Current year

It actually amazes me that simple shortcuts like CTL-V and CTL-C don't work in basic linux software like nano and vim.

Why change what worked? To be dumb and retarded I guess.

Because we were there first you newfag.
CTRL-C is SIGTERM.

>gvim doesn't exist
10/10 troll thread

how to spot a zoomer

Compile with x support and this

there you go fagget

To use the standard MS-Windows way of CTRL-X, CTRL-C and CTRL-V, use the
$VIMRUNTIME/mswin.vim script. You could add this line to your _vimrc file: >
source $VIMRUNTIME/mswin.vim

Since CTRL-C is used to copy the text to the clipboard, it can't be used to
cancel an operation. Use CTRL-Break for that.

CTRL-Z is used for undo. This means you can't suspend Vim with this key, use
|:suspend| instead (if it's supported at all).

*CTRL-V-alternative* *CTRL-Q*
Since CTRL-V is used to paste, you can't use it to start a blockwise Visual
selection. You can use CTRL-Q instead. You can also use CTRL-Q in Insert
mode and Command-line mode to get the old meaning of CTRL-V. But CTRL-Q
doesn't work for terminals when it's used for control flow.

also add
behave mswin to your .vimrc/vimrc

>current year
>no cure for autism

No application can. You need to use the underlying X/Wayland library.

Linux looks very interesting, even if some of the screen colours and menu options appear to be a little out of the ordinary.

But you are missing a vital point, a point which takes some experience and depth of knowledge in the field of computers. You see, when a computer boots up, it needs to load various drivers and then load various services. This happens long before the operating system and other applications are available.

Linux is a marvellous operating system in its own right, and even comes in several different flavours. However, as good as these flavours are, they first need Microsoft Windows to load the services prior to use.

In Linux, the open office might be the default for editing your wordfiles, and you might prefer ubuntu brown over the grassy knoll of the windows desktop, but mark my words young man - without the windows drivers sitting below the visible surface, allowing the linus to talk to the hardware, it is without worth.

And so, by choosing your linux as an alternative to windows on the desktop, you still need a windows licence to run this operating system through the windows drivers to talk to the hardware. Linux is only a code, it cannot perform the low level function.

My point being, young man, that unless you intend to pirate and steal the Windows drivers and services, how is using the linux going to save money ? Well ? It seems that no linux fan can ever provide a straight answer to that question !

May as well just stay legal, run the Windows drivers, and run Office on the desktop instead of the linus.

this pasta hurts my brain every single time