PDA

View Full Version : GUI vs. CLI



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Gustav
January 24th, 2006, 09:16 PM
I don't see the downside in that Linux should be easy to use.

Ease of use is a GOOD thing. I use the terminal all the time and I love it but I still think it is good if it's possible to do the stuff I do in the terminal via some sort of GUI.

There is no need to do stuff as they do in windows but I still think GUI is the way to the future :rolleyes:

aysiu
January 24th, 2006, 09:21 PM
I try to get people that are DONE with Windows to switch to Linux, but they are scared of the damned command-line which will always be the "key feature of Linux". It's a key feature in Linux, but I don't remember every needing to use it in Mepis, PCLinuxOS, or Linspire. Minimally in Blag.


This is the age of the GUI. Linux has not made that much progression for ease of use to the home user. I would heartily disagree with this. In 2004, I tried Linux and couldn't use it at all. Package managers weren't in widespread use and documentation on them was scant. Hotplugging and automounting were almost non-existent. Now, just about every distribution uses some version of Apt or Yum, and they all detect USB and other media.


While you Ubuntu fanboys are gonna hate me saying this, why can't we use a GUI as the primary function and use the CL as the secondary? Because that's how Ubuntu is. Easy to use, more involved to set up. If you want all GUI, go for the aforementioned distros. I'd highly recommend PCLinuxOS and Mepis.


Java's really hard to install, and for the home user, the best thing to do is "keep a Linux geek around". I can assure you most Windows users I know can't install Java in Windows either.


Why won't we be the revolutionary distro and drop the need of a Linux geek with you? Linspire's done it. So let Linspire keep doing it. I think Ubuntu is an intermediate distro, and I get angry when people say, "Ubuntu's the best newbie distro." No, it isn't. Absolute newbies like it all GUI, as you say. However, there are distros that do that for you and that come with all sorts of proprietary codecs. That's not what Ubuntu's about. It's about free, and that usually means doing a bit of configuring yourself.


Ubuntu is aimed for the home/server user. If a home user just wants to run a desktop, we need to give them the freedom of using it without forcing them to use the command line 80% of the time? That's only in the setup, not in the use.


The command line might be easy for many people here, but for starters, it's hard as hell, especially for the people who missed out on the DOS generation. It's not hard as hell. You copy and paste commands. For an operating system that has its largest support mechanism as online help, Ubuntu's command-line is essential. I'll give you an example. Let's say someone wants to install Thunderbird.

GUI instructions: Go to System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager. Type in your password. Then click Reload. Then click Search. Search for the word thunderbird. Mozilla-Thunderbird should show up in the results. Right-click it and mark it for installation. Then click Apply.

CLI instructions: Go to Applications > Accessories > Terminal. Type
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install mozilla-thunderbird Your password is your user password.

See how much easier it is? In fact, once you get used to receiving command-line instructions, all you need is
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install mozilla-thunderbird The terminal will always be in the same place, but the GUI app won't (one time it'll be System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager; another time it'll be Applications > System Tools > Configuration Editor).



People don't want to spend 95% of their time learning Linux, but USING it. The same could be said of any operating system, and this has nothing to do with the design of the Linux software. The problem is really (as I've stated thousands of times in these forums) that Windows comes preinstalled and preconfigured. If Windows users had to install their own operating systems, you know what they'd do? They'd call the Geek Squad. In fact, a lot of Windows users call the Geek Squad anyway.


Look at WIndows, you don't need to use their command line except for converting FAT partitions to NTFS. Yes, and see how many Windows users still don't know how to get basic functionality of their computers.


We need to STAND OUT from those "other" distributions. We already do. Ubuntu has the best support and ships CDs for free. What makes Ubuntu my top choice is the support on these forums. That's the major reason I'm using it. Best Linux distro out of the box...? I'd probably say Mepis. But when I went to Mepis Lovers for help, no one could answer my questions. The questions got answered here... at the Ubuntu Forums.


Britney Spears doesn't know how to compile from source. Why should we be forced to use a command line? I don't know how to compile from source, either, and I bet Britney's a lot like me: email, internet, music, a little word processing. That's it.


Do you think we need change, or should we keep it the way that it is now? I think it doesn't matter what you say. The Ubuntu developers are working hard as it is. Do you want to contribute money, code, HowTos? Or are you just going to whine? No one is saying, "Yeah, let's not improve anything."

By the way, your poll doesn't have an option that fits my opinion.

christhemonkey
January 24th, 2006, 09:23 PM
I started off doing everything with GUI, but then wanted to learn how to use the terminal, so now dont really use GUI much at all!

BSDFreak
January 24th, 2006, 09:24 PM
Oh, jeez, not this nonsense again.

It never ends...

There should be a sticky for this and all other threads should be merged into it for a month, after that time everyone who posts about it in another thread should be banned for a week.

fuscia
January 24th, 2006, 09:26 PM
it is harder to pretend you're cool if just any retard can use it. i say **** 'em and make 9wm the default window manager.

Stormy Eyes
January 24th, 2006, 09:29 PM
it is harder to pretend you're cool if just any retard can use it. i say **** 'em and make 9wm the default window manager.

You wimp. I say we make 'em install X manually, and use tcsh as the default shell!

aysiu
January 24th, 2006, 09:29 PM
There should be a sticky for this I wrote two threads that got stickied that address this issue, one in the Absolute Beginner forums, one in Community Chat.

The stickies aren't an effective deterent.

Bottom line, though: complaining just helps you blow off steam. There are only a few ways you can make Linux better, and the OP didn't do any of them in this thread:

1. Contribute code
2. File bug reports
3. Donate money
4. Contribute documentation
5. Help others learn to install and use Linux

There is no #6... whining.

Vlammetje
January 24th, 2006, 09:30 PM
I'd like another option added to the poll: we do not need GUI for everything. A small dosis of command line is good for you!

tufkakf
January 24th, 2006, 09:32 PM
Linux is userfriendly already, it's just picky about its friends.

BSDFreak
January 24th, 2006, 09:34 PM
I wrote two threads that got stickied that address this issue, one in the Absolute Beginner forums, one in Community Chat.

The stickies aren't an effective deterent.

Bottom line, though: complaining just helps you blow off steam. There are only a few ways you can make Linux better, and the OP didn't do any of them in this thread:

1. Contribute code
2. File bug reports
3. Donate money
4. Contribute documentation
5. Help others learn to install and use Linux

There is no #6... whining.

That is too long to put in my sig, otherwise i would.

*applause*

BSDFreak
January 24th, 2006, 09:38 PM
You wimp. I say we make 'em install X manually, and use tcsh as the default shell!

ummm... what?

Is installing X hard and what is wrong with tcsh, it's a pretty fscking great shell.

tufkakf
January 24th, 2006, 09:39 PM
complaining just helps you blow off steam.

And though the original post doesn't make much sense to me, to put it mildly, there's nothing wrong with blowing of steam.



There are only a few ways you can make Linux better, and the OP didn't do any of them in this thread
And the funny thing is, he doesn't have to, so...

Stormy Eyes
January 24th, 2006, 09:40 PM
Is installing X hard and what is wrong with tcsh, it's a pretty fscking great shell.

I'm trying to think like a CLI-phobic Ex-Windows user who thinks everything should work like magic. It's not easy, so please cut me some slack.

fuscia
January 24th, 2006, 09:43 PM
You wimp. I say we make 'em install X manually, and use tcsh as the default shell!

**** that! make 'em imagine what X would look like. oh wait...no monitor. they have to remember what they entered into the console. all you need then is an old typewriter and some file cards.

tufkakf
January 24th, 2006, 09:43 PM
Whoa, you guys are sssooooooooooooo 1333333333337!!!!11

Wow! *shudders*

mstlyevil
January 24th, 2006, 09:44 PM
That is too long to put in my sig, otherwise i would.

*applause*

Will my new sig work?

mstlyevil
January 24th, 2006, 09:51 PM
**** that! make 'em imagine what X would look like. oh wait...no monitor. they have to remember what they entered into the console. all you need then is an old typewriter and some file cards.

Ok it's official, you are the forum comedian. Keep it up and I will continue laughing hysterically

BSDFreak
January 24th, 2006, 10:37 PM
I'm trying to think like a CLI-phobic Ex-Windows user who thinks everything should work like magic. It's not easy, so please cut me some slack.

Oh...

Ok...

:D

BSDFreak
January 24th, 2006, 10:39 PM
Will my new sig work?

Nice, i'd give credit where credit is due though. ;)

BSDFreak
January 24th, 2006, 10:41 PM
**** that! make 'em imagine what X would look like. oh wait...no monitor. they have to remember what they entered into the console. all you need then is an old typewriter and some file cards.

Typewriter? Yeah, sure, make it USER FRIENDLY... a needle and some paper will suffice, they can punch readable assembly with that.

ardchoille
January 24th, 2006, 10:45 PM
we should keep it the way it is now.

the fact that the command line is perceived to be this 'ugely incomprehensive complicated thing that you will never master', does not mean that it actually is.

In fact, I think anybody wanting to use linux should learn to use it well, and I think learning the command line (as I myself am doing bit by bit) is a vital part in that.

Finally. just because there's no GUI does not mean something isn't easy. These two just aren't synonymous. People need to learn that too. It's all part of the process imho.
Agreed, the command line is fast and powerful. In my opinion, if the user isn't using the command line at all then they are only benefitting from a fraction of the power of their distro.

I started out on KDE and avoided the command line like the plague, that was years ago. Today the only gui's I use are Firefox (can't figure out how to view graphics and flash in cli) and Evolution (haven't found a full PIM that is cli only). I do everything else on command line because it is fast and powerful. It took a bit of learning, yes, but doesn't everything?

Creating a gui for every single command line app would only add bloat to a distro - not to mention adding more reasons for something to go wrong and break.

So, make all the changes you want.. but don't take away my command line.

mstlyevil
January 24th, 2006, 10:48 PM
Nice, i'd give credit where credit is due though. ;)

I tried but I ran out of charecters. I'll just say thank you to Asiyu here and hope hye approves. :)

aysiu
January 24th, 2006, 11:20 PM
I tried but I ran out of charecters. I'll just say thank you to Asiyu here and hope hye approves. :) It's cool.

prizrak
January 24th, 2006, 11:57 PM
The age of GUI? ROFL!!! HAHAHA!!!!! OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I HAD TO crack up about that.
If it is the age of GUI then could someone explain to me, why Windows Vista is getting a new CLI shell? Why did MS (who are obviously doing very well on the OS market) decide that their OS needs a more powerful shell? Was it not because the users WANT a powerful tool such as a CLI?
Oh and Ubuntu is very easy to use, I don't use the CLI at all on it unless I need to kill an unresponsive app (and only cause I'm too lazy to open up system monitor).
Another thing I cannot comperehend is why do people view having to learn how to use a computer a bad thing? I had to learn how to drive, and I also had to learn certain things about my car just for normal day to day operation. I needed to know what my recommended tire pressure is, what kind of tires to put on it, how often to change the oil and coolant. I also had to find the brand of gas that I prefer (that one is not as critical to "normal" people).
Why is it different for computers? Even the most "natural" skills have to be learned at some point such as eating and speaking, something as involved as IT is expected to take some time.

public_void
January 25th, 2006, 12:00 AM
So, make all the changes you want.. but don't take away my command line.

Agreed. I love my command line to. Sometimes I can't be doing with a GUI just to navigate to some Directory far away (e.g. Windows My Documents) only to read a text file. I'm even lazy enough to open firefox from the CLI if I've finished doing sometime. IMO the CLI is the best thing about Linux, I'm surprised I lived without it in Windows.

Stormy Eyes
January 25th, 2006, 12:02 AM
Why did MS (who are obviously doing very well on the OS market) decide that their OS needs a more powerful shell? Was it not because the users WANT a powerful tool such as a CLI?

It's because I blackmailed Ballmer. I've got pictures of him kissing the Devil's **** and threatened to sell them to the New York Times. Frankly, I thought Satan had higher standards.

awakatanka
January 25th, 2006, 12:03 AM
Why can't it be simple best of both worlds? Theusers that are CLI junkies uses there CLI fingers and those that like a GUI more use the GUI.

Stupid resistance from some users, where the heck you are scared for? Nobody saying that it needs to be a windows clone but just add somethings to make it simple for somethings.

Using linux for some months now and i know my way around a bit now, but still hate CLI work for a lot of things it can be easier.

http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=17183

Something like that makes it a bit easier for some users. I want to save my fingers so they are soft and i can use them gently on my girl.

egon spengler
January 25th, 2006, 12:13 AM
I'm not gonna bother reading this entire thread, just glancing at the stupidly biased poll options I can tell that this is another pointless and asinine thread. Then as I was clicking on quick reply I noticed My posts are 100% useless! Guaranteed! in the OP's sig and it all fell into place

egon spengler
January 25th, 2006, 12:21 AM
Why can't it be simple best of both worlds? Theusers that are CLI junkies uses there CLI fingers and those that like a GUI more use the GUI.

Stupid resistance from some users, where the heck you are scared for? Nobody saying that it needs to be a windows clone but just add somethings to make it simple for somethings.

Using linux for some months now and i know my way around a bit now, but still hate CLI work for a lot of things it can be easier.

http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=17183

Something like that makes it a bit easier for some users. I want to save my fingers so they are soft and i can use them gently on my girl.

This has surely been mentioned already but if you want to use Linux but with no cli then use mepis or pclinuxos. There are different distributions of Linux with different intentions, for example KnoppixSE has different intention to Arch which has different intentions to Puppy. If you want a purely cli distro then there are those who intend to fulfil that need. Use them. If for whatever reason you can't use mepis or pclinuxos then use Windows. If for whatever reason you can't use Windows then I don't know how to advise you further, I guess either stop using computers or stop whining

prizrak
January 25th, 2006, 12:26 AM
Why can't it be simple best of both worlds? Theusers that are CLI junkies uses there CLI fingers and those that like a GUI more use the GUI.

Stupid resistance from some users, where the heck you are scared for? Nobody saying that it needs to be a windows clone but just add somethings to make it simple for somethings.

Using linux for some months now and i know my way around a bit now, but still hate CLI work for a lot of things it can be easier.

http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=17183

Something like that makes it a bit easier for some users. I want to save my fingers so they are soft and i can use them gently on my girl.
See this is just the thing, I agree with ease of use (which GUI doesn't guarantee, try Xine-ui for an illustration) but sweeping posts like the OP's are useless. "Make Ubuntu easier with GUI". What exactly is hard? What doesn't have a GUI? How would you design the said GUI? If there is somekind of a hard to use interface to it already what is hard about it?
Now I would agree to a post such as "Wireless w/ WPA is pretty difficult to set up and maintain because it is all CLI driven and the documentation for wpa_supplicant is crap" because I have experienced that and it really is difficult. The wpa_cli interface makes damn near no sense to someone who doesn't know much about WPA, and the GUI program is not included in the version that comes in the repos for some random reason. There is also no easy way to create network profiles (makes it a PITA if you are on a diff network than your main one). This would be an example of a well thought out complaint with some ideas. From what I hear Dapper will take care of those problems though so it's all good.

bloodborne
January 25th, 2006, 12:30 AM
Linux is not Windows, and I embrace this fact as a long time Windows user, recent Linux convert. The biggest thing that makes it different for me is how Linux is completely devoted to spreading the ideas of free software and community, whereas MS is a corporation and their bottom-line always comes first.

Honestly, the CLI isn't that scary (at least it wasn't for me), and I enjoy learning a little more about it everyday. Still, many of the commands are arcane to me and I usually just copy-paste instructions from the forum and nod my head.

matthew
January 25th, 2006, 12:32 AM
There is no item worthy of my vote in the extremely biased poll options.

I don't think Linux is all that difficult to learn for someone who is interested in doing so--you certainly DON'T have to "take time to read a 1,300 page book" to do so. You just have to want to, be interested, be willing to ask or look for help.

That said, I don't think we need to change an operating system to please an audience. If you build a good operating system an audience will come. If some don't like it I would kindly and politely suggest other options that might be more suited to their sensibilities.

It's presumptious to come into a community and say, "You know what you need to do to attract more people like me?" My initial response is, "Please tell me so I can avoid doing so."

xequence
January 25th, 2006, 12:53 AM
Ubuntu isnt hard.

You had to learn things to start using windows remember way back when? Same with linux.

skull_leader
January 25th, 2006, 01:20 AM
I voted that Linux needs big changes, not because it isn't good enough right now, but because AFAIK that's what Linux is about.

Ubuntu should definately keep striving for user-friendliness, but that doesn't mean they're not doing a good job already. As it stands, Ubuntu has more bases covered in it's "Add Applications" button than a Windows system with Office 2005, Norton, and any other general user CDs. It's just that improvement is the name of the project (actually the name is Humanity, but you know...:p ). Even if Ubuntu became easier to learn and use than Windows or MacOS, it still wouldn't be be time to stop working on it.

What people are probably getting into the most disagreement with is how exactly to go about doing it. More GUI shouldn't mean less CLI options, that's definately for sure.

matthew
January 25th, 2006, 02:30 AM
I voted that Linux needs big changes, not because it isn't good enough right now, but because AFAIK that's what Linux is about.

Ubuntu should definately keep striving for user-friendliness, but that doesn't mean they're not doing a good job already. As it stands, Ubuntu has more bases covered in it's "Add Applications" button than a Windows system with Office 2005, Norton, and any other general user CDs. It's just that improvement is the name of the project (actually the name is Humanity, but you know...:p ). Even if Ubuntu became easier to learn and use than Windows or MacOS, it still wouldn't be be time to stop working on it.

What people are probably getting into the most disagreement with is how exactly to go about doing it. More GUI shouldn't mean less CLI options, that's definately for sure.Your attitude is definitely not what I was referring to in my mild-rant. I agree...in fact, I would say just about everything can be improved, not just in Linux. The definition of "improvement" is what I have such a strong reaction to. I always want to make my hardware do more cool stuff and do it in ways that are increasingly more convenient...that doesn't necessarily mean we need a CLI vs GUI battle. Both serve their purposes and there are times I would choose one over the other and the one I choose is not the same for every task.

Sirin
January 25th, 2006, 04:13 AM
See this is just the thing, I agree with ease of use (which GUI doesn't guarantee, try Xine-ui for an illustration) but sweeping posts like the OP's are useless. "Make Ubuntu easier with GUI". What exactly is hard? What doesn't have a GUI?

Actually, I meant adding things that you can ONLY do on a CLI to the GUI. You can't double-click on a DEB file to install anything like you can do with RPMs. You HAVE to use the command line. Sure Synaptic and Adept may be the easiest installation client (behind Linspire's CNR IMO), but what about files that aren't in the repositories?


I'm not gonna bother reading this entire thread, just glancing at the stupidly biased poll options I can tell that this is another pointless and asinine thread. Then as I was clicking on quick reply I noticed My posts are 100% useless! Guaranteed! in the OP's sig and it all fell into place

It seems that you have never heard of humor.


hu∑mor (hyū'mər) pronunciation
n.

The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness;

greenway
January 25th, 2006, 04:22 AM
The CL is the key feature of Linux and of pretty much every decent distro out there, take it away (or take it from it's prominent position) and Linux users will start looking for another OS/distro.

Linux is for Linux users... If you want to use it, take the effort of becoming one and it will pay off in the end...

Sp@z
January 25th, 2006, 04:25 AM
Well I cant see that this is a USELESS thread...and there are so many before it, but I am rather new to the forums and never seen them.......so it is a first for me and other n00bs I suppose, but hey you guys started the flame war, not me.......Ubuntu is pretty easy as it is.I despise the command line only because I fear the unknown, in time I will either learn it or go back to windows. Linux can still be linux, even if it starts looking like winndows, I use Linux for secruity and Windoze will NEVER have that.....

aysiu
January 25th, 2006, 05:38 AM
Actually, I meant adding things that you can ONLY do on a CLI to the GUI. You can't double-click on a DEB file to install anything like you can do with RPMs. You HAVE to use the command line. So use Mepis. In Mepis, you click on a .deb and it opens up KPackage, which installs the .deb.
Sure Synaptic and Adept may be the easiest installation client (behind Linspire's CNR IMO), but what about files that aren't in the repositories? For the most part, only Windows power users care about such things. The repositories suit the needs of most users (like me) who just want to do ordinary things--listen to music, play dumb games (Tetris and such), surf the internet, email, and do light word processing.

Ordinary users do not install operating systems. As a matter of fact, they rarely install software; and when they do, they do not always want the latest versions. I don't see any of my co-workers who have Firefox 1.0.2 clamoring for version 1.5. In fact, they don't even know there is a new version.

You want Linux to cater to Windows power users who have sophisticated needs and low skills/ desire to learn. Well, that's not where it's at. Either dumb down your needs or spruce up your skills. It's not that hard to copy and paste a few commands.

fuscia
January 25th, 2006, 06:00 AM
Typewriter? Yeah, sure, make it USER FRIENDLY... a needle and some paper will suffice, they can punch readable assembly with that.

**** all that ****! let's go pure old school...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/unknownentity/linuxbc.jpg

Sirin
January 25th, 2006, 07:22 AM
So use Mepis. In Mepis, you click on a .deb and it opens up KPackage, which installs the .deb.

Look at this. So I have to get a whole new distribution just to install something easily? There are distributions everywhere. Why do people have to install distributions that meets their needs? "Linspire has something that you need that isn't in Fedora, but Fedora has something that you need that isn't in Linspire." Why do people need to switch entire OSes just to get 1 new thing? I mean, isn't there one distro for everything? Sometimes people don't like switching from one distro to another. For example, why should people start off with a "beginner" distro and then switching to an "intermediate" distro? If I were advised to start off with a Mac before going to Linux for PPC, I'd probaly just stick with the Mac because of it's ease of use. Isn't Ubuntu for home users? Why don't we make it "easy" for home users? Besides, it doesn't say in the minimum requirements that a Linux geek is required. My sister and mother had me come help them 69% of the time they used Ubuntu. For Windows, 20% of the time. For Mac OS X which is based on UNIX, only 5%, and that was showing them how to get used to the Mac enviroment. We need to reduce that need of support to at most 30%. We can start by focusing on the home user. Linspire may be the easiest distro, but I'm sure as hell not paying USD$100. Linus Torvalds aimed Minix (Early codename for the now-called Linux) for the DESKTOP. Why can't Linux be for the desktop, and for the people who just plain want simplicity? To many (not me however, but many others besides me), Linux is just a time portal to the DOS days.


For the most part, only Windows power users care about such things. The repositories suit the needs of most users (like me) who just want to do ordinary things--listen to music, play dumb games (Tetris and such), surf the internet, email, and do light word processing.

Maybe a user was familiar with Opera when they were using WIndows and were told that it was also for Linux. Opera isn't in the repos. Now they have to learn the unfamiliar Firefox enviroment.



Ordinary users do not install operating systems. As a matter of fact, they rarely install software; and when they do, they do not always want the latest versions. I don't see any of my co-workers who have Firefox 1.0.2 clamoring for version 1.5. In fact, they don't even know there is a new version.

If they don't install operating systems, then they didn't install Ubuntu.



You want Linux to cater to Windows power users who have sophisticated needs and low skills/ desire to learn. Well, that's not where it's at. Either dumb down your needs or spruce up your skills. It's not that hard to copy and paste a few commands.

I've been with Linux and it's CLI for some time now. Windows power users who switch to Ubuntu do take time to learn the command line if they want to use Linux. We're talking about the "I have never used the Windows command line before and I'm tired of viruses, spyware and updating WIndows. I want to have an easy to use desktop that doesn't take a geek to install software" group. Sure, it isn't hard to copy and paste a "few" commands, but what happens when you find out you'll be "copying and pasting" for the whole time you use Ubuntu just to install things? Why couldn't it be as easy as double-clicking and following a simple Wizard like WIndows, or dragging and dropping into your apps folder like Mac? Why do you have to use the command line for 50% of things used in Linux? The only valid explanation was, "Linux is not WIndows". Linux was out at the time Windows NT debuted. Look at how easy it is now with XP. In 2001, Apple switched to UNIX, and look how far they got. Sure, they have a command line, but you were never forced to use it.

mstlyevil
January 25th, 2006, 07:52 AM
I've been with Linux and it's CLI for some time now. Windows power users who switch to Ubuntu do take time to learn the command line if they want to use Linux. We're talking about the "I have never used the Windows command line before and I'm tired of viruses, spyware and updating WIndows. I want to have an easy to use desktop that doesn't take a geek to install software" group. Sure, it isn't hard to copy and paste a "few" commands, but what happens when you find out you'll be "copying and pasting" for the whole time you use Ubuntu just to install things? Why couldn't it be as easy as double-clicking and following a simple Wizard like WIndows, or dragging and dropping into your apps folder like Mac? Why do you have to use the command line for 50% of things used in Linux? The only valid explanation was, "Linux is not WIndows". Linux was out at the time Windows NT debuted. Look at how easy it is now with XP. In 2001, Apple switched to UNIX, and look how far they got. Sure, they have a command line, but you were never forced to use it.

Automatix takes care of most of the issues you are talking about. Except for wireless support I can see no reason for a new person to touch the command line in Ubuntu once they install Automatix. Most new users do basic things with their computers like E-Mail, Web surfing, sharing photos, downloading music and simple games. Automatix configures a Ubuntu install automatically through a GUI based installer just for these things. My point in my previous post (which has obviously been ignored.) is that people are already working on this and the application already exist. You still have failed to show us how it is not easy for a new Ubuntu user to install all of these apps without extensive use of the CLI. Ubuntu can not come with many of these thing out of the box for legal reasons. What I am gathering from your post is that you want all these thing already enabled at install. This is not going to happen because then Ubuntu would have to charge to pay the license fees for the propietary software. That would include if they enabled the downloading and instalation of these packages through the repos by default.

You need to be more specific on what programs and packages that are not covered under Automatix and Synaptic that require the CLI to install. Otherwise I believe the GUI based application you keep talking about already exist.

Iandefor
January 25th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Meh... I voted that Linux needs big changes. But I don't really care about the rest of that option. Linux simply needs to change such that it gets more mindshare, imho (not necessarily convert users... just let them know about other options than Windows). But that doesn't necessarily mean making it more "user-friendly", as you put it. Linux is user-friendly already. The big stumbling block a lot of people have moving to Linux from Windows is the use of two different user interfaces. Anyone who uses the CLI for a little will realize it's not at all difficult; just because it works on a different principle than the GUI doesn't make it difficult.

Someone mentioned Automatix earlier; Automatix is a godsend, but for a new user, they're not necessarily going to be in a position to know about it. Just a thought.

Sirin
January 25th, 2006, 08:11 AM
Nevermind.

midwinter
January 25th, 2006, 08:16 AM
I'd look to another distro rather than trying to change this one. That's what i'm doing as Ubuntu is a little TOO 'user friendly' for my tastes. However, I do think Ubuntu is heading in the direction you want so I wouldn't concern yourself too much...

tufkakf
January 25th, 2006, 08:25 AM
So use Mepis. In Mepis, you click on a .deb and it opens up KPackage, which installs the .deb.

Hm, or why not simply acknowledge that this is something missing from Ubuntu? After all, that's what the ubuntu devs did and that's what will bring us gdebi in dapper.



For the most part, only Windows power users care about such things.
Bull, I don't even use Windows and I care about such things. Why, because I want my OS to be as efficient as possible. Did it ever occur to you that there are debs for ubuntu out there that are not in the repositories and that require you to install them with dpkg -i and then installing their deps manually (or most of the time simply using apt-get -f install)?
Could you tell me one reason why having a tool that does this in a more convenient way for me should be considered a bad thing?

awakatanka
January 25th, 2006, 10:37 AM
This has surely been mentioned already but if you want to use Linux but with no cli then use mepis or pclinuxos. There are different distributions of Linux with different intentions, for example KnoppixSE has different intention to Arch which has different intentions to Puppy. If you want a purely cli distro then there are those who intend to fulfil that need. Use them. If for whatever reason you can't use mepis or pclinuxos then use Windows. If for whatever reason you can't use Windows then I don't know how to advise you further, I guess either stop using computers or stop whining

For those people that say use mepis, pclinuxos our linspire they still have needs for CLI Commands if needed, CLI can be a powerfull tool but some task are faster and easier with a GUI. Nobody saying that CLI has to be removed but they say sometasks can be done with GUI also. Its simply not true that no distro can do it without cli. So don't say they don't have CLI

http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=418818&sid=d822e4189c600e1e9d48f6f17b559da7
http://www.mepislovers.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4939&forum=9
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?mop=modload&name=Splatt_Forums&file=viewtopic&topic=8230&forum=57

Whining so if some one has some critics he whine's? So nobody may have a opinion only you may have?


Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. It is developed by a large community and we invite you to participate too!

The Ubuntu community is built on the ideas enshrined in the Ubuntu Manifesto: that software should be available free of charge, that software tools should be usable by people in their local language and despite any disabilities, and that people should have the freedom to customise and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.

These freedoms make Ubuntu fundamentally different from traditional proprietary software: not only are the tools you need available free of charge, you have the right to modify your software until it works the way you want it to

It says everyone is free to share there idea's and make it usable for everyone, Stop kicking people away to windows our other distro's and make ubuntu a distro they also can use. With both options CLI and GUI for tasks that can be done in GUI. People can make there own choose what they prevere.

egon spengler
January 25th, 2006, 11:14 AM
It seems that you have never heard of humor.

Of course I have. It just wasn't funny. That said it is true that many a true word is spoken in jest


For those people that say use mepis, pclinuxos our linspire they still have needs for CLI Commands if needed, CLI can be a powerfull tool but some task are faster and easier with a GUI. Nobody saying that CLI has to be removed but they say sometasks can be done with GUI also. Its simply not true that no distro can do it without cli. So don't say they don't have CLI

Guess what, in Windows that well known barometer of user friendlyness there are also some things that have to be done at the command prompt, in fact there are also some things that have to be done (or at least are 10x easier to do) through typing into the run box. OMG!!111 TYPING???!!! THAT SUXORZ. If you use a computer you may have to touch the keyboard at some point, I'm sorry to break it to you.


Whining so if some one has some critics he whine's? So nobody may have a opinion only you may have?

That's not quite what I said though is it? I didn't say that voicing an opinion is whining what I said is that if ubuntu doesn't meet your needs then why stick with it? I can safely say that I wouldn't persevere with it if I didn't find it could do all that I need. There are plenty of other OSes out there, switch to one that is better for you. What you need to bear in mind though is that no OS is perfect, as the saying goes you can't please all of the people all of the time, at some point if no OS on earth meets your needs then you are going to have to suck it up and get on with life. At some point you may have to compromise (life is full of compromise my friend) and just accept that whatever OS you settle on is the best (or least terrible) you can get. That would be the point where I would say it's time to stop whining and just make the best of it.


It says everyone is free to share there idea's and make it usable for everyone, Stop kicking people away to windows our other distro's and make ubuntu a distro they also can use. With both options CLI and GUI for tasks that can be done in GUI. People can make there own choose what they prevere.

The fact remains, if you are the type of user that mepis and pclinux are aiming to cater for then you may well be best suited using one of those two distros. You say stop kicking people away but at the same time you need to realise that ubuntu has it's own particular aims and ideals (I don't know what they are but I know it has them) and it can't be all things to all people. In light of that recommending to people that they try something that tries harder to meet their needs isn't really that off key is it? Actually one thing I do know abuot ubuntu is that they aim to promote libre software, meanwhile the #1 complaint is that there is no built in mp3 support. What do you sugggest that do at this impasse?

a) stick to their ideals
b) throw away their ideals because ubuntu has to be all things for all people

tufkakf
January 25th, 2006, 11:43 AM
Guess what, in Windows that well known barometer of user friendlyness there are also some things that have to be done at the command prompt, in fact there are also some things that have to be done (or at least are 10x easier to do) through typing into the run box. OMG!!111 TYPING???!!! THAT SUXORZ. If you use a computer you may have to touch the keyboard at some point, I'm sorry to break it to you.

First off, I really don't think Windows is very userfriendly, at least not to this particular user here.
Second, the poster you answered to didn't claim that the CLI sux, what he pointed was that other distros provide gui tools for tasks that ubuntu doesn't provide gui tools for. Now pointing out that there are also things in Windows you have to do from the command prompt doesn't change this simple fact and writing in caps and 1337 speak doesn't either, so what exactly is your point here?



That's not quite what I said though is it? I didn't say that voicing an opinion is whining what I said is that if ubuntu doesn't meet your needs then why stick with it?

So, how about people who like ubuntu, whos needs are met by ubuntu most of the time, but who still think that there are areas where ubuntu could and should improve? Did it ever occur to you that people point out shortcomings of ubuntu not because they don't like, but because they like it and want it to improve?



I can safely say that I wouldn't persevere with it if I didn't find it could do all that I need. There are plenty of other OSes out there, switch to one that is better for you. What you need to bear in mind though is that no OS is perfect, as the saying goes you can't please all of the people all of the time, at some point if no OS on earth meets your needs then you are going to have to suck it up and get on with life. At some point you may have to compromise (life is full of compromise my friend) and just accept that whatever OS you settle on is the best (or least terrible) you can get. That would be the point where I would say it's time to stop whining and just make the best of it.

Why do you insist on accusing every one who voices something critical about Ubuntu of whining? And why do you think Linux in general and Ubuntu is improving? Hint, it's not because people simply accept what's there.



The fact remains, if you are the type of user that mepis and pclinux are aiming to cater for then you may well be best suited using one of those two distros. You say stop kicking people away but at the same time you need to realise that ubuntu has it's own particular aims and ideals (I don't know what they are but I know it has them) and it can't be all things to all people. In light of that recommending to people that they try something that tries harder to meet their needs isn't really that off key is it?

Pointing out to people that other distributions might at the moment be a better choice for them certainly is a good thing, but telling people who want to improve Ubuntu to get lost is.
And mentioning Ubuntu's aims and ideals while admitting that you don't know what they are but at the same time using them to shut up critics really isn't all that convincing.



Actually one thing I do know abuot ubuntu is that they aim to promote libre software, meanwhile the #1 complaint is that there is no built in mp3 support. What do you sugggest that do at this impasse?

Oh, there probably isn't all that much Ubuntu devs can do about it. However, that of course doesn't mean that there aren't other areas where Ubuntu can and should improve, does it?
And btw., the codecs fluendo wants to provide in the future could improve the situation significantly.



a) stick to their ideals
b) throw away their ideals because ubuntu has to be all things for all people
Blah. Nobody talked about throwing away ideals.

awakatanka
January 25th, 2006, 12:03 PM
Guess what, in Windows that well known barometer of user friendlyness there are also some things that have to be done at the command prompt, in fact there are also some things that have to be done (or at least are 10x easier to do) through typing into the run box. OMG!!111 TYPING???!!! THAT SUXORZ. If you use a computer you may have to touch the keyboard at some point, I'm sorry to break it to you. Tell me when? I never ever have to use the commandline in windows, only in there early versions i had to use it, in windows xp desktop version i never had to use the command. We talkink about desktop version and not server versions. And i don't say you never have to use only give the option for users that want it and if it can be done with a gui.




That's not quite what I said though is it? I didn't say that voicing an opinion is whining what I said is that if ubuntu doesn't meet your needs then why stick with it? I can safely say that I wouldn't persevere with it if I didn't find it could do all that I need. There are plenty of other OSes out there, switch to one that is better for you. What you need to bear in mind though is that no OS is perfect, as the saying goes you can't please all of the people all of the time, at some point if no OS on earth meets your needs then you are going to have to suck it up and get on with life. At some point you may have to compromise (life is full of compromise my friend) and just accept that whatever OS you settle on is the best (or least terrible) you can get. That would be the point where I would say it's time to stop whining and just make the best of it. No OS is prefect true but it can be as easy as possible for users that don't know as much as you and i.




The fact remains, if you are the type of user that mepis and pclinux are aiming to cater for then you may well be best suited using one of those two distros. You say stop kicking people away but at the same time you need to realise that ubuntu has it's own particular aims and ideals (I don't know what they are but I know it has them) and it can't be all things to all people. In light of that recommending to people that they try something that tries harder to meet their needs isn't really that off key is it? Actually one thing I do know abuot ubuntu is that they aim to promote libre software, meanwhile the #1 complaint is that there is no built in mp3 support. What do you sugggest that do at this impasse?
So people can't discuss about things they like to be added to the distro? Without user input it wouldbe hard to know the users want. And this isn't the place for input but its the place to discuss it and find users that think the same.


Ideas and Feedback

Help steer the direction we take Ubuntu, by describing your vision and ideas for a better server and desktop OS and application stack.

*

Participate in discussions and brainstorming on the Ubuntu Wiki where we work on the fastest-moving documents before they are ready for publication on the main web site.
*

Add your ideas to the Idea Pool for features you'd like to see in Ubuntu, products, marketing suggestions or any other ideas you'd like to add here.

Remember, in the open source world, code counts more than talk so try to find friends or link up with people who can help turn your vision into reality, or start cutting the code yourself if that's your line of interest.


The discussion isn't about mp3 our other codecs but about user friendlyness on somethings

egon spengler
January 25th, 2006, 01:08 PM
First off, I really don't think Windows is very userfriendly, at least not to this particular user here.
Second, the poster you answered to didn't claim that the CLI sux, what he pointed was that other distros provide gui tools for tasks that ubuntu doesn't provide gui tools for. Now pointing out that there are also things in Windows you have to do from the command prompt doesn't change this simple fact and writing in caps and 1337 speak doesn't either, so what exactly is your point here?

Actually what he said was that no distro escapes having to use the cli. My response was that touching the keyboard is an unavoidable consequence of using a computer. It seems to be uniquely an expectation of Linux that you never have to touch the keys under any circumstances. If you use Windows and large avi files are not previewing corretly and you have to unregister a dll through the prompt or the run box I doubt that inspires waves of criticism. In Windows there are many registry hacks/fixes to improve/modify performance, I don't really recall ever hearing Windows get criticised for that (I mean the actual having to type, I hear them get criticised for implementing the registry). Sometimes you may have to use the keyboard of your computer, if that is an issue for someone then I don't think that ubuntu is the distro best suited for them. Personally I think it is a tremendous urban myth that ubuntu is newbie friendly, look how many people are disapointed and frustrated with ubuntu, I think we would be doing everyone a favour if we directed new users and users who prefer gui as much as possible towards a distro that at least tries to cater for them. Honestly I think ubuntu doesn't even seem to try to be especially newbie friendly, as you say yourself ubuntu is missing many common gui tools of other distros. It doesn't seem to be their priority to move in this direction. And if it IS their priority then they are doing a woeful job


Why do you insist on accusing every one who voices something critical about Ubuntu of whining? And why do you think Linux in general and Ubuntu is improving? Hint, it's not because people simply accept what's there.

Goodness, let me try restating it again. It's not whining to say that you don't like certain things about ubuntu. What I was saying is that if it does not work for you then try something else, if nothing on the planet meets your demands then at that point you may well have to say "oh well, this is as good as it gets"



Pointing out to people that other distributions might at the moment be a better choice for them certainly is a good thing, but telling people who want to improve Ubuntu to get lost is.

And I told who to get lost? I'm telling people the same thing that I would tell myself, if ubuntu didn't work for me then I wouldn't persevere with it. What possible reason other than masochism is there to do that?



And mentioning Ubuntu's aims and ideals while admitting that you don't know what they are but at the same time using them to shut up critics really isn't all that convincing.

Nobody talked about throwing away ideals.

It was an example my friend of how if distro a has decided it wants to aim for a specific goal should they not be allowed to continue in that vein? If i start demanding that KnoppixSE ditch flux box for e17 is that a valid request on my part or should the makers of a distribution not be allowed to have the final say over which direction they move in? Of course listen to user feedback but I personally I don't feel that developers of a particular distro are ultimately obligated to put user feedback before whatever their own goals for their distribution are

egon spengler
January 25th, 2006, 01:21 PM
No OS is prefect true but it can be as easy as possible for users that don't know as much as you and i.

Of course every OS can be as easy as possible for users who are not interested in learning too much about the OS. What I am asking though is it the responsibility of every OS to try and make themselves as easy as possible? I know that Arch, Gentoo and LFS aren't designed to be especially userfriendly for those new to Linux, I would argue that it is the perrogative of the developers to continue in that vein. Personally I would never recommend ubuntu to anyone as a newbie distro because although I'm new to Linux and found it easy to get to grips with, from these forums I see that not everyone had the same experience.


So people can't discuss about things they like to be added to the distro? Without user input it wouldbe hard to know the users want. And this isn't the place for input but its the place to discuss it and find users that think the same.

The discussion isn't about mp3 our other codecs but about user friendlyness on somethings

Of course user feedback is vital, really though look at the options in this thread, was it a "ubuntu needs improvement here, here and there" thread or a "ubuntu is completely wrong and only a fool disagrees" thread? C'mon man, you don't need to read a 1,300 page manual to use ubuntu and you don't need a Linux nerd to guide you through every stage of using it.

As far as the mp3 thing, it was an example. I was asking you whether in all instances the developers should be forced to bow to popular demand or whether they might be permitted to make the distro as they see fit. To be honest I doubt you didn't understand exactly what I meant

Arktis
January 25th, 2006, 01:35 PM
All this amounts to is whining about having to use the CLI. I will now state some stunningly obvious things in the hopes of ending this whole ridiculous set of ideas. I will certainly fail at erradicating this plague of illogic...

A CLI and a GUI are merely two different ways of interacting with your computer. The CLI is far more efficient for many things as long as you understand what you're doing, how things work, what commands to use and how to use them. The CLI is not outdated or inferiror to a GUI.

But a GUI tool is easier, right? There's not really any learning needed except for what to click on and in what order. So it's automaticly better somehow. So now a GUI should be used for everything so that nobody ever has to touch the CLI... Doesn't this seem like a negative trend in thought?

And one more thing: I'm not a die-hard Linux CLI zealot. I'm a Gnome user. I like my simple GUI. I just happen to also recognize the advantages of the CLI and like to make use of it, too. Just not for everything. Just as I think that A GUI SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EVERYTHING.

But in the end, if people wish to do less learning and less thinking and demand ways to empower them to that end, you can't stop them. Let them shoot themselves in the foot.

Vlammetje
January 25th, 2006, 01:49 PM
Tell me when?

Things like a tracert or ping for example

kenweill
January 25th, 2006, 01:54 PM
I guess it would be much easier of Ubuntu Wiki will be included the the distribution. So that offline users as well can have a solutions to their problem when they have no internet connection.
Like Windows, it has comprehensive help files. It even have a troubleshooting guide.
What I like most with Windows is, if you are offline, and you have a problem, help is always available from the start menu. But in Ubuntu, don't have one. Or haven't found one. I still need to be online and post the forum or search the problem to the internet.

egon spengler
January 25th, 2006, 02:03 PM
I guess it would be much easier of Ubuntu Wiki will be included the the distribution. So that offline users as well can have a solutions to their problem when they have no internet connection.
Like Windows, it has comprehensive help files. It even have a troubleshooting guide.
What I like most with Windows is, if you are offline, and you have a problem, help is always available from the start menu. But in Ubuntu, don't have one. Or haven't found one. I still need to be online and post the forum or search the problem to the internet.

I think better documentation in the distro would help. One problem though, it seems to me (I've only seen breezy actually get released) that after a release the documentation for the new release builds up over the next few months and so at the time of release there might not be any version specific wiki content. Of course a lot of the stuff from previous versions will still work though

tufkakf
January 25th, 2006, 02:03 PM
The CLI is not outdated or inferiror to a GUI.

And nobody said it was. Strawman, meet Arktis. Arktis, meet Strawman.



But in the end, if people wish to do less learning and less thinking and demand ways to empower them to that end, you can't stop them. Let them shoot themselves in the foot.
Believe it or not, but providing tools that make things easier is kind of the idea behind computers. And learning in and of itself isn't a merit, if this learning is required because something that could also be achieved much easier has to be done in a complicated, non-obvious way.

Sirin
January 25th, 2006, 03:14 PM
I guess it would be much easier of Ubuntu Wiki will be included the the distribution. So that offline users as well can have a solutions to their problem when they have no internet connection.
Like Windows, it has comprehensive help files. It even have a troubleshooting guide.
What I like most with Windows is, if you are offline, and you have a problem, help is always available from the start menu. But in Ubuntu, don't have one. Or haven't found one. I still need to be online and post the forum or search the problem to the internet.

And Windows XP also comes with a Booklet (http://www.spartantech.com/img/productpics/WINXP%20Pro%20Booklet%20cvr%20w_CD.jpg) that shows you how to use it before you actually use it. With Ubuntu, you have to USE it to learn it. Why doesn't Ubuntu come with booklets? :(

midwinter
January 25th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Why doesn't Ubuntu come with booklets? :(

Maybe because it's free. I think it's incredible that they even send out free cds.

Ubuntu comes with help files by the way... (System - Help). Lots of man files too ;)

fuscia
January 25th, 2006, 03:55 PM
something just occured to me...aren't macs pretty much unix with a gui for retards?

Sirin
January 25th, 2006, 04:33 PM
something just occured to me...aren't macs pretty much unix with a gui for retards?

Retards? No. If it were for the mentally challenged, there would be a "click here, now click here, oops, don't forget to click here!" voice bugging you every 0.1 nanoseconds.

Iandefor
January 25th, 2006, 05:05 PM
something just occured to me...aren't macs pretty much unix with a gui for retards? Essentially. It uses a POSIX-compliant kernel. It also uses Aqua... which, in my experience, is liked primarily by technophobes.

aysiu
January 25th, 2006, 05:21 PM
I think some people are missing the point.

I'm not denying that Ubuntu can improve. Not only can it improve--it's constantly improving.

I do believe wholeheartedly, though, that this thread does not help Ubuntu improve. Its "criticisms" are really just whining--which, as I stated earlier, is fine if you just want to blow off steam and vent a little.

If you want to make a difference, starting a thread proclaiming, "Ubuntu needs to do this, this, and this" doesn't help.

These things help, and I believe I stated them before, but a few people weren't paying attention, so I'll state them again:

1. File a bug report.
2. Donate money.
3. Contribute documentation.
4. Help new users.
5. Improve the code yourself (be a developer).

If you're not doing one of those five things, then you're not really helping to improve Ubuntu, are you? That's the bottom line.

And it really isn't that big a deal to switch to another distro. I used to distro swap all the time. I ended up trying about twelve or fourteen different distros just for fun. It's not that big a deal. Copy over a few hidden directories in your /home folder, and it's pretty much the same thing.

prizrak
January 25th, 2006, 06:28 PM
Linus Torvalds aimed Minix (Early codename for the now-called Linux) for the DESKTOP.
I suggest learning before saying things. Minix was created by AST (Andrew S. Tenenbaum) as a teaching aid to his Computer Science students. It was a microkernel OS that had nothing to do with Linux. Linus created Linux because he wasn't satisfied with Minix's functionality, while it's true that he wrote it on a desktop (a 386 if I remember correctly) he never had any intentions for it. He wanted to create a POSIX compliant kernel and he did. He posted it to the net just for the hell of it. He never thought it was gonna get big.
--Source: Just For Fun

We acknowledge that there are things that are missing from Ubuntu. The thing is that at the moment the stabel release is Breezy that lacks certain things people might want. Dapper will include alot of new stuff including double clicking to install .debs and autopackage (from what I hear). If people are willing to wait for Dapper there is little reason to bitch about Ubuntu not having certain stuff because Breezy won't be updated and Dapper will most likely include things that are wanted. If you are not willing to wait then a different distro would be better.

tufkakf
January 25th, 2006, 07:08 PM
If you want to make a difference, starting a thread proclaiming, "Ubuntu needs to do this, this, and this" doesn't help.

Could you show me exactly where someone said it would?
Could you point out to me where exactly I can find the rule that threads like this have to help?
Can you tell me how a thread whining about windows users does fit into this picture? How does it improve Ubuntu exactly?

Thanks.

earobinson
January 25th, 2006, 07:15 PM
my vote for my gui because ubuntu is "linux for human beings" so anyone should be able to use it.

BSDFreak
January 25th, 2006, 07:16 PM
**** all that ****! let's go pure old school...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/unknownentity/linuxbc.jpg

http://asp.budo-fitness.se/img/upload/2336.jpg

BSDFreak
January 25th, 2006, 07:18 PM
my vote for my gui because ubuntu is "linux for human beings" so anyone should be able to use it.

Seriously, if ubuntu is "linux for human beings" then what is Slackware or SuSe? Linux for aliens and cats and dogs?

I think the meme is stupid.

BSDFreak
January 25th, 2006, 07:19 PM
something just occured to me...aren't macs pretty much unix with a gui for retards?

Based on FreeBSD with the Darwin additions.

It's so much *nix that you could run tcsh on it natievely. ;)

BSDFreak
January 25th, 2006, 07:23 PM
Essentially. It uses a POSIX-compliant kernel. It also uses Aqua... which, in my experience, is liked primarily by technophobes.

Aqua is the damn theme, nothing more, the engine is still Darwin.

You don't change the OS much by switching from Plastik to baghira in KDE and you could use both with Darwin.

It's a mach implementation of the 4.4BSD kernel, somewhat customized.

BSDFreak
January 25th, 2006, 07:31 PM
I suggest learning before saying things. Minix was created by AST (Andrew S. Tenenbaum) as a teaching aid to his Computer Science students. It was a microkernel OS that had nothing to do with Linux. Linus created Linux because he wasn't satisfied with Minix's functionality, while it's true that he wrote it on a desktop (a 386 if I remember correctly) he never had any intentions for it. He wanted to create a POSIX compliant kernel and he did. He posted it to the net just for the hell of it. He never thought it was gonna get big.
--Source: Just For Fun

It's mostly correct so i'll let it slide with a comment that Linus didn't "want to creat a POSIX compliant kernel" his aim was to create a kernel that was modular, not neccessarily POSIX compliant (and if you take the time to look at the earlier versions of the kernel you'll realize that it was not POSIX compliant) and as his work gained rep he was approached by the FSF.

He really didn't want to release it under the GPL though, but he did, and as it stands now it will forever be free since even if it's CS'd there will be a forked FOSS version.

Take a look at XFree86 for references of how well restrictions to licences do with FOSS support.

The minix kernel isn't all ****** though, it's a fsckload better than anything GNU has managed to produce for a kernel (the hurd is a joke at best).

I think i'm getting a tad carried away here, i just had a strange discussion with some FSF communists so you'll have to excuse me. :D

tufkakf
January 25th, 2006, 07:51 PM
I think i'm getting a tad carried away here, i just had a strange discussion with some FSF communists so you'll have to excuse me. :D
No, I won't. Calling people communists to insult them is not only stupid, but also shows that in the case of the FSF you don't know flying **** about what you talking about, as do your uninformed ramblings about hurd, minix and linux.

Stop emberassing yourself!

commodore
January 25th, 2006, 08:10 PM
GUI is anal sex.

aysiu
January 25th, 2006, 08:13 PM
Could you show me exactly where someone said it would? The very fact that people are arguing (multiple times) that Ubuntu needs to do certain things and asking "Why can't Ubuntu do X, Y, and Z?" multiple times in multiple posts indicates a sense of trying to make a difference. One post that says, "Geez, I wish Ubuntu would do X, Y, and Z" that's followed up later with, "Yeah, I was just venting. I know I'm not making a difference" wasn't what I saw at all.



Could you point out to me where exactly I can find the rule that threads like this have to help? They don't. I just want whiners to acknowledge they're whining.


Can you tell me how a thread whining about windows users does fit into this picture? How does it improve Ubuntu exactly? It doesn't. But it doesn't claim to either. This thread has the appearance of wanting to make change.

tufkakf
January 25th, 2006, 08:26 PM
This thread has the appearance of wanting to make change.
Nope. You want it to have this appearance in order to be able to insult all the people around you and feel oh so leet and enlightend.

BSDFreak
January 25th, 2006, 08:33 PM
No, I won't. Calling people communists to insult them is not only stupid, but also shows that in the case of the FSF you don't know flying **** about what you talking about, as do your uninformed ramblings about hurd, minix and linux.

Stop emberassing yourself!

You are a complete and utter idiot, THEY called themselves FSF communists.

I know who you were before you were banned.

The hurd is a joke, minix is a better kernrel than the hurd will ever be and Linux was not intended to be FOSS, you can bleat all you like but that is the way it si even if you don't believe it.

BSDFreak
January 25th, 2006, 08:39 PM
Hi AMD64_N_Linux (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=6019), bye tufkakf.

barbarian
January 25th, 2006, 09:21 PM
it may be complecated for me, but it should be more friendly to hardware, especially to notebooks.. IMHO :rolleyes:

tufkakf
January 25th, 2006, 09:22 PM
You are a complete and utter idiot, THEY called themselves FSF communists.

Sure, of course they did...



I know who you were before you were banned.

You do? That's amazing, as I was never banned.



The hurd is a joke, minix is a better kernrel than the hurd will ever be and Linux was not intended to be FOSS, you can bleat all you like but that is the way it si even if you don't believe it.
Blah....

FLeiXiuS
January 25th, 2006, 09:26 PM
This is a warning message for users who are participating in this thread.

Please do not continue to flame other users with random insults. It's prohibited and against our policies.

Further continuation of these insults will result in this thread being locked and or other actions neccessary.

barbarian
January 25th, 2006, 09:27 PM
it maybe complecated for me, but it should be more friendly for hardware, espessially for notebooks.. imo :rolleyes:

manicka
January 25th, 2006, 09:28 PM
The tone of some of the posts in this thread are against the forum guidelines.

Please heed FLeiXiuS' warning and play nice.

KiwiNZ
January 26th, 2006, 12:42 AM
This is a warning message for users who are participating in this thread.

Please do not continue to flame other users with random insults. It's prohibited and against our policies.

Further continuation of these insults will result in this thread being locked and or other actions neccessary.

What Fleix said .
I have my padlocks armed and ready

Iandefor
January 26th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Aqua is the damn theme, nothing more, the engine is still Darwin.

You don't change the OS much by switching from Plastik to baghira in KDE and you could use both with Darwin.

It's a mach implementation of the 4.4BSD kernel, somewhat customized. Might I ask whence the hostility arises?

AFAIK, Aqua is the graphics engine in the sense of GTK or QT.

I never said you couldn't use Plastik or Baghira in KDE on Darwin. I said OS X uses Aqua, which is Apple's proprietary graphics engine. There's a difference between a theme and a graphics engine.


I have my padlocks armed and ready Good man. This thread is getting a wee bit nasty.

awakatanka
January 26th, 2006, 01:19 AM
Things like a tracert or ping for example
For ping i use pingplotter it gives a much better report over a biggertime then the simple ping from command.

For tracert i use also a gui based prg also because it gives me a better report.

Sure those commands are easy to use but if there is a gui version that gives more options i'm going to try and use it.

damn i need a service menu so if i'm browsing i do right click and select tracert our ping for the site i browse on.

Some are GUI junks some are CLI junks and both can work greatly together in a OS.

:p

Also why people using KDE our GNOME if they can do the same in CLI, why they use openoffice if wp5.1 can do the job to? There even browser for CLI. Lets all go back to CLI and type youre fingers blue.

Arktis
January 26th, 2006, 10:37 AM
And nobody said it was. Strawman, meet Arktis. Arktis, meet Strawman.
Oh? What about:

This is the age of the GUI.

There is no need to do stuff as they do in windows but I still think GUI is the way to the future
Hmm, sounds like it to me. And who's this strawman? Was that an insult? Are you trying to make some obscure reference about my brain? I know this may be a futile request, but please don't flame... I read your other posts and it seems you have a tendancy to do this.


Believe it or not, but providing tools that make things easier is kind of the idea behind computers. And learning in and of itself isn't a merit, if this learning is required because something that could also be achieved much easier has to be done in a complicated, non-obvious way.
Yes, just like as a child, you have to learn how to go potty, feed yourself, and how to have good manners. Should little kids have servants that do all this stuff for them? No. Thinking and learning are good things. It's part of life. Computers should not become servants that do all of our thinking for us.

tufkakf
January 26th, 2006, 10:42 AM
Hmm, sounds like it to me. And who's this strawman? Was that an insult? Are you trying to make some obscure reference about my brain? I know this may be a futile request, but please don't flame... I read your other posts and it seems you have a tendancy to do this.

Calm down. I wasn't insulting you, it was a reference to your way of arguing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#In_logic_and_rhetoric



Yes, just like as a child, you have to learn how to go potty, feed yourself, and how to have good manners. Should little kids have servants that do all this stuff for them? No. Thinking and learning are good things. It's part of life. Computers should not become servants that do all of our thinking for us.
See above, or should I say: Oops, you did it again?

Arktis
January 26th, 2006, 11:08 AM
No, I don't think you should. I do think you're quibbling over trivial things in an attempt to bait me, though. Stick to the discussion, please. Here, I'll take the extra step and further clarify the point of my last two posts.

Easy = Less thought and knowlegde required. I am asserting that this is overall a bad thing. I call it ignorance. Remove the ignorance, use the command line, and you're more efficient. Simple.

tufkakf
January 26th, 2006, 11:48 AM
No, I don't think you should. I do think you're quibbling over trivial things in an attempt to bait me, though.

Nope, I'm simply pointing out false arguments.



Easy = Less thought and knowlegde required. I am asserting that this is overall a bad thing. I call it ignorance. Remove the ignorance, use the command line, and you're more efficient. Simple.
And as I pointed out, your assertion is wrong if you gain nothing from learning something that could also be done easier.
Btw., if this is your opinion, why don't you use LFS?
You'll certainly have to learn more things there than you have to when running Ubuntu, whose claim to fame is that it just works.

egon spengler
January 26th, 2006, 12:32 PM
Also why people using KDE our GNOME if they can do the same in CLI, why they use openoffice if wp5.1 can do the job to? There even browser for CLI. Lets all go back to CLI and type youre fingers blue.

You keep making reference to wear on tear on the digits and while I'm sure that you are not seriousy putting that forward as the main thrust of your argument I have to wonder how you operate your mouse. It's not with your fingers is it?

Also, it's an interesting change in soceity that people even half jokingly regard typing on a keyboard as some form of arduos task that takes a herculean effort. I started out in life performing hard physical labour to earn a crust, my father spent his entire working life performing hard physical labour as did my grandfather before him. Again, I know that you are only being half serious, it's just interesting to me to see the Jetsons prophecy come true and men regard pushing buttons as hard work

awakatanka
January 26th, 2006, 12:46 PM
You keep making reference to wear on tear on the digits and while I'm sure that you are not seriousy putting that forward as the main thrust of your argument I have to wonder how you operate your mouse. It's not with your fingers is it?

Also, it's an interesting change in soceity that people even half jokingly regard typing on a keyboard as some form of arduos task that takes a herculean effort. I started out in life performing hard physical labour to earn a crust, my father spent his entire working life performing hard physical labour as did my grandfather before him. Again, I know that you are only being half serious, it's just interesting to me to see the Jetsons prophecy come true and men regard pushing buttons as hard work
hehe i'm joking yes, but i find it strange there is so much strugle to something that adds some little thing that make life easier for some users that like GUI more then CLI. Nobody is saying that CLI has to be removed but they just say add something gui based for some simple task that are easier with gui. Now dapper will have some improvements on.

If i could program i would make something that made my life easier with some CLI things.

Its funny that people are against it but still use a GUI based OS, all the things they use have made there life easier and if they realy against simplify things they would only use CLI because all things they do can be done from CLI to.

I'm still basicly use the same things as i used in my dos time, so why i still use windows/gui?

Arktis
January 26th, 2006, 01:24 PM
And as I pointed out, your assertion is wrong if you gain nothing from learning something that could also be done easier.Easier does not mean more efficient. The CLI is more efficient for many tasks than a GUI. That's gaining something useful by learning. It's also better to learn something other than point and click. The brain is a muscle, you know.


Btw., if this is your opinion, why don't you use LFS?
You'll certainly have to learn more things there than you have to when running Ubuntu, whose claim to fame is that it just works.
Say hi to stickman for me.

Anyways, I don't use LFS because I would essentially be on my own there. I wouldn't have this big support base that I have now with ubuntu. I'm not ready for that. Yet.

Virogenesis
January 26th, 2006, 01:53 PM
a Gui interface can only do so much a user should not be masked just by a gui sure guis are ace I'd prefer a installer with a interface I'd also like to be able to config certain things but I do also understand linux uses config files and well to get the most of your experience its a must to have basic command line knowlege.

eg: xserver crashes what do you do?
Well I'd start up a virtual console by pressed ctrl + alt + F1 log in kill the problem logout then press alt + F7 should then be sorted.

Things like that cannot be done with a gui to put your trust in a gui is a common mistake and it will make you lazy.

Gui + Cmd.... don't just focus on a gui

tufkakf
January 26th, 2006, 02:00 PM
Easier does not mean more efficient. The CLI is more efficient for many tasks than a GUI. That's gaining something useful by learning. It's also better to learn something other than point and click.
What did this poor strawman do to you?
I did not say that easier == more efficient.
I did not say that the CLI isn't more efficient for many tasks.
What I did say and what I'll now repeat for the third time in the hope that you might eventually answer the actual point I'm making is, that learning has no merrit if you don't gain anything by learning. If you just have to learn something because it is badly implemented.



The brain is a muscle, you know.

Talk about flamebaiting.



Say hi to stickman for me.

Anyways, I don't use LFS because I would essentially be on my own there. I wouldn't have this big support base that I have now with ubuntu. I'm not ready for that. Yet.
I assume you mean strawman, not stickman.
Anyway, it's not a strawman argument, but a honest question, because using Ubuntu goes contrary to what you proclaim otherwise. And don't worry, you wouldn't be alone with LFS, if anything they have great documentation.

Stormy Eyes
January 26th, 2006, 02:05 PM
Also why people using KDE our GNOME if they can do the same in CLI, why they use openoffice if wp5.1 can do the job to?

Dude, if I could get WP5.1 working under Linux, you can bet your bollocks I'd be using it instead of OpenOffice. WP5.1 rocked like an army of coked up ninja.

egon spengler
January 26th, 2006, 02:15 PM
Its funny that people are against it but still use a GUI based OS, all the things they use have made there life easier and if they realy against simplify things they would only use CLI because all things they do can be done from CLI to.

I don't think that anyone is against the gui, if you can find a quote of someone who is against the whole concept of a gui then I would consider them to be incredibly foolish. It's like this though, the whole tone of the thread was set by the stupid options of the poll which basically set out shop as "I say more gui elements are needed and only fools disagree". I don't think anyone is hoping to have all traces of gui stripped from ubuntu, I'm sure that everyone here logs in to x, I think it's a question of differing opinion as to where the emphasis of development should be. Some might believe that the number one priority has to be to make everything controllable from a gui, other people think that it is not the most pressing issue needing development. I think it's a bit of a stretch to deduce from people saying "making everything gui is not the most important thing" that the people in question want to do away with all gui elements.

I think really we need some sort of official statement to put an end to this debate, is ubuntu officially trying to become a mepis like distribution that attempts to create a gui for every possible thing (and if they are then they are failing miserably, nobody would be able to argue that) or not.

btw, something else you need to bear in mind is that easier is a very relative term, before I used the cli I found the idea that people manage files from it mildly absurd, I thought it was purely the empty rhetoric of the type of super boffins who proudly boast of writing all html code in windows notepad. Guess what though, it often IS easier to use the cli. I would wager that most people who have given a fair chance to both would agree that with tab complete the VAST majority of moving and copying files is quicker than dragging in a file manager (I haven't used gnome in a long time but is it still the case that dragging a file onto the task manager doesn't activate the window?). I think that a lot of people instantly assume that gui is easier because it's what they are used to, I know I made that same mistake

awakatanka
January 26th, 2006, 02:20 PM
Dude, if I could get WP5.1 working under Linux, you can bet your bollocks I'd be using it instead of OpenOffice. WP5.1 rocked like an army of coked up ninja.
There still troubles then to get it working under linux? There should be some good emulators for dos by now.

Some had it running 10 years ago, slackware had a special keymap for it. But thats info i have found on google ;)

awakatanka
January 26th, 2006, 02:39 PM
I don't think that anyone is against the gui, if you can find a quote of someone who is against the whole concept of a gui then I would consider them to be incredibly foolish. It's like this though, the whole tone of the thread was set by the stupid options of the poll which basically set out shop as "I say more gui elements are needed and only fools disagree". I don't think anyone is hoping to have all traces of gui stripped from ubuntu, I'm sure that everyone here logs in to x, I think it's a question of differing opinion as to where the emphasis of development should be. Some might believe that the number one priority has to be to make everything controllable from a gui, other people think that it is not the most pressing issue needing development. I think it's a bit of a stretch to deduce from people saying "making everything gui is not the most important thing" that the people in question want to do away with all gui elements.

I think really we need some sort of official statement to put an end to this debate, is ubuntu officially trying to become a mepis like distribution that attempts to create a gui for every possible thing (and if they are then they are failing miserably, nobody would be able to argue that) or not.

btw, something else you need to bear in mind is that easier is a very relative term, before I used the cli I found the idea that people manage files from it mildly absurd, I thought it was purely the empty rhetoric of the type of super boffins who proudly boast of writing all html code in windows notepad. Guess what though, it often IS easier to use the cli. I would wager that most people who have given a fair chance to both would agree that with tab complete the VAST majority of moving and copying files is quicker than dragging in a file manager (I haven't used gnome in a long time but is it still the case that dragging a file onto the task manager doesn't activate the window?). I think that a lot of people instantly assume that gui is easier because it's what they are used to, I know I made that same mistake
Back in the dos days the first thing people did was installing Norton commander our that other prg i forget the name of, Most people always choose to simplify things for themself even if it will give them more work at the end, they used had the feeling it worked fatser for them. I agree that lots of things is better if you are used to CLI and want to give some effort in trying to learn it, but lots of people are to lazy to do that and for those people should be the option to use a gui because they have the feeling it is easier for them. I for one hate some tasks i have to do in cli.

Youre copy example is maybe valid for you but most just will do a drag drop our a control -c control-v. As long if they have a choose its a goodthing. They can exsist together.

I know i give examples in the extreme but the gui is there because it made live easier and some little improvements will make live easier for some lazy/not knowing our not eductated people.

And this kind of topics will always be posted by windows users that are trying our are converted to linux. If these kind of topics wouldn't be posted then it could mean 2 things : 1 the distro is to difficult our 2 its perfect. ;)

Stormy Eyes
January 26th, 2006, 04:06 PM
There still troubles then to get it working under linux? There should be some good emulators for dos by now.

I don't think DOS emulators play nicely with CUPS. What good is a word processor if you can't print out what you've written?

BSDFreak
January 26th, 2006, 04:32 PM
Might I ask whence the hostility arises?

AFAIK, Aqua is the graphics engine in the sense of GTK or QT.

No, do a search for Quartz since i'm not up to educating you on the matter.


I never said you couldn't use Plastik or Baghira in KDE on Darwin. I said OS X uses Aqua, which is Apple's proprietary graphics engine. There's a difference between a theme and a graphics engine.

Aqua isn't a graphics engine, it's a theme as Baghira or Plastik is a theme, they prefer to call it interface but it's still all it is.

Sirin
January 26th, 2006, 05:10 PM
GUI is anal sex.

Hey, if it wasn't for the GUI, the mouse would never exist.

People, I'm not saying "take out the CLI", leave it in. But don't involve it so much that new users will have to read a 1,000 page book just to learn it. If it's supposed to be better than Windows, then why should it be harder? I like using the command line, but grandmothers won't. Unlike Windows or Mac OS, or RPM-based systems, you can't install any applications from CDs. Your only hope is to use "the internet". Now, what if they have 28k dial-up? They can't expect to install 58MB worth of apps just to do something. Why is the only way to install something that isn't in the repositories is to use dpkg? Why not just double-click something to install? Is this because "it's too easy", or "that's the Windows way of doing it"? You wouldn't expect very lazy people to use the command line using advanced UNIX commands, right?

Also, we need easy GUI installers. In my opinion, Fedora Core 1's Installer is better than Ubuntu's installer. Fedora's installer lets you choose which apps you like, which apps you may want to keep out.

And BTW, why are you saying that "GUI-People" need to go back to Windows? That would contradict the reason that we came here in the first place. "If you don't want to use the command line, go back your crashy spyare Windows world." What the hell is that? We came to Ubuntu because we wanted stability, security, and most of all, non-costliness. Telling somebody to go to another distro is like telling them to "get the hell out of Ubuntu". If you want people that want ease-of-use to go to another distro, then why are you converting users from windows to Ubuntu in the first place? You wouldn't expect them to know how to work Ubuntu in the first place, no? If you want to know why I'm saying this, is because I'm tired of having to help them use Ubuntu every single time they use it. When I tell them how to use dpkg to install something, at the end, they say "huh? :confused:". That's one of the reasons why we should make Ubuntu for novice users also. Most Windows users are most likely to switch to Mac OS X than Linux. Why? It's not FUD, it's a fact: Linux is not for the "what's an OS?" people. They only reaso why they would want to install Linux, is because "it is free". Very few people would want to pay for Linux if they found out that it was free. Just because Ubuntu is free, doesn't mean that there has to be sacrifices. Take a look at Firefox and Thunderbird, and look how better they are than the commercial "Internet Explorer and Outlook". ;)

Oh, and I'm not whining, I'm giving out suggestions. But it seems like some people here don't like suggestions, eh? ;)

GeneralZod
January 26th, 2006, 05:14 PM
Why is the only way to install something that isn't in the repositories is to use dpkg? Why not just double-click something to install? Is this because "it's too easy", or "that's the Windows way of doing it"?

It really depends on whether that thing has been specifically compiled for your system. If it has, then I'm not really sure why there isn't a simple GUI wrapper for dpkg yet - I guess no one has considered it a priority and volunteered to write one :confused: I agree that one would make things easier. Don't other distros have something like this, called KPackage or something...?

If you're not referring to .debs that have been compiled especially for your Ubuntu version - like in Windows, where a single .exe will work pretty much independent of what version of Windows you have - it's because the technical challenges are pretty great and unpleasant trade-offs would have to be made (for example - stagnation of libraries/ toolkits or unnecessarily bloated apps).

gabbman
January 26th, 2006, 05:20 PM
After 5 years of waiting for linux to become 100% GUI, I am seriously looking at the sexy iMac G5.

Sirin
January 26th, 2006, 05:26 PM
After 5 years of waiting for linux to become 100% GUI, I am seriously looking at the sexy iMac G5.

Actually, it's best if you get the Intel version, since you can also run PPC apps (with a very small slowdown) using Rosetta. ;)

Stormy Eyes
January 26th, 2006, 05:28 PM
After 5 years of waiting for linux to become 100% GUI, I am seriously looking at the sexy iMac G5.

Have fun. Personally, I like using the command line, and would refuse to use any Linux distribution that became so much like Windows that it either did not include a shell or included a crippled shell.

Sirin
January 26th, 2006, 05:32 PM
Have fun. Personally, I like using the command line, and would refuse to use any Linux distribution that became so much like Windows that it either did not include a shell or included a crippled shell.

We don't want to take out the CLI, but we want to make it so there are GUI frontends. Like a GUI frontend to dpkg. :)

Stormy Eyes
January 26th, 2006, 05:36 PM
We don't want to take out the CLI, but we want to make it so there are GUI frontends. Like a GUI frontend to dpkg. :)

Fine, as long as I don't have to use it. If I wanted to maintain my system with a GUI, I'd still be using Windows.

gabbman
January 26th, 2006, 05:36 PM
That's the plan, thanks.

tufkakf
January 26th, 2006, 05:50 PM
After 5 years of waiting for linux to become 100% GUI, I am seriously looking at the sexy iMac G5.
Just being curious, but what are the things you do that require using the CLI on distributions like, for example, Suse?

Sirin
January 27th, 2006, 03:51 AM
Just being curious, but what are the things you do that require using the CLI on distributions like, for example, Suse?

Mostly running su and sudo. But KDE has eliminated that, so if you're using GNOME or anything else, then you're stuck with it.

Stormy Eyes
January 27th, 2006, 04:28 AM
Mostly running su and sudo. But KDE has eliminated that, so if you're using GNOME or anything else, then you're stuck with it.

sudo apt-get install gksu gives a GTK wrapper to su and sudo.

Sirin
January 27th, 2006, 04:43 AM
EDIT: Nvm.

prizrak
January 27th, 2006, 04:46 AM
We don't want to take out the CLI, but we want to make it so there are GUI frontends. Like a GUI frontend to dpkg. :)
The GUI frontend to dpkg is comming in Dapper, the reason there wasn't one before (that was discussed in another thread) was because the devs didn't find one that suited their needs. The Dapper one will work with apt-get to install the dependancies needed for your .deb
Also Ubuntu is a broadband distro, it has been mentioned before. People on dial up are pretty much out of luck, but that's a trade off for having a single CD as opposed to multiple disks. One reason I can think of for not having all the GUI sexiness is because Ubuntu is pretty young and was mostly geared towards making it as developed as possible and work on as much hardware as possible. Now that it's pretty stable the devs can start adding on non essential stuff (which I'm sorry to say GUI tools for random sys admin work are).
The reason many people advise to switch distros is because there are distros that already offer something you might want, while Ubuntu might or might not offer it in X months when the new release comes. There are also things like overall philosophy, like not including proprietary codecs out of the box so if that's someone issue they might want a different distro. For now I'd say wait for Dapper see what kind of goodies we get with that when it hits final, hopefully it will address all the issues people have. :)

Iandefor
January 27th, 2006, 05:36 AM
Do a search for Quartz. Researching into Quartz proved me wrong. My bad.



Aqua isn't a graphics engine, it's a theme as Baghira or Plastik is a theme, they prefer to call it interface but it's still all it is. Okay.



No, do a search for Quartz since i'm not up to educating you on the matter.
As if "educating" me would be some kind of Herculean task? You imply a good deal in that statement, friend. Watch your tongue or don't use it. It really isn't worth my time to read condescending and hostile messages posted by some thersitical pedant.

Mr. Picklesworth
January 29th, 2006, 07:49 PM
I think that the command line should stay (obviously) and remain commonly used, but there's really no reason it couldn't be made a bit more friendly.
For example, a menu beside the input thing containing commonly used commands organized into groups wouldn't be hard to do but would be extremely helpful.

prizrak
January 29th, 2006, 08:28 PM
I think that the command line should stay (obviously) and remain commonly used, but there's really no reason it couldn't be made a bit more friendly.
For example, a menu beside the input thing containing commonly used commands organized into groups wouldn't be hard to do but would be extremely helpful.
There is no need for that. When using CLI you either will know what to type in, or will copy paste commands that someone who knows what they are doing. The biggest thing here is that many people don't know of GUI tools for certain things, because on the forums you gonna get CLI commands that are easy to copy-paste into the terminal rather than follow System>Administration>Device Manager>bring dat *ss up>turn it around. You get the picture ;)

BobSongs
February 21st, 2006, 09:57 AM
My first, and as of yet, only tutorial (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=105703) involves the command line.

And I'm a newbie myself.

I have dabbled in Linux for many years, curious about this free O/S. I never quite understood it seeing I was becoming more and more entrenched in Windows thinking. I couldn't seem to let go of Windows and so many of my friends were in need of help. I figured I'd keep up with Redmond's architecture. True: my beginnings were in DOS. So perhaps I'm biased towards the command line.

Some people will wish to learn more about their systems. Copying and pasting commands will do precious little to teach anyone anything, imho. But in some cases walking a person through what to click isn't any more educational. It depends on the person you're helping. Those who seek a quick fix will copy/paste or click their way out of a problem and then carry on.

In recent years Linux has become more useable without the command line. And some Linux users manage to dodge its use. But those who are desperate to alleviate a system problem will do what it takes to get the job done. My tutorial was designed for the complete Windows-crossover newbie. I was more careful in how it was written; the ideas had to be thought out. But the accolades are proof I did what folks need.

Use of the Terminal/command-line will not frighten away new users if we carefully/accurately point out what to do. It goes without saying that a user who is too terrified of the Terminal should seriously reconsider using Linux, and we cannot remove fear from those who are determined to be frightened away.

I don't want all Windows users to switch over to Linux. Just those who have come to the conclusion Windows isn't as satisfying or secure as they thought it would be.

Linux != Windows. We can make our tutorials/responses more friendly, but that's about all. This is what I tried to do. Take the new user's hand and hold it. That can be done in many ways. Clarity might well dispell fear. I personally dislike HOWTOs that assume 10 years of Linux command line experience. I can tolerate being told where the Terminal is situated (Applications > Accessories > Terminal) even though I have its icon in my top panel.

I know this is an old thread, probably not worth reviving. But I wanted to toss in my two cents worth.

Kerberos
February 21st, 2006, 11:35 AM
Slightly off topic but why is DOS looked down upon with derision, yet the Linux CLI is looked upon as being an essential tool (to the point that many functions are only achievable through it)?

Also whoever said that your less likely to make dangerous mistakes with the CLI (such as in partitioning)

rm -rf / temp
I'd say the CLI gives much, much more chance of fatal errors.

ygarl
February 21st, 2006, 11:59 AM
I'm just going to straight up ask the community on this one. Please beat me up and tear my logic apart- I'm posting this for that reason.

As many know I try my best to help out new Ubuntu users. Many of us do, and its a great thing. Often on this forum I will tell people commands to put in the command line to fix their problems. Recently I was told that this is not the best thing, as it scares away new ex-Window's users who associate "command line" with "Dos" (this ignores that fact that a big "feature" of longhorn will be a functional CLI). Azz, another moderator here is big on giving answers that fix problems through a graphical method if possible. Supposedly the Ubuntu developers themselves have set out a goal that "an Ubuntu user shouldn't need to touch the command line," but until they make a GUI tool for ndiswrapper (aka the hardest thing for a new user to do) I don't put much weight into their opinions on the matter.

I personally tell greens commands because :

A. Instructions using a GUI require pages of screenshots with areas circled in gimp or whatever. Its harder to write a good way to work through the GUI...they are very intuitive to me so I leave out steps that my brain assumes. Anyone that has done tech support on Windows can tell you the problems here.

B. No one can mess up copy and pasting a command. You CAN mess up entering info in many dialog boxes in a GUI.

C. I kinda have this idea that greens need to get used to the way Linux does things. Many of the howtos on this forum require some work on the command line. It seems like unless someone set up the computer for you and all you do it make office docs and surf the internet you will one day have to face the command line (if only to run the program you just downloading in synaptic but a menu option wasn't added for it). Till now I've been of the opinion "they need to just get used to it early on.....its not like we have a YAST or something like that so command line work is inevitable." I mean....look at your grub menu....."safe mode" in Ubuntu is the command line.

D. When I first started with Linux I was afraid of the command line too...but now I think is is very powerful and I would hate to go without it. It doesn't have the negative connotation with me as it does with some people. If the betters I got my early advise from didn't force me to use the command line (by only helping me that way) I wouldn't be half the *NIX admin I am today. Now (after using Linux for less that a year) I can fix a Ubuntu computer from the command line.

E. The guide uses the command line so I want to be consistent.

F. There is no F

So...what do you guys think? Is pointing newbies to the command line a bad thing? If they are afraid of it should I be honest and tell them "the only Linux I know of that liberates itself from the command line is SUSE?" Should we make more guides to do things in a graphical way? Will Ubuntu ever reach the lofty goal of "never needing the command line?"

You are correct. Command Line is by FAR the best way to learn Linux and to do things on Ubuntu. Errors are MUCH clearer and it generally just runs better when doing 'big' things. People are less likely to be scared by compiling programs, etc if they have a grasp of the Terminal.

Carry on...
Good work.

BoyOfDestiny
February 21st, 2006, 01:05 PM
Slightly off topic but why is DOS looked down upon with derision, yet the Linux CLI is looked upon as being an essential tool (to the point that many functions are only achievable through it)?

Also whoever said that your less likely to make dangerous mistakes with the CLI (such as in partitioning)

rm -rf / temp
I'd say the CLI gives much, much more chance of fatal errors.

I'm a fan of DOS, well it's games anyway... CLI is just that... A Command Line Interface.
DOS, Disk Operating System... was just that. It had memory limits (that were somewhat overcome with protected mem etc), it wasn't multi user, and was basically the foundation windows ran upon until 2000/XP.

Anyway, it'd be comparing very different things. As for commandline being dangerous, depends on the user. At least they can't accidently click something... =) It's worth mentioning that front-end can be written for ANY command (correct me if I'm wrong).

Kerberos
February 21st, 2006, 01:48 PM
I'm a fan of DOS, well it's games anyway... CLI is just that... A Command Line Interface.
DOS, Disk Operating System... was just that. It had memory limits (that were somewhat overcome with protected mem etc), it wasn't multi user, and was basically the foundation windows ran upon until 2000/XP.

Anyway, it'd be comparing very different things. As for commandline being dangerous, depends on the user. At least they can't accidently click something... =) It's worth mentioning that front-end can be written for ANY command (correct me if I'm wrong).
I am very well aware of what DOS is, hence my comment on why it still gets sarky comments from people who really should know better and who rabidly promote Linux CLI's - its just a bit of a double standard.

Being able to accidentally click something dangerous is not a justification for the superiority of a CLI (Try typing in my mis-typed RM code, I dare ya! ;)) its more a symptom of a bad GUI.

The reason I dont like CLI's is discoverability. If you have a GUI and you need to do something (configure a network controller for example) you could probably figure it out pretty easily provided you understand what it is you want to do. IP, DNS, Gateway etc are all easy to find and fill in boxes. In a CLI environment there is no way of knowing how to do it unless you either a: already know or b: have a howto which means you will be required to search the web for documentation and try to figure out syntax rather than just getting on with the job at hand.

GUI's are about communicating with users through the use of metaphors, using icons, windows, double clicking and dragging so that they can spend more time using the application rather than learning how to use the underlying operating system - which is fine if your a Linux fan but if you just want to get something done in a short amount of time its not - the operating system should stay out of your way.

The CLI is just a blinking cursor, there isn't really any 'figuring it out' possible and everything has to either be taught or learned with a much, much greater burden of knowlege required on the users part to be as competant with it as with a GUI and most of the time they are just copying it verbatim from printouts or websites without actually understanding what it is they are doing - so why not just make an icon for it?

Only an idiot would argue to remove the CLI, it has a place and is indespensible in quite a lot of scenarios but if a GUI method of doing the same thing can be introduced, it should.

aysiu
February 21st, 2006, 03:54 PM
They each serve their own purpose.

As Kerberos has pointed out, GUIs have discoverability.

The advantage of the CLI is the ability to quickly give instructions that can be copied and pasted and find out errors from other users who have copied and pasted those.

It takes me a lot longer to walk a new user through a process using screenshots than commands, and since the internet is the medium by which most Ubuntu users get help, I think we should all recognize the strengths of the command-line when it comes to giving help to new users.

Well, you can read more about my thoughts here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=59334).

briancurtin
February 21st, 2006, 06:25 PM
to me, its all about the command line. i try to use it as much as possible, and try to answer questions with command-line-oriented answers. i use Arch now, where not being afraid to use the command line is kind of a prerequisite, and i like it a lot.

joflow
February 21st, 2006, 06:59 PM
I have never been able to get into the command line.

Everyone says its so powerful but I'm unable to see it. Can someone tell me how they use the commandline on a day to day basis (examples beyond simple moving, copying, etc of files)?

Can someone also give me some good examples of how bash scripting is useful. I don't need to see any code, I just want to know what it could potentially do so I can determine if its worth learning.

K.Mandla
February 21st, 2006, 07:33 PM
Personally, I have a problem with point F.

I find the command line expedient, but cryptic. There are things I prefer to do with a GUI (moving files and folders is an example), but there are other things that seem more natural in the command line.

Is it acceptable to say, "Give directions both ways?"

Of course, now having said that, I realize when I give help, I give command lines. ... :rolleyes:

aysiu
February 21st, 2006, 07:44 PM
Everyone says its so powerful but I'm unable to see it. Can someone tell me how they use the commandline on a day to day basis (examples beyond simple moving, copying, etc of files)? Sure. Take, for example, this HowTo I wrote on removing Kubuntu. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=96048) With one command copied and pasted into the terminal, you can remove a full set of applications. That same thing would take at least ten minutes (if not more) to do in Synaptic Package Manager.



Is it acceptable to say, "Give directions both ways?" You can give directions however you want, but it always takes me longer to give directions for GUI than command-line. Occasionally, if someone really has a hard time understanding something, I'll do a screenshot and circle in red the appropriate button to push, but usually I'll just say, "copy and paste this command."

mstlyevil
February 21st, 2006, 11:31 PM
Make no mistake about it, this is a command line oriented support board and distro. You can get by using the GUI for most things but to unlock the true potential of this operating system it is going to take the CLI. I was a little uneasy about the command line at first. I either just copied and pasted the commands without trying to learn what they actually were or I tried to find work arounds using the GUI as much as possible. (Actually, I still copy and paste a lot of times not because I don't know what the command is but that I get too lazy to type it.) Over the last few months I have decided to become more familiar with the CLI because I have found it to be actually easier and more efficient than relying on the GUI. You can do so many things in less time and with less hastle it gets you back to using your computer instead of working on it for hours on end trying to do the same thing in the GUI.

If a person does not want to use the CLI but still wants to use Linux, I see no problem with that. Suse can be set up and used by the average user without ever using the command line because of YAST. Ubuntu on the other hand is a distro I would not recommend to those people because you just can not get around the CLI. If someone wants to use Ubuntu, I believe it is best if they learn the basics of the CLI and some basic commands.

Arc Owner
February 22nd, 2006, 12:15 AM
I personally like the command line, and use it more than the package manager. Once you understand the basic commands, its not really that hard. If new users aren't willing to learn the command line, then they probably shouldn't be using linux.

xequence
February 22nd, 2006, 12:24 AM
I dont see how the command line is so powerful. You have to type something that you could just click to do.

For example, copying a file. Youd have to type some long drawn out command, or you could right click, copy, paste somewhere else.

Yes, its easier to tell them how to do command line things, and the command line can be good for old computers, but this isnt the 1980's (or 1990's, in the case of linux).

aysiu
February 22nd, 2006, 01:00 AM
I dont see how the command line is so powerful. You have to type something that you could just click to do. Well, sometimes, it's faster and easier to type something than to "just click" something.

Just look at apt-get and Synaptic. If I want to fire up Synaptic GUI-style, I click on System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager. Then I click the Reload button. Then, I do a search for the application name. Then I right-click it to mark it for installation. Then I click Apply to apply the changes. That's a lot of clicking, not to mention the time it takes the GUI to load (even with my 512 MB of RAM), which isn't that long... but it's longer than it takes the terminal to load.

In the terminal, I just fire up the terminal with my keyboard shortcut and type
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install packagename

Oh, and you might have missed part of my previous post:
Take, for example, this HowTo I wrote on removing Kubuntu. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=96048) With one command copied and pasted into the terminal, you can remove a full set of applications. That same thing would take at least ten minutes (if not more) to do in Synaptic Package Manager.

mstlyevil
February 22nd, 2006, 01:29 AM
I dont see how the command line is so powerful. You have to type something that you could just click to do.

For example, copying a file. Youd have to type some long drawn out command, or you could right click, copy, paste somewhere else.

Yes, its easier to tell them how to do command line things, and the command line can be good for old computers, but this isnt the 1980's (or 1990's, in the case of linux).

MSFT and most system admins happen to disagree with you on this one. Vista is going to ship with a new Unix style shell for that very reason. Also you can do task in a fraction of the time it takes to navigate the GUI. For example If you want to move a large number of files to different folders you have to go back in forth in the different folders and copy and paste each file. Doing it by the command line only takes a few commands to get the exact same job done but in a lot less time. As aysiu stated earlier you would have to remove each package seperately to remove KDE in synaptic when that can be accomplished by just two commands. That is what makes using the shell so powerfull.

Sheinar
February 22nd, 2006, 01:53 AM
For example, copying a file. Youd have to type some long drawn out command, or you could right click, copy, paste somewhere else.
"cp file /newplace/" is some long drawn out command?

I find it much faster using the command-line to copy/paste than to go through a GUI.

poofyhairguy
February 22nd, 2006, 02:27 AM
Wow what an old thread.

gw90se
February 22nd, 2006, 02:38 AM
Wow what an old thread.

Ah, but still a good and valid one. i like learning the command line way. I feel more in control then click and something happens in the background.

prizrak
February 22nd, 2006, 03:09 AM
I actually started a newer thread not too long ago. The thing I think most people don't realize is that there are ways of doing things via a GUI. It is just that people like to set up their graphical environments in a different way. As defaults we already have Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and even Xubuntu (not to mention Edubuntu). So it is a lot of guess work to know what the user's GUI is looking like at the moment (hell I get bored of mine every few months so I change it around). The CLI however works in a very predictable way, every command will work the way we expect it to. (Cept gedit wouldn't be a default in KDE, or XFCE). It is also SO MUCH EASIER to copy paste commands rather than look through menus. I like the GUI way of doing things myself, I believe Ubuntu is missing a few I would call key but I must say that since Automatix came out most users will not touch the CLI more than once (required toget Automatix dled).

xequence
February 22nd, 2006, 03:16 AM
cp file /newplace/

I assume it is longer... Like "cp /usr/home/patrick/desktop/The Eagles - The Last Resort.mp3 /usr/home/patrick/music" ;)


For example If you want to move a large number of files to different folders you have to go back in forth in the different folders and copy and paste each file.

Ctrl + A, Ctrl + whatever it is to cut, Ctrl + V

But one thing (there are others, but I feel overall the GUI beats it in a majority) the command line is good for in my opinion: A server. When the server is running you dont want a GUI taking up RAM and stuff, as it is just wasting it. Thats why if what ive heard about windows server, where it is always in a GUI, it is worthless as a server :P


In the terminal, I just fire up the terminal with my keyboard shortcut and type

That is one of the times where the command line is better. I like that the terminal comes up fast and I can install something like that.

But I fell it is a minority of the times that the terminal can beat a GUI :)

mstlyevil
February 22nd, 2006, 03:24 AM
I assume it is longer... Like "cp /usr/home/patrick/desktop/The Eagles - The Last Resort.mp3 /usr/home/patrick/music" ;)



Ctrl + A, Ctrl + whatever it is to cut, Ctrl + V

But one thing (there are others, but I feel overall the GUI beats it in a majority) the command line is good for in my opinion: A server. When the server is running you dont want a GUI taking up RAM and stuff, as it is just wasting it. Thats why if what ive heard about windows server, where it is always in a GUI, it is worthless as a server :P



That is one of the times where the command line is better. I like that the terminal comes up fast and I can install something like that.

But I fell it is a minority of the times that the terminal can beat a GUI :)

You just need to get that new computer bought so you can install Ubuntu and play around with the command line more. I believe you will come around after that. :)

aysiu
February 22nd, 2006, 03:26 AM
But I fell it is a minority of the times that the terminal can beat a GUI :) I think it depends on the user and the user's primary tasks. For me, you're right--most of the tasks I perform are GUI ones, mainly because I use Ubuntu for Firefox and Thunderbird and not a whole lot else.

Rev. Nathan
February 22nd, 2006, 03:53 AM
No!

I came to ubuntu as a newbie, and had not used a command line since it actually did something in Windows (Win 98SE, DOS commands). Getting reaquinted with the command line was something I really needed. It really taught me automating certain processes won't make me learn anything.

Although I do enjoy Automatix :D

xequence
February 22nd, 2006, 03:58 AM
You just need to get that new computer bought so you can install Ubuntu and play around with the command line more. I believe you will come around after that.

I really hope I can get it soon, but I am just so bad at accually doing anything! Ill think it over a hundred times, then fifty more times just to be sure, then hope I will accually go do it sometime soon.


I think it depends on the user and the user's primary tasks. For me, you're right--most of the tasks I perform are GUI ones, mainly because I use Ubuntu for Firefox and Thunderbird and not a whole lot else.

Yes, youre right. It depends on the user and their tasks. I would be more efficient with the GUI then terminal for most things because thats what I like. Someone else might be more efficient with the terminal because it is what they like.


(Win 98SE, DOS commands).

The only DOS command I know is:

format c:

Rev. Nathan
February 22nd, 2006, 04:12 AM
The only DOS command I know is:

format c:
There are a few good ones. cd is the same, but cd .. is cd \, and so on. I found that suprisingly UNIX was easier then DOS; a terminal that came before DOS!

BTW Formatting of harddrives were disabled in the NT-based versions of Windows (2000, Server, XP, NT, ME) (You could only format a floppy, which the GUI was more detailed for doing that)

BoyOfDestiny
February 22nd, 2006, 06:14 AM
I am very well aware of what DOS is, hence my comment on why it still gets sarky comments from people who really should know better and who rabidly promote Linux CLI's - its just a bit of a double standard.

Being able to accidentally click something dangerous is not a justification for the superiority of a CLI (Try typing in my mis-typed RM code, I dare ya! ;)) its more a symptom of a bad GUI.

The reason I dont like CLI's is discoverability. If you have a GUI and you need to do something (configure a network controller for example) you could probably figure it out pretty easily provided you understand what it is you want to do. IP, DNS, Gateway etc are all easy to find and fill in boxes. In a CLI environment there is no way of knowing how to do it unless you either a: already know or b: have a howto which means you will be required to search the web for documentation and try to figure out syntax rather than just getting on with the job at hand.

GUI's are about communicating with users through the use of metaphors, using icons, windows, double clicking and dragging so that they can spend more time using the application rather than learning how to use the underlying operating system - which is fine if your a Linux fan but if you just want to get something done in a short amount of time its not - the operating system should stay out of your way.

The CLI is just a blinking cursor, there isn't really any 'figuring it out' possible and everything has to either be taught or learned with a much, much greater burden of knowlege required on the users part to be as competant with it as with a GUI and most of the time they are just copying it verbatim from printouts or websites without actually understanding what it is they are doing - so why not just make an icon for it?

Only an idiot would argue to remove the CLI, it has a place and is indespensible in quite a lot of scenarios but if a GUI method of doing the same thing can be introduced, it should.

Agreed, sorry if I misunderstood about the DOS thing. Anyway, in terms of the network thing, I fall into that category. However, a user that isn't a novice like me, and has learned to use these commands can work at lower level (meaning without the abstraction that the gui is). More control, more power, but greater learning curve.

I definitely like having both gui and commandline (sometimes I can get things done a lot faster that way, and feel cool ;) ) Heck I've even used them together, where I want to do a recursive permission change on a folder (before I knew about tab completion) and dragged the folder from nautilus into the terminal, and just put it in single quotes... Funny I know, but I'm learning :)

Gavin JC
February 22nd, 2006, 06:23 AM
I don't really understand why this is such an issue... If there are more GUI's made for using the OS does it mean that those who want to can't still use the command line?

Cheers, Gavin C.

mstlyevil
February 22nd, 2006, 06:25 AM
Wow what an old thread.

You ought to know, you started it. :-D

Bandit
February 22nd, 2006, 06:28 AM
You know the command line does scare many new users. Soon as many here about the CLI they think that linux is inferior to winders.

But you know what. I hate f'n windows users. Each one thinks s/he is a freaking guru at the damn pc cause they know how to install ****..

I say tell them the easiest way, via it CLI or GUI. IF they dont like it, stuff it. They can go back to windows.. One day they will be back..

Deaf_Head
February 22nd, 2006, 06:32 AM
Oh, jeez, not this nonsense again.


lol,

BobSongs
February 22nd, 2006, 10:24 PM
I'm glad I scared up this ol' thread. ;)

The command line offers up several eye-opening error outputs when something goes wrong. I adjusted my system based on the error outputs the printer drivers were producing. Once done they installed perfectly.

DOS of days gone by was affectionately known among my Linux friends as "Unix's retarted younger brother". I don't believe the CLI under XP could be considered such and the new CLI under Vista will incorporate Microsoft's SFU (Windows Services for Unix). So it seems all roads are leading to a Unix command-line, be it in Linux, MacO/S or Windows.

The command-line may not be useful for the GUI user in terms of copying files. And basic usage of an O/S generally involves little more than that. Where the CLI is most powerful is for compiling downloaded programs and running Linux binaries. Each time I read through a Linux forum I'm encouraged to try more and more oddly named CLI commands to perform some nifty tasks. *nix was pretty much built up from the command-line so just about any tool you need to fine-tune the system is there at one's fingertips, or pick out a data needle from a proverbial haystack of information.

But this doesn't answer the question about what to do with new users who feel intimidated. I personally believe those who want more from their system will press forwards. The CLI may be a handy excuses to those unwilling to take the time/risk to learn Linux. But we should fret about this. Braver individuals will find themselves rewarded by solved problems when the commands are copied, pasted and entered into the system. Their early attempts will prove successful and their fears dispelled.

Keep up the tutorials with the CLI. Ensure that your grandmother can do the tutorial if carefully followed: leave nothing to chance. Ubuntu is Linux for Humans. UbuntuForums is help for humans. :D

weng
February 23rd, 2006, 01:08 AM
i was trying to install gimp-print such taht I can print on my epson stylus 780 printer and read the instruction to use the "make" command but when I did so gave me an error that make is unknown command. what should i do?

IYY
February 23rd, 2006, 05:22 AM
I love the command line.

poofyhairguy
February 23rd, 2006, 07:30 AM
i was trying to install gimp-print such taht I can print on my epson stylus 780 printer and read the instruction to use the "make" command but when I did so gave me an error that make is unknown command. what should i do?


Don't install it that way. Thats compiling it from scratch. Do that when there are no other options. Gimp-print exists in the repositories. Use this command to get it:


sudo apt-get install gimp-print

Leo_01
February 23rd, 2006, 12:43 PM
I am standing on both side of the fence...
I really like using the command line but for most users it really don't matter.
It is powerful at times but sometimes when you are working for 7 hours on a project in linux what you want is really to point and click.

Kerberos
February 23rd, 2006, 12:52 PM
I am standing on both side of the fence...
I really like using the command line but for most users it really don't matter.
It is powerful at times but sometimes when you are working for 7 hours on a project in linux what you want is really to point and click.
I find it sad that there is such a resistance to GUI tools under the belief that having them will somehow diminish the power of the CLI. I would like a situation where you could use it if you wanted, but could get away with not touching it if you didn't want to. At the moment it seems like 'our way or the highway'. I find myself using the CLI a lot more than I'd like and I really don't like having to search blogs + man pages for something that should be obvious through a GUI - people argue against being able to double click .deb's (and you still can't) as 'you can do it in the CLI'. Its ridiculous.

DrFunkenstein
February 23rd, 2006, 01:00 PM
I find it sad that there is such a resistance to GUI tools under the belief that having them will somehow diminish the power of the CLI.

I don't think there really is. At least not with those people who actually matter, that is, those responsible for the big distributions and those actually working on the various desktop environments.



I would like a situation where you could use it if you wanted, but could get away with not touching it if you didn't want to. At the moment it seems like 'our way or the highway'.

I absolutely agree. However, I think if you use distros that offer more graphical setup tools, like Suse or Mandriva for example, you'll find that a situation like the one you are looking for is already pretty much a reality.



I find myself using the CLI a lot more than I'd like and I really don't like having to search blogs + man pages for something that should be obvious through a GUI - people argue against being able to double click .deb's (and you still can't) as 'you can do it in the CLI'. Its ridiculous.
I agree. But then again, nobody really argued that having a graphical app for this in Ubuntu was somehow evil. There just wasn't a program that really did this in a sane way until now. In Dapper however there'll be gdebi, which does exactly what you describe. And again, using other distros you'd already have this kind of functionality anyway.

Leo_01
February 23rd, 2006, 01:00 PM
I would actually prefer working in GUI...
it seems so much easier for a new linux user to work with...(most new users are only know a small bit of commands)

joflow
February 23rd, 2006, 06:03 PM
Sure. Take, for example, this HowTo I wrote on removing Kubuntu. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=96048) With one command copied and pasted into the terminal, you can remove a full set of applications. That same thing would take at least ten minutes (if not more) to do in Synaptic Package Manager.

You can give directions however you want, but it always takes me longer to give directions for GUI than command-line. Occasionally, if someone really has a hard time understanding something, I'll do a screenshot and circle in red the appropriate button to push, but usually I'll just say, "copy and paste this command."

I agree that using apt-get via the commandline is way faster and 100% better then via synaptic. I always use apt-get when I know what program I need. I only use "add programs" when looking for new programs I may not be familiar with.


I guess I was looking for a really advanced example that has a big "wow" factor. Maybe all the "all powerful cli" talk has got me expecting a little too much.

Maybe you can help me with this though. I also heard talk of vim being really powerful. From what I understand, its just an text editor with a cli. I don't understand how this can be that great but thats probably just the result of my "windows way" line of thought. Are you familiar with this program and why its considered so powerful?

somuchfortheafter
February 23rd, 2006, 06:46 PM
once you learn the shortcuts you do not have to move your hands from the keyboard so it makes it faster in that sense. I'm just a casual user though so I am not familiar with the more advanced features of vim

Brunellus
February 23rd, 2006, 07:32 PM
vi versus emacs is a great holy war. I like vim, because I can keep my hands down on the home row of keys and move very quickly.

Takis
February 24th, 2006, 01:12 PM
vi versus emacs is a great holy war. I like vim, because I can keep my hands down on the home row of keys and move very quickly.
Oh let's not get started on vi vs emacs again. You may as well start up a debate about left vs right...

BobSongs
February 25th, 2006, 09:04 PM
lol!!

BobSongs
February 25th, 2006, 09:12 PM
A simple area where the command line is fun is in changing file permissions and owner of files. I transfer lots of stuff out of my Windows partitions. I use Nautilus with root permissions to graphically pick and choose what I want to keep.

However it all ends up in my documents folder with few permissions and all owned by root. Do you have any idea how long it takes to change all those permissions and owners? Gah!!

But at the command prompt I just type:
cd Documents
sudo chmod 740 -R *
sudo chown bob:bob -R *and it's done. I will argue tooth and nail for GUI, guys. But when I see how fast this changes the file permissions for all my photos and sound files and art work... it's an open and shut case.

True. Moving files one at a time in the CLI might be fun for some people. Not me. But changing file permission? CLI all the way.

red_Marvin
February 25th, 2006, 11:35 PM
As someone who has used DOS on several low-end computers at home,
I feel quite at $HOME (:p) with the linux cli, but I can see how other new users could
be scared away, however my opinion is that a user who keeps his/her mind open
and doesn't run away from every obstacle, is the one that has best chanses of
succeeding anyway.

aysiu
March 21st, 2006, 04:38 PM
I'm currently at a users' conference for the database our school uses, and one of the workshops was on GUI (currently most schools that use this database are using terminal mode, but they'll be forced to use GUI for the next release).

People are very resistant to GUI because the rendering time is slow, and they have to use the mouse for certain things (and the mouse is slow). There's no way to jump to a field--you either have to tab to get there (which can be many tabs) or use your mouse to click into the field.

This has taught me a few things:

1. People use what they're used to. It doesn't matter how "friendly," "pretty," or "easy" things are. Familiarity is always "better" for people than the unfamiliar.

2. Using the keyboard is almost always faster, and when it comes to productivity, faster is always better than "good looks" or "discoverability," especially in the workplace.

The workshop basically started with the presenter trying to say that the new GUI interface should be easy to use for users already familiar with Windows and look how pretty it is...

Very soon afterwards, people began asking questions (quite angrily, actually): How can I do this in GUI? What's the keyboard shortcut for such-and-such? How can I get the GUI to be faster? Sometimes people will type faster than the screen can receive the input in GUI... how can we deal with that?

The bottom line for schools, corporations, any workplace that's dependent on productivity is... productivity--efficiency, speed, accuracy. GUI isn't the be-all and end-all of the user experience. Maybe it is if you're playing around at home, but at work people just want to get things done... and fast.

Jucato
March 21st, 2006, 05:13 PM
1. I agree. Behavior, habits, and customs have a big effect in what you use, not only in computers but in real life as well. If you were raised in a GUI world, a CLI is scary. If you were taught how to do things in a CLI, a GUI would be too cumbersome. It's just how our brain is wired. Nevertheless, change can sometimes be a good thing. In learning how to use both a GUI and a CLI, you become flexible in whatever situation.

2. That depends. If you're a slow typist or have a not so good memory, a pure CLI would be a nightmare for you. Also, there are some things best done in either interface. though a CLI has it's power, it also has it's limitation. a GUI provides a visual, and perhaps more understable, representation of the structure of your filesystem. also, a GUI allows you to easily copy/move files embedded within layers and layers of folders to another folder (try typing sudo cp ~/username/folder1/folder2/folder3/folder4 /etc/folder1/folder2... :D). But then, if GUI features/options are hidden within so many menus, it will be cumbersome as well.

Personally, until the day comes when I can actually use a touchscreen monitor and type on the monitor itself, I will always love using the keyboard. Contrary to what others think, I find typing in commands in the terminal to be more sci-fi/hi-tech than always using the GUI. :D

Kerberos
March 21st, 2006, 06:01 PM
The CLI is inferior to the GUI when it comes to usability. This is an unavoidable fact. Your personal preference may be for the CLI but trying to brand it as 'easy to use' is, to be honest, complete nonsense and shows a lack of understanding of modern computer systems and their users.

A: You need to know a commands name before you can use it. None are particularly guessable and you won't know what commands you need to know, or what is more appropriate to the task at hand unless you read lots of documentation first.

B: You need to know a commands syntax before you can use it. This varies wildly from command to command, with different switches to do different things (some not obvious, poorly documented, not documented). But again you need to wade through documentation before you can actually do anything.

C: It takes much longer to get used to the CLI paradigm, and things like paths, absolute paths, switches, pipes etc. People can get the hang of icons, double clicking etc, but getting into the CLI mindset is much, much harder than using a GUI with automation.

D: If you don't have internet, or are trying to get internet working then your pretty screwed unless you have a book or a manual on hand. And you won't know to look at the man pages unless someone tells you they are there.

Compared to the GUI where the goal is to provide the user with options in a logical and consistant way so that they can easily figure out what they are doing, whats achievable and what they can do. There are many examples of bad GUI design that are held up as examples of why CLI's are superior, but usually all what they prove is some people dont understand interface design. Usually clippy is dragged out (who hasn't been present in office for a serious amount of time) as a strawman argument as to why GUI's suck, but its actually clippy that sucks, not GUI's.

The goal of a truly usable system is it can be operated without documentation. A CLI system cannot be operated without massive quantites of documentation that the user is required to read all of at least once. Sure, its faster, more flexible, more powerful, more interesting but it is anything but user friendly.

I find people that hark on about how CLI is 'easy' and how vi and emacs are 'the only editors' are really only trying to impress people with how clever they are.

Stormy Eyes
March 21st, 2006, 07:02 PM
The goal of a truly usable system is it can be operated without documentation.

I suspect that any system complex enough to be worth using is probably going to need a manual. For Hell's sake, even Nintendo consoles come with a user's manual.

Kerberos
March 21st, 2006, 07:32 PM
I suspect that any system complex enough to be worth using is probably going to need a manual. For Hell's sake, even Nintendo consoles come with a user's manual.
My toaster came with a manual. The fact that I didn't need to bother reading it to figure out how the aforementioned toaster works is the point.

mcduck
March 21st, 2006, 08:09 PM
The CLI is inferior to the GUI when it comes to usability. This is an unavoidable fact. Your personal preference may be for the CLI but trying to brand it as 'easy to use' is, to be honest, complete nonsense and shows a lack of understanding of modern computer systems and their users.....

You are now confusing 'easy to learn' with 'easy to use' :)

aysiu
March 21st, 2006, 08:21 PM
Kerberos, I think I went over in my first post in quite a bit of detail the different types of "easy" there are.

The only "easy" you seem to really care about is the "easy" you don't need to memorize that's "discoverable." That's a valid concern, but it is not the only concern.

You learn something once... maybe twice, but you may use it a million times, especially in a work setting, where so often you do the same job over and over and over again.

In the workplace, people are mainly concerned with productivity--how much they can get done the fastest and with the fewest number of steps. If they can also learn how to do it quickly and without much instruction, they'll be happy about that, too, but efficiency is the #1 priority, not the intuitiveness of how discoverable the interface is.

joflow
March 21st, 2006, 08:56 PM
CLI is "user-friendly" for advanced users in the sense that its fast (I guess).

The CLI is not "user-friendly" for new/casual users because it has a higher learning curve.

Someone remotely familiar with windows can probably figure their way around Gnome without much assistance.

But being a DOS expert isn't going to help you with BASH unless you have a list of commands handy.

I would like to use the CLI more but I don't know what its capable of. Everyone seems to talk about using the CLI for apt and dpkg. Thats great (I use apt almost exclusively unless I dont know what the package name is) but I don't sit around installing programs all day. What else can it do (other then copy,move,delete files)? Examples like the one posted here regarding burning daily backups would be useful. I really want to learn the CLI, I just need a reason to learn it.

Brunellus
March 21st, 2006, 09:00 PM
the commandline is handy for a lot of stuff. editing textfiles in vim or nano is a lot faster than doing the same in gedit, for instance.

also, it's great for trudging through log files. cat, grep, pipes, and redirects are your friends.

Oh, and various command-line utilities. my favorite is rsync, which synchronizes two directories (usually used to back up files to a remote host. I use it to sync my music to my mp3 player).

I knew DOS. it's taken me a while to get comfy with bash, but now that I've used bash, I wonder where it's been all my life. I really like it.

joflow
March 21st, 2006, 09:17 PM
the commandline is handy for a lot of stuff. editing textfiles in vim or nano is a lot faster than doing the same in gedit, for instance.

also, it's great for trudging through log files. cat, grep, pipes, and redirects are your friends.

Oh, and various command-line utilities. my favorite is rsync, which synchronizes two directories (usually used to back up files to a remote host. I use it to sync my music to my mp3 player).

I knew DOS. it's taken me a while to get comfy with bash, but now that I've used bash, I wonder where it's been all my life. I really like it.

Say I have a MythTV backend...

Could I use BASH to go through the mysql database that is holding the "season pass" shows I recorded and then go through the TV listings and find similar shows based on some criteria (say if I record Law and Order, it finds other legal dramas) and then add them to the recording queue similar to Tivo's recommond a show type feature.

rsync seems like it would useful in a script when I get my mythtv backend/samba file server up and running.

mcduck
March 21st, 2006, 09:27 PM
I do most of my everyday image-editing with CLI. Most of the time I use CLI app to play my music. I sometimes surf the web with CLI (links). I'd like to learn to use vim better because it seems to be very poverful and fast way to edit text file. And sometimes I even use CLI to play some videos, just to show my friends that you can do pretty much anything with command line :)

The question is what you can't do with CLI ;)

And yes, knowing DOS has helped me with bash. The commands are different, but the basic idea is the same. (and 'dir' even worked, altough I soon learned to use 'ls' instead to get nice colors) Just like knowing Gnome or Windows or any other GUI helps you to learn to use other GUI's, as you already know about mouse and pointing and clicking things, dropdown menus and such :)

Jucato
March 22nd, 2006, 02:04 AM
You can edit images in CLI? wow! how?

Well, you can't play graphical games in a CLI. :D

mcduck
March 22nd, 2006, 07:39 AM
You can edit images in CLI? wow! how?

Well, you can't play graphical games in a CLI. :D
no, but you can play text games in CLI :)

The image editing app is 'ImageMagick'. If you want to give it a try, it's in repositories, and here are some nice guides to using it: http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/graphics/imagick6/
It's the fastes way to do some quick image resizing, combining images together or compressing them for web use. And it's even better if there are lots of images to resize. And it can do lot mor than that. :)

In short, running 'convert image.png -resize 640x480 -quality 86 image.jpg' is faster than opening any image editor and using it to resize the image and save it as jpg with 86% quality :) And if you have hundreds of images, you can just make a nice script to do this for them all, and go have a cup of coffee while your computer is doing the work for you :D

BoyOfDestiny
March 22nd, 2006, 07:52 AM
You can edit images in CLI? wow! how?

Well, you can't play graphical games in a CLI. :D

Or can you... The answer is maybe, if it can use libcaca or aalib (SDL has support for these). Google textmode quake.

I have tried it with videos though, try

mplayer -vo libcaca blahblah.avi

Anyway, you might need to install libcaca and mplayer of course...

Cheers!

Zeroangel
March 22nd, 2006, 09:21 AM
I'm a GUI guy myself, having started out on Windows (only using CLI for things like ping and netstat and restoring broken systems). CLI is nice because I am a fast typer and can do things like symlink two folders from far away directories simply by typing that without having to open a nautilus session, open a root nautilus session, navigate to the directories in both folders, right click to create a symbolic link, copy it over, rename it. Same with move and rename operations. As well things like opening a file like /etc/X11/xorg.conf when you only have your web browser open and you want to edit that file RIGHT NOW without having to gksudo nautilus and navigate through the directory structure.

Even if dapper could do everything instantly, I still think GUI would be too slow for some of those operations. So my vote is CLI is fast (and thus becomes user-friendly) in many cases, once you begin to learn things. To me it's like the difference between walking somewhere (GUI) and teleporting there (CLI). With a CLI, you would need to know the precise coordinates, but damn, it is just so cool to just teleport places (metaphorically speaking).

For me, the thing that sold me over to CLI was the tilda dropdown terminal. All I have to do is hit Ctrl+F12 and boom, a CLI drops down, I can execute a command, hit Ctrl+F12 again and it hides itself. Till the next time I need it. :)

3rdalbum
March 22nd, 2006, 09:24 AM
When I started using Ubuntu, I thought "Oh, a command line... how archaic". Now I use the command line all the time (sometimes 'cos there's no other way to do xyz, sometimes for the speed).

However, what I'd really like would be to solve Bug #1 and get all my friends to use Ubuntu. I can manage with a command line, but I know that my barely-computer-literate friends wouldn't cope with it. Heck, one of them didn't know she could download programs to remove the spyware from her machine.

How is someone like that going to use a command line? How are they going to think of doing "man xyz" and reading the documentation to find out how to run a particular program? How are they going to think of doing "gksudo nautilus" to install RealPlayer into a conveniant place? How are they going to figure out what all the folders in the file system mean and do?

The CLI is user-friendly to someone who has picked up how to use it. It's even user-friendly to me, kinda. But to the average person, it's way out of their reach.

fuscia
March 22nd, 2006, 12:27 PM
Sure, GUI might be easier if someone were helping you in person. She could say, "Click on that icon. No, that one. See that? Click on it." However, short of doing screenshots (which are time-consuming and bandwidth-consuming), it's very difficult to help someone GUI style over the internet. It is very easy to help someone by saying, "Here, just copy and paste whatever I typed here.

i wish i had realized this in the beginning. so much of my early difficulty came in not realizing that i could just copy&paste solutions into the terminal. in this example, cl is more user friendly than a gui.

Danni
March 25th, 2006, 03:58 PM
From yesterday, I decided I loved the command line.

I grumbled in another topic about the stupid restrictions my college has put on its network. Yesterday, I decided to try something- I set up SSH on my computer using port 21 (which I knew the college didn't block), downloaded Putty at college, logged into my computer... and I could do anything I wanted to do (which was use messengers and IRC chat, and play TW2002).

I just need to find a CLI web browser, and I'll be able to do everything I want. I even added a new user account to my pc using the command line- adduser was very easy :)

ETA: Just found w3m- it's perfect :)

Stormy Eyes
March 25th, 2006, 04:19 PM
How is someone like that going to use a command line? How are they going to think of doing "man xyz" and reading the documentation to find out how to run a particular program?

If you're going to persuade your friends to try Linux, then it's your responsibility to remind them to RTFM and show them where TFM is and how to get to it. I didn't just give my wife a Linux box when she moved in with me; I sat down with her and showed her around so that she'd know the basics. Sometimes she asks me for help, but most of the time she'll RTFM and figure it out herself -- and then she'll tell me about her problem and how she solved it.

mips
March 25th, 2006, 04:50 PM
If you want to make the command line even simpler then borrow some ideas from Cisco's IOS cli.

I like the fact that you can type "in?" and it shows you all commands starting with "in". It will also autocomplete a abbreviated command if you hit TAB. Also provides a list of all possibilities when you put a ? after a command. Really nice imho.

aysiu
March 25th, 2006, 06:59 PM
If you want to make the command line even simpler then borrow some ideas from Cisco's IOS cli.

I like the fact that you can type "in?" and it shows you all commands starting with "in". It will also autocomplete a abbreviated command if you hit TAB. Also provides a list of all possibilities when you put a ? after a command. Really nice imho. Doesn't this already happen in Ubuntu?
in
in infotocap installkernel
includeres init install-keymap
info insmod install-language-locales
infobrowser install install-sgmlcatalog
infocmp install-docs instmodsh
infokey install-info invoke-rc.d

mips
March 25th, 2006, 08:55 PM
user@obelix:~$ in?
bash: in?: command not found


How would one do achieve the same result ?

aysiu
March 25th, 2006, 09:03 PM
user@obelix:~$ in?
bash: in?: command not found


How would one do achieve the same result ? Type in and press Tab twice.

mips
March 25th, 2006, 09:13 PM
Thanks. Not used to pressing TAB twice, only once in IOS

kabus
March 25th, 2006, 10:25 PM
You can get the same result by hitting Tab only oncce if you put


set show-all-if-ambiguous on

in your ~/.inputrc.

mstlyevil
March 26th, 2006, 04:04 AM
Type in and press Tab twice.


That is awesome. I just learned something new.

3rdalbum
March 26th, 2006, 07:01 AM
If you're going to persuade your friends to try Linux, then it's your responsibility to remind them to RTFM and show them where TFM is and how to get to it. I didn't just give my wife a Linux box when she moved in with me; I sat down with her and showed her around so that she'd know the basics. Sometimes she asks me for help, but most of the time she'll RTFM and figure it out herself -- and then she'll tell me about her problem and how she solved it.

Oh yes, I agree. But these friends of mine haven't been taught how to use a computer, they've just been taught how to surf the net and send IMs. Those are tasks that don't require TFM. How can you fight that? These 'net friends would prefer not to perform a task than have to read something to do it.

Yeah, sure, you can say that when GNU/Linux matures, it'll start to cater for these people. But preparations for dumbasses to migrate have to start now.

Wolki
March 27th, 2006, 10:11 AM
That is awesome. I just learned something new.

It gets even better if you enable bash completion - not only will you be able to autocomplete commands ans files, but also arguments - for example, stuff to install with apt-get. Great if you don't know the exact name.

To enable it, uncomment the following section in your ~/.bashrc:

if [ -f /etc/bash_completion ]; then
. /etc/bash_completion
fi

Stormy Eyes
March 27th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Yeah, sure, you can say that when GNU/Linux matures, it'll start to cater for these people. But preparations for dumbasses to migrate have to start now.

Why encourage the "dumbasses" to migrate? Believe me, if I thought my wife was that kind of user, then I wouldn't have given her a Linux box. I'd have just given her a Dell, done my best to lock it down, and be done with it.

Then again, I probably wouldn't have married her in the first place.

davidmoore83
March 31st, 2006, 12:08 AM
sorry i haven't read the 13 pages - i yawned after the first post ;)

I just wanted to say your poll is crap. Your options kind of suck. I am an OS X user as well as Ubuntu. I use CLI in OSX as it rocks! So no i haven't gone to OSX because i hate CLI quite the oppostie i went to it for CLI and its Darwin core but also has a GUI on top for other things.

As for your original post - I appreciate where your coming from but NO ubuntu shouldnt change. If you like GUIs etc then stay with windows. No one here cares if you do or not - we don't judge..... an individuals OS is an individuals choice END OF STORY.

Caligula
April 28th, 2006, 09:03 PM
Where do you spend most of your time? using the terminal or the GUI?

Personally I'm currently using the terminal more, I think...

Kimm
April 28th, 2006, 09:06 PM
Even though I use the terminal alot (terminal emulator that is), but I have to say that I use a GUI most of the time.

endersshadow
April 28th, 2006, 09:07 PM
I let this puppy boot right into Gnome...so I'm all GUI. Of course, I almost always have a terminal open, but I use Firefox, Gaim, and Sylpheed the most...and those are GUI...so there's my pick :)

BoyOfDestiny
April 28th, 2006, 09:19 PM
Hmm I couldn't really vote since I'm not sure. I use terminal for updating, compiling and installing software, using wget, navigating, messing with xorg (although I usually launch gedit unless I'm in trouble, then nano it is), etc. Sometimes for fun I'll use top, bb, links2, pkill a naughty app, etc.

I use gnome... So I use gedit, network manager on my laptop, firefox, gimp, gaim, zsnes, nautilus, the nautilus burner, synaptic, etc...

I think both are useful, some tasks I prefer/or feel like using terminal. Others I just use point and click.

CLI is like finding an old friend, with tab completion and all the useful utils (some which may or may not have front-ends) what can I say, it rocks.

Gnome itself is simple and clean, a breathe of fresh air after ditching windows. I can fall back on the terminal to accomplish things that gnome won't/can't yet let me do. :)

transactionlogfiller
April 28th, 2006, 09:46 PM
CLI 90% of the time when I'm at work. When at home I'm either using firefox or vlc, in between apt-get upgradeing, so I probably use the GUI more.

helpme
April 28th, 2006, 09:48 PM
Neither.
I interact with my box through sheer willpower.

BWF89
April 28th, 2006, 09:54 PM
Gui

Kvark
April 28th, 2006, 10:08 PM
GUI programs take up most of my time but I always keep a CLI window open and use it pretty often.

ssam
April 28th, 2006, 10:09 PM
i like a bit of bash/python scripting.

for day to day admin, i think it should be possible to do everything with the gui. unfortunatly some of the guis don't have all the options i need, or are too slow, so i sometimes fall back to cli.

aysiu
April 28th, 2006, 10:11 PM
It depends on what I'm doing. For example, if I know I need a file from the internet and know the exact address, I'd rather wget than fire up my web browser and navigate to it. Most of the time, though, I point-and-click.

unbuntu
April 28th, 2006, 10:22 PM
It depends on what I'm doing. For example, if I know I need a file from the internet and know the exact address, I'd rather wget than fire up my web browser and navigate to it. Most of the time, though, I point-and-click.

exactly

Ensnared
April 28th, 2006, 11:25 PM
My choice isn't among the options.

I spend all my time in the GUI using several CLI windows.

Christmas
April 29th, 2006, 12:50 AM
I use the GUI most of the time. Gaim, Firefox (or Epiphany), X-Chat (omg I had such a terrible experience with BitchX... I was CTCP-ing an entire channel without even knowing it, that lead it to a ban), Synaptic, TVtime (btw there was this funny TV program running in the console and the "image" was created from letters and signs, interesting program but not quite useful since the quality was very bad), XMMS. So as you can see all is GUI.

I use the terminal for commands like "dpkg", sometimes because it's faster even with "apt-get" otherwise I prefer Synaptic. For editing txt files I use Gedit but when I'm in terminal it's faster to use Nano. I can't remember other tasks that I use terminal for, but there are some more. I prefer GUI but I don't blame CLI, not at all. I came from the Windows world so this is probably why I am used to GUI.

super
April 29th, 2006, 02:39 AM
i would say gui if only because when i use the cli its almost always while i'm in gnome or e17.

but as already mentioned, it depends what i'm doing. it's much easier (for me) to learn a program by poking around the gui than it is to learn by reading the man pages. but if i know what i'm doing and how to do it, then the cli is faster by far.

Matchless
May 7th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Hi,
Something that really has me wondering is why all howto's, wikkis and help in 99.9% of cases give only the command line solution instead of the method using the Ubuntu application GUI?
This is very well for a user whose hobby is linux, but can be off-putting to a new user who wants linux as a tool. When, say, advising on installing a program, advising on how to use Synaptic to enable the repositories and install the application makes more sense to me imho than advising a newbie on how to apt-get.
Thoughts on this, but no flames please!

ubuntu27
May 7th, 2006, 11:04 PM
I also asked myself that question too!

Maybe we should provide both solution in GUI and Terminal...

No, that will occupy too much space (bandwidth) and will take more time.



I think that providing answer on how to do things using the terminal is a good thing since it will give the end user a sense of familiarization. I mean there will be crucial times when you absolutely will have to touch the terminal. The user should feel confortable to use the terminal from the beguining.


And besides the fact that if we show then only solutions with GUI, the new user coming from a OS that uses GUI for everything [Like Windows], the user will feel that everything should have a GUI which is not true.



That's my $100 ;) [2 cents? nah! that's too cheap! :P ]

Kvark
May 7th, 2006, 11:21 PM
It is easier to type the exact commands then to type "click on that round looking icon and then click on the thrid button in the window that opens and then click on then click on that thing to the left...". If howtos would use the GUI way then they should be graphical videos showing where to click and that would take too much bandwidth. Since we're stuck with text howtos due to bandwidth it's best to use the text interface. Also commands can often be copy pasted from the howto to the terminal, you can't copy paste clicks.

Omnios
May 7th, 2006, 11:24 PM
It boils down to the difficulty and time needed to explain how to explain something graphicaly. Also making a graphical how to takes a long time compared to a terminal based solution. Needless to say it is less time consumming and more accurate to give a terminal based solution than try to explain it graphicaly. Though I di manage to make one graphical how to but it is on something very basic and simple. In my signature, Adding Repositories Graphicly.

mips
May 8th, 2006, 12:01 AM
We choose to use the cli not because it easy but because it is hard...

Think it is quiker to do a howto with the cli than do window captures for those making the howto. The reader on the other hand might experience the opposite.

zenwhen
May 8th, 2006, 12:14 AM
It is much harder to read directions about clicking in certain places than it is to copy and paste commands into a box.

aysiu
May 8th, 2006, 01:02 AM
I think it's best for someone to see something like this first...
http://www.monkeyblog.org/ubuntu/installing.html

... and then see something like this second...
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/installingsoftware

My guide (the second link) is less likely to end with an error on the user end (just copy and paste commands), and if it does bring up an error, the error will probably give you more information (oftentimes, with graphical programs, when they fail, the window simply disappears or crashes) about what went wrong.

It also, as others have mentioned, uses less bandwidth, and my web host doesn't give me a whole lot for pictures, considering the kind of traffic my site gets.

My guide is more intimidating to newcomers, though. Screenshots make new users feel more comfortable. It doesn't mean the instructions are easy or less prone to error.

The worst part about screenshots is that they just don't work sometimes. Someone may think, "Hey, that guide had this dialogue pop up after that last step. I don't have that dialogue." Or they may be using Adept instead of Synaptic and get confused. Terminal commands are the same in XFCE, KDE, Gnome, IceWM, Fluxbox, Blackbox, Enlightenment...

Graphical tools vary greatly depending on the environment.

In summary:

Commands: Consistency, less error, more feedback, less bandwidth, less time to explain, more intimidation

Screenshots: Inconsistency, more room for error, less feedback, more bandwidth, more explanations, less intimidation

Parkotron
May 8th, 2006, 01:14 AM
I think compatability across the different desktop environments is the biggest reason, although all the above mentioned reasons are valid.

mike998
May 8th, 2006, 01:48 AM
I think compatability across the different desktop environments is the biggest reason, although all the above mentioned reasons are valid.

You beat me to it.

I use XFCE, someone else might use KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox or some other Desktop Enviroment.
Going to the basics is what can help a greater percentage of users. The basics are the CLI. Like it or lump it, the CLI is the common feature. It's scary at first but when you get used to it, it gets easier. (A no-duh! on that one, please!)

Sutekh
May 8th, 2006, 01:55 AM
I think learning to do a process from the command line gives you a greater understanding of how the corresponding GUI works. Just clicking here and there is a slower, less effective approach to learning in my opinion.

The better I learn how a process works, the less likely I am to make errors.

briancurtin
May 8th, 2006, 02:20 AM
everyone wants the easy way out these days, as opposed to the efficient way.

fuscia
May 8th, 2006, 02:31 AM
not only is it easier and more efficient for the person being helped, it's a lot easier for the helper to provide a couple of lines of text as opposed to coming up with pics of the various panels of gui. something that has eight lines might involve eight different pics. that means the helper has to take screenshots of all of them and then upload them and that's assuming the helper has the same DE/wm. if not, the helper has to install the same DE...etc., etc.. that's asking a bit much.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 02:32 AM
I think Ubuntu needs to make sure that everything that can be done with the terminal can be done using the GUI. The terminal can only be mastered through trial and error and lotís of time spent reading, while the GUI is a lot more simple especially if itís designed with simplicity at hand.

One problem I have is that editing xorg.conf or installing a driver for my video card will often mess up my GUI and Iím stuck at terminal trying to figure out how to do stuff. Why is this happening? You should never be left with just a terminal, boot into a simple desktop if all else fails and let the user fix what they need. Editing text files is a waste of time because text files donít explain anything, make programs and offer GUI solutions with explanations. Having to restore backups or edit files in text mode is a lot of time wasted when the same can be done with 2 clicks.

I think the terminal was a great tool, but Linux should be able to exist with out it since Linux is supposed to be about choice..

A picture is worth a thousand words...

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 02:38 AM
not only is it easier and more efficient for the person being helped, it's a lot easier for the helper to provide a couple of lines of text as opposed to coming up with pics of the various panels of gui. something that has eight lines might involve eight different pics. that means the helper has to take screenshots of all of them and then upload them and that's assuming the helper has the same DE/wm. if not, the helper has to install the same DE...etc., etc.. that's asking a bit much.

If you made everything into GUI, people will be able to use the system after a few hours of use. The terminal is impossible to learn with out reading about all the commands, look at Ubuntu forums. Look how many how-to's are there, one for each program. People waste a lot of time explaing all this stuff. It can easily be done with the GUI.

Downloadable executables should also be used, only the stable stuff should be added to the repos. Dependies should be found by ubuntu and installed when needed for the specific executable.

briancurtin
May 8th, 2006, 02:41 AM
the terminal does not need to be mastered through trial and error. actually, if anything, the GUI is more trial and error. you just click on buttons till **** works.

in your case, theres a reason why some upgrades should be done with X down and at the command line. a bunch of distros ask you to step away from the GUI (no matter what you choose) to upgrade X and some other things.

fuscia
May 8th, 2006, 02:41 AM
If you made everything into GUI...

that hasn't happened yet.

briancurtin
May 8th, 2006, 02:42 AM
If you made everything into GUI, people will be able to use the system after a few hours of use. The terminal is impossible to learn with out reading about all the commands, look at Ubuntu forums. Look how many how-to's are there, one for each program. People waste a lot of time explaing all this stuff. It can easily be done with the GUI.

Downloadable executables should also be used, only the stable stuff should be added to the repos. Dependies should be found by ubuntu and installed when needed for the specific executable.
if people are that lazy and completely dependent on a GUI, dont use linux. seriously.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 02:51 AM
Why shouldn't I use linux if I don't like the terminal? Yeah I know it's mainly about the terminal, but really what's the use for it if GUI can be more simple, efficient and easier to learn. Plus it will give more exposure for Linux. I think ubuntu is a new type of Linux, the old Linux distro's have always failed because they don't provide a complete GUI alternative. I think Ubuntu needs to expand into this direction, it should be allowed to.

Linux can do GUI if it's designed to do so! Look what OSX did with Unix. Simple = better, Terminal can be an option for the people who need it/want it.

briancurtin
May 8th, 2006, 02:53 AM
GUI is not more efficient

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 02:56 AM
the terminal does not need to be mastered through trial and error. actually, if anything, the GUI is more trial and error. you just click on buttons till **** works.

GUI is a lot easier for trial and error! But there is clearly more trial and error with using Terminal, you have to configure text files for christ sake's. You can type something wrong, for example instead of fglrx you may type fgrlx and bam your video doesn't work. There is no reason to waste time with how-to's if you have a simple GUI solution.

If you argue Linux is about learning about the system, then you should force everyone to compile everything. All people do know is copy and paste all the how-to's, nearly blindly. Untill something doesn't work and they need to find fix.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 02:57 AM
GUI is not more efficient

Clearly it is, it's easier to click a button that does something complex then to look up the specific string. Even if you know Linux don't tell me you don't check for stuff up for specific complex operation which GUI can do with 1 click.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 03:09 AM
If ubuntu really is for human beings then it should be simple, the majority of humans are not educated enough to use computers!

Also the terminal is based on ENGLISH, not everyone speaks it! GUI can easily be translated and the visual can stay the same. It's easier for humans.

Commands are hard to remember you will at some point need to refer to something, GUI doesn't need you to remember a lot of information it will show you what you need to do or explain it in simple terms. Then all you have to do is select the option you need.

Linux should not be all technical, if people want to know how stuff works it's their choice Linux will always be open they should not be prevented. But learning will take a lot of time and it's very hard to learn. Many people will not be able to grasp this, they just want to do something specific like check the news or check the weather or watch a movie or listen to music. They don't want to be bombed by all the technical stuff. Simplicity is the key here!

Sheinar
May 8th, 2006, 03:14 AM
the majority of humans are not educated enough to use computers!
Then they shouldn't be using computers until they're educated.

briancurtin
May 8th, 2006, 03:14 AM
you have to configure text files for christ sake's.
oh heavens no. configuring text files is just so hard! linux is not for you.

briancurtin
May 8th, 2006, 03:18 AM
Clearly it is, it's easier to click a button that does something complex then to look up the specific string. Even if you know Linux don't tell me you don't check for stuff up for specific complex operation which GUI can do with 1 click.
no, im saying you are wrong, and it has been shown several times that typing is more effective than GUIs. i cant remember any of the studies done off the top of my head, but they have been done. my dad used to reference one from when he worked at bell labs in the late 80s and it was passed around there

also, using the keyboard is also shown to be healthier. the more you use the mouse, the greater the chance you will run into RSI or whatever, carpal tunnel. thats not really a striking issue to be brought to this, but its worth mentioning.

fuscia
May 8th, 2006, 03:44 AM
even if one were to agree that GUIs are more retard proof, that doesn't make it any easier to help someone with a problem. refering to a GUI still requires all the effort to make screenshots. how would you expect someone who only uses openbox to help someone who only uses KDE?

Sheinar
May 8th, 2006, 03:48 AM
even if one were to agree that GUIs are more retard proof, that doesn't make it any easier to help someone with a problem. refering to a GUI still requires all the effort to make screenshots. how would you expect someone who only uses openbox to help someone who only uses KDE?
Because if you're going to help someone out, you must have every desktop environment available installed and then make guides for every single one of them. Durr.

fuscia
May 8th, 2006, 04:11 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/unknownentity/echo.jpg

fuscia
May 8th, 2006, 04:22 AM
The same way people have different How-To's for Gnome & Kubuntu. Setup a wiki let people do it! But we are talking about Ubuntu here, Ubuntu is Gnome based! So only 1 is fine.

one isn't fine, not if you have a whole bunch of people using different GUIs. if you want all the help to be GUI based, then you have to address all the GUIs. the commandline can do this now.

Omnios
May 8th, 2006, 04:23 AM
Both Gui and terminal have there virtues, On one hand you have people who can't type well yet and the other you have people who can't follow simple directions. Either way there is going to be difficulties. Needless to say things are leaning towards terminal based commands right now, though I am seeing more and more phraphical stuff (KDE anyone). From what I hear outside of Ubuntu KDE is getting real popular.

Sutekh
May 8th, 2006, 04:31 AM
KDE has always been the more popular desktop environment. Ubuntu is an exception.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 04:31 AM
one isn't fine, not if you have a whole bunch of people using different GUIs. if you want all the help to be GUI based, then you have to address all the GUIs. the commandline can do this now.

The current Ubuntu How-To's are not made for anything besides Gnome, they might work in some cases but in most it needs to be adjusted. For example adding shortcuts to a panel. But really we are talking about Ubuntu not Kubuntu here. This is Ubuntu Cafe...

Anyways your picture is a poor example of GUI, it's more like.

More like

http://www.barringtonstoke.co.uk/images/help/mac_display.gif
vs
http://shweps.free.fr/minislack_howto_html/minislack_howto_files/image076.jpg

Tell me what's easier, simpler, faster and more efficent?

Just because you are more used to Terminal in Linux doesn't mean that it's better. The Terminal should always be avaliable for the people who want to use it. Ubuntu is not like other Linux distro's clearly it's for beginers but still packs a lot of power. Ubuntu needs to embrace GUI and I have a feeling it will with each release! If you are crazy about configuration using text go use Gentoo it's made for people like you! If you want to use Ubuntu then use it? What is your problem with expanding the GUI? Why can't Linux be easier while still having power?

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 04:34 AM
Both Gui and terminal have there virtues, On one hand you have people who can't type well yet and the other you have people who can't follow simple directions. Either way there is going to be difficulties. Needless to say things are leaning towards terminal based commands right now, though I am seeing more and more phraphical stuff (KDE anyone). From what I hear outside of Ubuntu KDE is getting real popular.

The question is, why is direction even needed? Why can't the GUI be made so simple that as soon as you test it for 30 minutes you know how to use the computer. You can easily install, update, etc...Ubuntu already can do this better then any other distro I've seen. The problem is that not everything can be done from GUI. I want to install all drivers from GUI, I don't want to mess with settings or back up text files. I simply want to add 3d support, if it doesn't work then it let's me try a different set of drivers. It doesn't break, the GUI should always be there.

Sheinar
May 8th, 2006, 04:38 AM
Right, so you shouldn't be using a computer until you know exactly how it works and what each part is doing? If someone needs to check their email and read a message someone sent them, they shouldn't need to know anything about computers.
Er, no, when did I say anything about needing to know exactly how it works and what each part is doing? But yes, if you're going to use a computer, you should at least have basic knowledge. Should we made a Fisher Price-like UI for these people who wish to use computers but don't want to even understand the very vitals to using one?

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 04:42 AM
Yes you should make it simple and logical if that's what you mean. Why do you deliberate want a difficult and confusing computer interface? Linux is able to do this, this is why Linux is so great.

briancurtin
May 8th, 2006, 04:45 AM
Typing is more effective than GUI? Yeah maybe for executing a single command! But how can you possibly remember everything? YOU CANíT!!! You have to refer back and forth for certain things, GUI is visual and you donít need to find a command for something in order to enable something. You dad used to reference something? Your dad was full of crap or he didn't know what he was talking about or maybe it was something that only applied to the technolodgy of the 80s where GUI was nearly non existent!!! But yeah show me some recent studies that show that the terminal is more efficent then GUI!
please learn how to read. you are mixing up two separate things. my *opinion* is that the command line is more *efficient*. that has nothing at all to do with the health issue i touched on lightly.

do you use the mouse a lot? RSI will probably come to you. studies have shown, and people on this board and every other board i have ever read, will agree that the less you can use the keyboard - the better you will be in the long run. i believe we have had a few debates on this, and the general consensus from some of the "elders" of the computing world was "use the keyboard as much as possible, dont touch the mouse." i had a professor who has pretty bad RSI in her right wrist...guess why - using the mouse all the time, clicking on buttons, etc. also, my father was not and is not full of crap. get to know some people who have been around in computing and you will hear the same thing. for people like yourself, wiping your *** should be done by a GUI. for people who show that they have some sort of skill, or would like to obtain some sort of skill, and would prefer a more efficient way to do things, they will continue to (and start to, for those that havent begun) make use of the command line interface.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 04:45 AM
But yes, if you're going to use a computer, you should at least have basic knowledge.

Basic knowledge is historically dialectical, if you make the GUI smart then all the person will need to know about Basic knowledge is how to press the on button and how to use the keyboard and mouse! 30-50 years ago you would need to know how to program just to use a computer..That would of been basic knowledge.

What I think you mean is that you want people to know how computers work, but this is stupid because it's far too difficult, all we grasp is the basics. Computers become more and more complex you can never know how everything really works!

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 04:47 AM
do you use the mouse a lot? RSI will probably come to you. studies have shown.

LET'S SEE THE STUDIES!!! FFS...

Studies have shown that people who claim studies have shown with out showing the studies are making up such studies!

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 04:51 AM
Read this:

http://cm.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Mouse_vs._keyboard/index.html


Perhaps the most common frustration experienced by Unix users when trying Plan 9 is that they have to use the mouse more.

The most common complaint is that using the mouse is slow compared with cursoring around, whether via arrow keys or via hjkl (in vi, etc.). This simply isn't true. The mouse seems slow but is actually faster:

fuscia
May 8th, 2006, 05:07 AM
But really we are talking about Ubuntu not Kubuntu here. This is Ubuntu Cafe...

i have ubuntu installed and i use kde and openbox. look through the ubuntu cafe and you'll see that a lot of people who have ubuntu installed are using DE/wms other than gnome. if you can find a GUI based how-to on synaptic, you can go in there and see all sorts of window managers available to ubuntu users.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 05:07 AM
look it up on google, jackass. i told you they exist, if you want to see them, go for it.

also, plan 9 is not associated with my dad did, so dont prove yourself to be anymore stupid by claiming he was associated with that.

im done with this thread. people who know, know. those who dont, will know soon enough.

Your Dad and Plan 9? You didn't even read it, check the links. It basicly proves that keyboard doesn't mean more efficient. There are some lengthy information about keyboard shortcuts and such. What this also means is that terminal is not more efficient like you claim, despite what you say. Maybe it's more efficient for you because you don't know how to use the mouse? Maybe you have mouseophobia because of what your Dad told you based on some study that you cannot provide a reference to.

If you are going to try to prove something you might want to provide a reference. Especially in a lengthy argument..."look it up on google, jackass" doesn't cut it and resorting to flames won't help you prove your point.

Let's see the studies...

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 05:08 AM
i have ubuntu installed and i use kde and openbox. look through the ubuntu cafe and you'll see that a lot of people who have ubuntu installed are using DE/wms other than gnome. if you can find a GUI based how-to on synaptic, you can go in there and see all sorts of window managers available to ubuntu users.

Fair enough, but like I said before a wiki would sort this.

aysiu
May 8th, 2006, 05:09 AM
Just to get people back on track, the original question asked why HowTos and the Wiki give command-line instruction.

We shouldn't be arguing about whether or not there should exist GUI frontends for terminal tasks. I think everyone agrees that for every task, you should be able to do it via terminal and GUI--you should always have a choice.

I believe that the same is true for instructions: ideally, there should be both point-and-click and command-line instructions.

To those who are so adamant about there being more point-and-click instructions, put your money where your mouth is. Instead of wasting your time arguing here that there should exist more screenshot tutorials, make one.

I'm impressed with this person:
http://www.monkeyblog.org/ubuntu/installing.html

I'm not impressed with people who just think there should be graphical tutorials... and then don't create any.

PrimoTurbo
May 8th, 2006, 05:11 AM
I agree with aysiu.

fuscia
May 8th, 2006, 05:19 AM
the mouse is definitely faster in my case. i can't type for ****.