operating systems, such as Android and iOS, have abolished
the ideas of “quitting” or even “closing” applications altogether.

Try to Google "android task killer" to see what users need.

------
hasenj
For me, as a power user, "quit" means "stop doing anything!!", for an IM app,
it means: stop showing me as available, stop using my yahoo login because I
want this other program to use it! Just stop everything! Don't assume "oh you
just want to be offline!", NO! I want to stop you in your tracks and prevent
you from doing anything what-so-ever.

I quit an application when I feel it's not doing what I want. I quit an
application when I feel the application is being presumptuous and making false
assumptions about what I want to do.

I hardly ever quit an application because I need the memory .. it's not about
process/memory management. I often close application to reduce clutter on my
desktop, and clutter can be reduced without actually quitting applications, so
they have a point there, but I'd still hate it if applications assume that I
don't really want to quit.

It really annoys me that closing Banshee doesn't stop it from playing music.

It's about setting rules and drawing lines; it's about having control over
one's out computer.

I quit a movie/music player to stop from emitting sounds. No, the sound menu
is not enough replacement. It might be a good alternative, but not good enough
to warrant "never quitting the media application".

I open a browser in private mode then quit it, because .. well it's private
mode; if you can't quit it it kinda defeats the point.

I quit a download application (e.g. a torrent client) to stop it from
downloading/uploading (to free up bandwidth).

You could try to rethink every use case, and you can provide other ways to
achieve the same goals. But, in the end, this is not a good reason to make
applications non-quit-able.

------
brown9-2
This sounds like a solution to a non-existent problem.

------
csandreasen
This brings to mind the X session management protocol
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_session_manager>) that never seemed to be
used be in modern Linux applications. Issues that others brought up regarding
memory consumption could be addressed with more consistent use of this or a
similar protocol. While intended for saving state on logout, there's no reason
the window manager/session manager/something else couldn't just direct an
application in the background to save state and then kill it when memory gets
low. That said, it's probably a bit too late in the game to establish such a
policy. Users would be more likely to blame the desktop environment for
killing the program and losing all of their work instead of blaming the
application for not saving the state to begin with.

------
joe_the_user
It seems like most of what he's complaining about stems from the illogic of
the MDI interface (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_document_interface>)
and has nothing to do with the Quit command as such.

But really, what you want is for every _document-editing_ app to open a single
document, with maybe some tools on the side. The problems he mentions here go
away and the "quit" menu option remains perfectly logical.

It's made a little tougher through Browser-tabs being the bastard-son of MDI.
But seriously, multiple windows should be handled by the taskbar or some other
thing.

Music is tougher question but considering every the Linux jukebox apps I know
is a complete pig on resources, some way to quit pretty necessary.

------
rubergly
I'm significantly confused. The article seems to be talking about the
distinction that OS X has between closing a window and quitting an
application, and talking about how this behavior exists on Windows and Ubuntu
as well. I must be missing something somewhere.

------
gue5t
I was really hoping this was exactly what the headline made it sound like.

It is interesting to see the history of the quit/close pair in programs
though.

------
dman
a) Does this mean ubuntu will be patching each and every application in
synaptic to follow this new paradigm? b) Isnt an explicit action more
favorable over an implicit action? ie a direct mapping between what the user
is doing and what happens with system resources. c) How do you close emacs
with 25 buffers or browsers with 20 tabs in this new world?

------
Derbasti
Anyone else thinking that this is pretty much imitating the way OSX works? Not
that this is necessarily a bad thing...

------
cppsnob
File under "things that don't need fixing".

------
Ruudjah
> Error establishing a database connection

Nice way to quit.

We did it. We HackerNewsed it. Uh. YCombinatored it. Hm. We hacked it. No. We
slashd... NO. We Redd.. NO!

o.O

