GUI vs. CLI

[solar george]

the solutions to the problems presented always envolve typing something in the console (is this the correct term?)

Using the console (or terminal - it doesn't matter people know what you mean you could even call it 'that text thing, you know, you type commands in it') gives a lot more flexibility in what you can do + a lot of programs give output to the terminal (this can help work out what is wrong)


My question is, can't I just double-click a file to open it like I'd do in Windows?

Yes you can, providing that you have permissions to, say edit it (if that was what you were trying to do). If you double click on something that you aren't allowed to you will just get an error message - and you will probably end up on the terminal to get access to it.

[.oops]

Thanks mcduck and solar george! :D

[TheWizzard]

read:
http://psychocats.net/ubuntu/terminal

[solar george]

I would add

$ apt-cache search packagename
to the list of useful commands.
It will search the list of installable packages for ones that contain packagename

[aysiu]

You type the commands in the terminal? Save yourself some time, concentration, and room for error: copy and paste those commands. Don't retype them.

Since this isn't really a support thread but more of a discussion about terminal v. CLI, I've merged it with a more appropriate discussion thread in the Cafe. And, as you can see from the posts in this thread, almost all tasks can be accomplished via point-and-click. But on a text-based forum where users cannot look over your shoulder and say, "See that icon? Click there. Now, click that," it's a lot more efficient to say, "Copy and paste this command into the terminal."

[peanut butter]

In suse there is something called Yast that does most of those things. I wish It was ported to ubuntu.
EDIT: Gcontrol does most of this, but needs to be extended with more capabilities.

[Raffo]

I like bash and I like using terminals, but I think ubuntu depends a lot from them. Expecially for noobs, this isn't so good..

[ssam]

there is a list at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDapperWhatStillNeedsAConsole

[aysiu]

there is a list at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDapperWhatStillNeedsAConsole
Thanks for the link, but that may be a little outdated, since it's about Dapper, not Edgy.

[picpak]

Opening a file with superuser permissions

That's a big one. Why can't Nautilus check if you're root or not, and if not, provide a password prompt to edit the file? I mean really, even something as simple as:



if (! ls -la $NAUTILUS_SCRIPT_CURRENT_URI | grep root > /dev/null 2>&1); then
gksudo gedit $NAUTILUS_SCRIPT_CURRENT_URI
fi

[pmj]

That's a big one. Why can't Nautilus check if you're root or not, and if not, provide a password prompt to edit the file?Maybe you just want to look at a file, why should you need to enter your password for that? And what if the user isn't supposed to be editing the file, why shouldn't he at least be able to look at it if he has the permission to do so?

No, this functionality belongs in the program that opens the file. There is no reason a text editor for example couldn't ask you for the password when you try to save the file.

[aysiu]

That's a big one. Why can't Nautilus check if you're root or not, and if not, provide a password prompt to edit the file? I mean really, even something as simple as:



if (! ls -la $NAUTILUS_SCRIPT_CURRENT_URI | grep root > /dev/null 2>&1); then
gksudo gedit $NAUTILUS_SCRIPT_CURRENT_URI
fi

The idea was proposed before (for Dapper, actually):
Nautilus and gksudo (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=82225)

Don't know if anything ever came of it...

[aysiu]

Maybe you just want to look at a file, why should you need to enter your password for that? And what if the user isn't supposed to be editing the file, why shouldn't he at least be able to look at it if he has the permission to do so?

No, this functionality belongs in the program that opens the file. There is no reason a text editor for example couldn't ask you for the password when you try to save the file.
Well, how about something sensible, then? You open it as read-only, but once you start making changes and want to save, Gedit (or Kate, or whatever editing program you're using) says "This is a system file. Are you sure you want to save the changes you've made?" If you answer yes and are a sudoer, you get a password prompt. If you answer no, no changes are made.

That makes a lot more sense to new users than simply saying you can't save it because you don't have permission.

[picpak]

The idea was proposed before (for Dapper, actually):
Nautilus and gksudo (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=82225)

Don't know if anything ever came of it...

Ahh, manicka's solution is way more elegant than mine. Thank you.

[Rebajas]

This might have been said already but I found using the command line to do simple things at the very beginning a godsend for when I eventually wanted to do more complex stuff.

The problem with GUI interfaces is finding the particular setting to do what you want - with the CLI you know exactly where it is, all you have to do is find the right command to punch in.

R.

[Ob1]

In what environment do you finish tasks more quickly?

[tbroderick]

What task?

[steven8]

At the moment, GUI, since I have to do research for everything I want to do with the CLI.

[PatrickMay16]

Depends on the task.

For my weekly backup, I wrote a simple script that does it all for me, so all I have to do myself is copy the resulting folder containing a bunch of archives onto my zip disk. So the command line got that done quicker.

But some casual file management is far more natural for me to do with a GUI.

[slayerboy]

each task I do works best in either one depending on the task. Not sure I understand what's up with this poll?

Obviously if I have the option I'm going to go with the gui option, but cli is faster, but not necessarily the quickest in some cases. The same as gui.

[aysiu]

What task?
Yes, it greatly depends on the task. Having eight Ubuntu Forums threads open in separate tabs for answering one after the other? GUI. Installing ten packages through the package manager? CLI.

[IYY]

I voted CLI, but obviously not for every task...

I use the CLI to...


Edit text files, programming, HTML (vi)
Create documents (LaTeX)
Check my e-mail (pine)
Do batch operations on media (Imagemagick, sox, lame, oggenc)
Perform system administration tasks (ifconfig, dhclient, adduser)
Manage files (the shell)
FTP, SSH, SVN


I use the GUI to...

Work with spreadsheets and presentations (OOffice and Gnumeric)
Browse the web (firefox)
Listen to music (banshee, beep)
Edit images (Gimp)
Chat (Gaim, XChat)
Watch video (VLC)
Record audio (Audacity)
Burn CDs (GnomeBaker)
Download torrents (Azureus)


So, what do I use most often? The CLI, because most of what I do is, essentially, edit text files.

[jdhore]

I Use the CLI for a lot of stuff and whenever i'm working with files or editing stuff, i use the commandline...i really only use the GUI for 5 main things: Chat, Watching video, listening to music, browsing the web or torrenting.

[jethro10]

At the moment, GUI, since I have to do research for everything I want to do with the CLI.

This is totally the point.
Unless you become a regular hacker, it always will be.
J

[tbroderick]

This is totally the point.
Unless you become a regular hacker, it always will be.
J

I don't think so. It's not that hard to learn a few things.

[OldTimeTech]

It may not be that hard to learn a few things, but seems that when I'm in trouble and come to the forums for help, it's not the gui side that is used for help it's the cli side, so that means I need to learn, memorize and retain the cli side ;)

EDIT: I don't use OldTimeTech without having a reason....called age....LOL!!!

[steven8]

I need to make up a cheat sheet. I don't use the commands every day, so I tend to forget.

[red_Marvin]

cli:
Resetting our network after replugging a cable. (sudo ifdown eth0 && sudo ifup eth0)
Compiling stuff.
gui:
Writing stuff? gui
Browsing the net
Graphics/photo stuff

[Crooksey]

CLI, when I first started using Linux the X window system wasnt as good as it is now, so its sort ofhabbit.

[AndyCooll]

I voted GUI. However as has been pointed out, it depends on the task and also an individuals computer use.

Since I'm from a Windoze background where I only ever used a GUI I naturally lean towards GUI use. However the more I use Linux, the more I find that certain tasks can be done quicker user a CLI.

:cool:

[fuscia]

i have to look at the keys to type, so gui for me.

[EdThaSlayer]

GUI is easier for most tasks and I use my GUI more than I use my CLI. even like to edit text file using the GUI(Gedit anyone?) and I love my IDE(Geany and IDLE anyone?). CLI is quite useful for the "underground" stuff. :)

[Adamant1988]

I find I'm usually finished doing what I'm doing quicker when I'm doing it from the CLI. But that requires knowledge of commands and such, the GUI gives me the ability to "guess" so if I'm in new territory the GUI might be faster.

[doobit]

I've found that there are a few CLI things I need to know to diagnose problems, so I've learned those. Also, since I do a lot of customization, there are a few CLI programs that I use all the time, and a few scripts that I need to modify constantly (like Grub's menu.lst, and CFdisk, for examples) I also have a few favorite CLI programs that I use just because they are fast, like elmo, and the alsa mixer.

[GrimRazer]

I use both :)

[aysiu]

This is totally the point.
Unless you become a regular hacker, it always will be.
J
I'm not a hacker or a programmer, but I use the CLI on a regular basis.

[lamalex]

CLI is definitely quicker IF you know what to do. GUI is much easier and sometimes just using a gui saves time in learning how to use CLI

[aysiu]

Here's one way to sum up the issue for me:

GUI - one-time events (not worth learning a command for) and graphics-heavy tasks (that involve needing to see the graphics

CLI - oft-repeated events (worth learning a command for) and batch tasks involving many files.

[Sunflower1970]

For me, mainly GUI, but as I'm learning more I do find some tasks easier using CLI.

[manmower]

Depends highly on the task as some have mentioned. Package management is certainly one of those things I prefer to do from CLI. Others include changing permissions or moving/deleting files I need to be root for (much faster to sudo than to gksudo), and editing configuration files (I find all GUI text editors slow). I also like to not have X running when installing important updates.

[kokuo]

Hello.As a new linux user , I wish to ask that why linux world still insist on using old fashion terminal and commands? Is the graphic interface not more handy and time-saving than terminal? Especially I want to learn the the reason of this terminal addiction.

[Bachstelze]

The GUI is far less handy and far more time-consuming than the terminal for most things. And there are also thing you can do only in the terminal.

The terminal is definitely not "old-fashioned". If you don't like it, I think Linux is not for you.

[23meg]

old fashion terminal and commands?

May I ask, just out of curiosity, what exactly makes you think they're old fashioned?


Is the graphic interface not more handy and time-saving than terminal?

Not necessarily; it depends on the task. With most tasks I go through, I find that the CLI is faster. Try opening 25 image files, resizing and saving them in GIMP, and then try the same with Imagemagick; It would take at least five minutes to do it with GIMP, and at most thirty seconds or so in Imagemagick.

Another example, from linuxcommand.org (http://linuxcommand.org):


Why do you need to learn the command line anyway? Well, let me tell you a story. Not long ago we had a problem where I work. There was a shared drive on one of our file servers that kept getting full. I won't mention that this legacy operating system did not support user quotas; that's another story. But the server kept getting full and stopping people from working. One of the software engineers in our company spent the day writing a C++ program that would look through the directories of all the users and add up the space they were using and make a listing of the results. Since I am forced to use the legacy OS while I am on the job, I installed a version of the bash shell that works on it. When I heard about the problem, I realized I could do all the work this engineer had done with this single line:


du -s * | sort -nr > $HOME/space_report.txt

Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are helpful for many tasks, but they are not good for all tasks. I have long felt that most computers today do not use electricity. They instead seem to be powered by the "pumping" motion of the mouse! Computers were supposed to free us from manual labor, but how many times have you performed some task you felt sure the computer should be able to do? You ended up doing the work by tediously working the mouse. Pointing and clicking, pointing and clicking.


Especially I want to learn the the reason of this terminal addiction.

It's a smart and fast way of working that gets the job done.

[23meg]

If you don't like it, I think Linux is not for you.I disagree. You can enjoy using many recent Linux based operating systems including Ubuntu without having to use a command interface.

[era86]

I wouldn't say that Linux is not for him. Rather, it can be a learning experience.

The command line is far less time consuming because of the various tools available. For example, if you LEARN the right commands, something simple as moving files can be done in one line rather than a series of clicks and drags.

It's a matter of learning and getting used to. A pretty GUI doesn't hurt, but it definitely is not more handy than the terminal (in almost all respects).

[kokuo]

The GUI is far less handy and far more time-consuming than the terminal for most things. And there are also thing you can do only in the terminal.

The terminal is definitely not "old-fashioned". If you don't like it, I think Linux is not for you.

I havent said I didnt like terminal. I just wanna learn the logic of terminal addiction?

Could you give a specific terminal example that is fast than GUI?

[Shatrat]

Another huge advantage to using the terminal for everything is that when you need help or are giving help over IRC or forums it's much easier to tell somebody 1 line to put into the terminal as opposed to "click on edit and go to options and click the advanced tab and twist the left nipple and then save as .xyz"

[Bachstelze]

Just to copy a file. In the terminal, you do :


cp /path/to/source /path/to/destination

While in the GUI, you need to :

-> Open your file manager
-> Browse to the dir where the source file is.
-> Right-click on it and choose Copy
-> Browse to the dir where you want to copy it to
-> Right-click and choose Paste

[kokuo]

May I ask, just out of curiosity, what exactly makes you think they're old fashioned?


Hello. Now it is just about logic. As you know everything goes around evolution, and related to terminal and gui debate, terminal history is older than GUI , in other words the GUI evolved from terminal exprience. Mostly new ones replace the old ones, if they are stronger as Darwin indicated.

If we compare GUI based windows and terminal addicted Linux , the GUI based system is stronger according the market share. Then a question tickles my brain. Why Linux geniuses insist on terminal rather than GUI ? Do not they fear that GUI may knock down the terminal based operating systems in the future? Why do not they strengthen linux with GUI style if the Gui systems are more succesful according to market shares?

And so much thanks for your terminal explanations above.

[Bachstelze]

You need to understand one essential thing :

Linux is not, does not aim to be and never will be Windows !

[kokuo]

You need to understand one essential thing :

Linux is not, does not aim to be and never will be Windows !

Why does Linux not intend to reach all people around the world to share the free software advantages? Will linux be lonely cowboy?

[melancholeric]

Why does Linux not intend to reach all people around the world to share the free software advantages? Will linux be lonely cowboy?

Do you think we're selling something?

[Bachstelze]

Not exactly. Linux is a volunteer effort, meaning that the people who make Linux make it firtsly to suit their needs. If other people want to use it, fine. If they don't, fine also.

But, the people who make Linux are people who like it the way it is, not people who don't.

[benfindlay]

I agree totally with HymnToLife here!

Speaking as someone who learned to use DOS before Windows 3.1 came along, I find there are still things that you need a DOS command prompt for that Windows will not do. Admittedly also these are very rare (like safe-mode command prompt to delete a file that Windows mistakenly thinks is in use)

The fact of the matter is. Linux uses the terminal because the majority of people that have used linux in the past have been used to it. As the needs develop, the Linux community develops too. This development can be seen by the creation of programs like automatix, or the fact that ndiswrapper now has a GUI to allow configuration (ndisgtk). In years gone by, a GUI config tool would have been unheard of. Times are changing, but a volunteer run effort will take more time to evolve because of it having less money, resources etc devoted to it. The likes of Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical realise the potential of alternatives to the status quo and are thankfully doing something about it!

Anyway, I'll get off my soap box now.

P.S. kokuo, Darwin wasn't always correct! ;)

[Motoxrdude]

Hello. Now it is just about logic. As you know everything goes around evolution, and related to terminal and gui debate, terminal history is older than GUI , in other words the GUI evolved from terminal exprience. Mostly new ones replace the old ones, if they are stronger as Darwin indicated.

If we compare GUI based windows and terminal addicted Linux , the GUI based system is stronger according the market share. Then a question tickles my brain. Why Linux geniuses insist on terminal rather than GUI ? Do not they fear that GUI may knock down the terminal based operating systems in the future? Why do not they strengthen linux with GUI style if the Gui systems are more succesful according to market shares?

And so much thanks for your terminal explanations above.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the most retarded things i have ever heard.
Ubuntu linux comes with a GUI, gnome. Plus, you can use KDE, XFCE, Fluxbox and more. The terminal is a ton faster then a gui and is a lot more flexible.
Do you have a preconceived notion that ubuntu doesn't come with a gui? Because if you do, it does come with a gui as shown above.

Now that i think about it, what OS doesn't have a terminal?

[benfindlay]

Market share also means squat. Just means they had better/more advertising! ;)

[Bachstelze]

And besides, free software is not about being the best option for everyone.

If you like it, you're free to use it. If you don't like it, you're free not to use it. That's what Free Software is all about :)

[kokuo]

I agree totally with HymnToLife here!

Speaking as someone who learned to use DOS before Windows 3.1 came along, I find there are still things that you need a DOS command prompt for that Windows will not do. Admittedly also these are very rare (like safe-mode command prompt to delete a file that Windows mistakenly thinks is in use)

The fact of the matter is. Linux uses the terminal because the majority of people that have used linux in the past have been used to it. As the needs develop, the Linux community develops too. This development can be seen by the development of programs like automatix, or the fact that ndiswrapper now has a GUI to allow configuration (ndisgtk). In years gone by, a GUI config tool would have been unheard of. Times are changing, but a volunteer run effort will take more time to evolve because of it having less money, resources etc devoted to it. The likes of Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical realise the potential of alternatives to the status quo and are thankfully doing something about it!

Anyway, I'll get off my soap box now.

P.S. kokuo, Darwin wasn't always correct! ;)

Thanks a lot. This is a good explanation. So much times repeated , I just want to learn the logic of the case. Not want to blame Linux and linux users. But somepeople shouldnt be so egoistic . This is not true ; Do love linux or do not cristise it. For me according to nowadays conjuncture , linux must stay on a place which is between current Linux and current windows.


P.S. I dont want to have a religious war here @benfindlay.

[r4ik]

Not exactly. Linux is a volunteer effort, meaning that the people who make Linux make it firtsly to suit their needs. If other people want to use it, fine. If they don't, fine also.

But, the people who make Linux are people who like it the way it is, not people who don't.

I hate to disagree with you but i think Linux has grown beyond that stage.

[Bachstelze]

"Linux shoud do this, Linux should do that."

Not meaning to be rude but who do you think you are to tell thousands of developpers all around the world what they should do with their OS ? Would you work several hours a day for free on something you don't like ?

[benfindlay]

lol @ kokuo

Thant precisely why I got off the soap box! ;) I do understand why people don't like command lines, but its just the way things are. They may change, they may not. My personal opinion is that they will eventually.

Linux is forever growing, and hopefully will for years to come. But it still has a long way to go until adulthood!

[Bachstelze]

And when that day will come, I'll certainly have quit using it for long...

[kokuo]

"Linux shoud do this, Linux should do that."

Not meaning to be rude but who do you think you are to tell thousands of developpers all around the world what they should do with their OS ? Would you work several hours a day for free on something you don't like ?

According to Open Source mentality, I am one to suggest developers. Because the open source softwares are strengthened and developed by eliminating the problems with collaborative work. I just suggested something because I am free to say that if I find it useful for Open source and developers are free to disregard if it si not logical.

[Bachstelze]

Suggestions are of course very welcome but you should word them a bit differently than "you should do this and that", if you want them to be regarded positively, and not say something is "old-fashioned" just because it is not what you would like to see. If it's that way and not otherwise, it's usually for a reason :)

[annda]

Why do not they strengthen linux with GUI style if the Gui systems are more succesful according to market shares?

actually, some linux distributions (like ubuntu) ARE going down that road. they sport a lot of GUI interfaces/frontends to underlying programs.

however, i believe the keyword here is not marker share, but rather market niche. (and still, market is a bit awkward, since the products supplied by the linux community are targeted at serving users' needs rather than generating income).

you could as well as the question why off movies are ever made - most people don't want to see them and find them tedious at best and boring at worst. but there is a niche constituting of people who are extremely bored with popular action-packed blockbusters. i for one am bored by both.

i agree with HymnToLife and the opponents at the same time: you can use linux because you want a free-of-charge OS and still do anything you want to (opponents), or you can use linux because you want to do anything you want PERIOD - and the command line lets you do that (HymnToLife and me, among thousands others).

bottom line: if you just want things done, get a Mac. if you want to have a wide choice of tools, some of which will get things done, get windows. if you want to tell the tools of your choice what has to be done and how exactly, get linux. if you don't need to know and control what your computer is doing - linux is not the BEST choice for you. but it can be a VERY GOOD one, still.

but this is a rant and shouldn't be here - in ubuntu cafe maybe...

ps. i think we all have examples of why the "terminal addiction" pays off. sometimes it doesn't and we go for GUI. regardless, it's great to have the option.

[r4ik]

"Linux shoud do this, Linux should do that."

Not meaning to be rude but who do you think you are to tell thousands of developpers all around the world what they should do with their OS ? Would you work several hours a day for free on something you don't like ?

Now dont get snappy please i am not telling anybody anything.
I am only hoping devs have the drive to bring things they like to a bigger public.
Answering you're second question.
Nope.

[Bachstelze]

This wasn't directed at you but at kokuo, more precisely answering this :


linux must stay on a place which is between current Linux and current windows.

[r4ik]

Oke i am out :)
Sorry.

[taurus]

Okay, I think this thread should go to Cafe now.

p.s. Always terminal, baby... ;)

[igknighted]

Hello.As a new linux user , I wish to ask that why linux world still insist on using old fashion terminal and commands? Is the graphic interface not more handy and time-saving than terminal? Especially I want to learn the the reason of this terminal addiction.

The terminal is high-tech, direct access to your computer. This ability to get as close to the computer as possible is one of linux's biggest features. It is different, and almost never necessary, but to have the option to use it is very powerful. Most help you will get here will have the terminal way, as out of 10 computers each could have a different GUI to do the same task, while the CLI is always the same. Also, copy/paste help for the terminal is very easy, while "click here, then there, nono, the other one" is very cumbersome. You don't need to love the CLI to be a linux user, but if you avoid it at all costs you will miss out on part of what makes linux great.

[ssam]

the number of tasks on Ubuntu that require the CLI is dropping every release.

right now i think on a lot hardware you could install and run ubuntu with ever using the command line. unfortunatly most tutorial and howto writers show people a CLI method even when there is a perfectly good GUI method.

telling someone to do

sudo apt-get install inkscape
is quick and easy. but they will just come back tomorrow and ask you how to install something else.

if you told them to go to
Applications -> Add/Remove
and to search for 'vector graphics'
then they would be self sufficient.

i agree that the CLI is quick and precise, but you need to know exactly what you want to do.

Today I was copying tens gigabytes of data between several computers, a remote server, a workstation i was sat infront of, and a nearby raid server. having curl/wget, ssh/scp, rsync, etc were very useful, but this is not a typical user set up.

[hizaguchi]

A GUI will never be as fast or convenient as a terminal. It's that simple. This is because if you ever did make a GUI with all the power and capabilities of the command line, you'd need pages and pages of buttons and menus to do it all, and then you'd spend all day sifting through it looking for the right button. So a GUI necessarily makes compromises for the sake of new user friendliness. It sacrifices features and flexibility to become more manageable. And that may be fine for new users who don't understand all that they're losing with a GUI, but fortunately they are not the ones who get to make the decisions about the future of open source software. Open source software is developer, not market or new user, driven. The terminal isn't going anywhere until we can just control the computer with our minds... and even that will work the same way because it'll probably require you to know the command you need to think to get what you want done.

Oh yeah, and have you ever used graphical applications remotely, through ssh? The network at work gets so bogged down sometimes that even the command line is laggy. If I had to do everything with a graphical tool, I'd actually have to go in to work! :shock:

[23meg]

Hello. Now it is just about logic. As you know everything goes around evolution, and related to terminal and gui debate, terminal history is older than GUI , in other words the GUI evolved from terminal exprience. Mostly new ones replace the old ones, if they are stronger as Darwin indicated.

The wheel is older than the jet engine; it's rooted in the dawn of civilization. Did we replace all wheels with jet engines as soon as we invented the jet engine?

Really, that's how much of an evolutionary connection I see between the CLI and the GUI. Text mode programs had graphical components like the cursor, columns, rows, highlights etc. almost ever since they existed, and as technology advanced, it made perfect sense to take advantage of it to draw those columns with native graphical methods instead of hackish ASCII characters. Just like it made perfect sense to replace the propeller in planes with something stronger when it became available, and as airframes grew stronger. There are still turbo-propeller planes in airlines today, due to the simple fact that propellers still outperform jets in terms of fuel consumption in many cases, and are cheaper to operate.

Technological advancedness does not necessarily guarantee acceptance and adoption.


If we compare GUI based windows and terminal addicted Linux , the GUI based system is stronger according the market share.

If we compare Britney Spears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears) to Morrissey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrissey), Britney Spears is "stronger according to market share". Does that tell us anything about which is a "better" musician?

If you take into account the millions of CLI operated Linux/BSD/Unix based web servers that make up perhaps more than half of the internet, however, the market share argument goes down as well.

Assuming you meant desktop market share, you'd have to have a well reasoned argument against the Commodore 64, which had no GUI, and which seventeen million people used, almost entirely in home and small business settings. It's still the best selling personal computer of all time. People were doing just fine with their keyboards and their blinking cursors before Xerox invented the GUI; actually, afterwards as well. If anything, the GUIization of computer culture somehow led to... OK, I won't go into that.

Market share means commercial success, no more, no less. I'm sure you can come up with many commercially unsuccessful products that have commercially successful counterparts which are inferior in comparison.


Then a question tickles my brain. Why Linux geniuses insist on terminal rather than GUI ? Do not they fear that GUI may knock down the terminal based operating systems in the future? Why do not they strengthen linux with GUI style if the Gui systems are more succesful according to market shares?


You seem to have the following dichotomy drummed in your mind:

Linux = CLI
Windows/Mac = GUI

Get rid of that first. Take a look at what GNOME, KDE, XFCE and others have realized in the GUI domain in far less time than Windows and Mac. Talk to a professional Windows system administrator and learn what they use to set up policies across a network of a hundred computers (hint: it starts with C).

And if anyone tells you that "product X is better because it has more market share", you can instantly assume they have no idea about both what that product is, and about how the economy around it works.

[ncappel1]

I like to use the terminal for ftp transfers. i don't know why, but it works much better for me. im constantly uploading and downloading homework files and other random stuff. Maybe it's just the computers I use that are misconfigured, but using a regular window manager for ftp frequently makes me stop to log in again, or it won't let me put files where I want because of permissions. who knows why?

on another note, I once was using the terminal to do some ftp-ing at my school library, and a really good looking girl came over to use the computer next to mine, she asked what I was doing, and i explained about the terminal (which she had probably never known existed), and the conversation led into getting a date later that evening!
All thanks to the terminal :)

[zorkerz]

The beauty i find with ubuntu is the ability to do most things either way you desire. The CLI is quick, efficient, and clean where the GUI is visual, and possibly if designed well more intuitive, i would argue. Both methods have there supporters. There are many tasks that i prefer to do one way or the other. Get me if im wrong but i think there are very few people left who use no GUI for any of their computing needs or addictions. I think if you can do things either way that increases everyones choice and for me thats where ubuntu and linux based oses in general fly ahead. Everyone wants to do things their own way and if that is allowed its a good start.

[Tomosaur]

on another note, I once was using the terminal to do some ftp-ing at my school library, and a really good looking girl came over to use the computer next to mine, she asked what I was doing, and i explained about the terminal (which she had probably never known existed), and the conversation led into getting a date later that evening!
All thanks to the terminal :)

The Internet Police want a word with you!

[IYY]

Where does the terminal shine?


Automated procedures: it is very difficult to automate anything using a GUI, and would required highly specialized software. Suppose you wish to convert 1000 photos from BMP to JPG, quality 50%, and make them all +5 brighter. You could find some sort of a GUI program to do such an automated task, but I guarantee that it will be more difficult than the one line solution that is ImageMagick. Similar conversions can be made between sound files, data can be automatically extracted from text files, common system administration operations can be automated. All of that is not in the realm of the GUI.

Speed of finding: In the CLI, if you know a way to do something, you can do it instantly, because of the brain's fast recall mechanisms. In the GUI, you have to search for the operation every time you want to do it. In a way, it's like figuring it out from the beginning. If there are many such operations, you will have a whole lot of menus to go through! Actually, for this reason Microsoft seems to be dropping the menu system in Vista and Office 2007, and replacing it with Ribbon-like GUIs. We'll see how well that works out, but it certainly won't be anywhere near the CLI's speed.

Speed of operation and stability: If you are running a server, you don't want a heavy and unstable GUI sitting on top of it. The CLI shells are rock solid, and can run on even 486 machines while still leaving enough memory and CPU power to run web servers, routers or other software. Similarly, the CLI will pretty much never crash on you.

Flexibility: If you were to build a GUI that can truly do everything that the CLI can do, it will be so cluttered and confusing that no one will be able to use it. The CLI allows you to do more, no doubt about it.

Tradition: Windows changes its GUI with every release. Apple and Ubuntu change the GUI in even more often (because there are more releases). Individual applications change their graphical functionality, locations of menus, buttons, and other controls. With the GUI, the skills you learn today will be fairly obsolete in 5 years. The CLI skills people learned while using Unix in the 70's is still every bit as useful today! Those very same skills are useful in every distribution of Linux, in every BSD, in every Unix (like Solaris), and even in Mac OS X! In fact, they are, and forever will remain useful in every mainstream operating system other than Windows.


Is it all green fields and roses? No; there are places where the GUI clearly wins. Here are some examples of the GUI's advantages:


Speed of finding (for novices): Just like the CLI is fast for an expert or intermediate user for finding an application, the GUI is fast for a novice for the same task. When you are a beginner in a particular CLI system, it will take long to find things and learn how to do them. When I sit at a GUI system, I can always figure out where things are fairly quickly and be instantly productive. So, even though you have to relearn how to do a task every time you do it, the GUI is useful for that first time user of a task or application. This is nice when there is a task that you only want to perform once, twice, or even 15 times.

Easier multitasking: The CLI can be used to do several things at once, even if you only have a single console window, but the GUI is obviously more intuitive for this particular task. System trays, docks, task lists, windows: these are all great metaphors to keep track of multiple tasks.

Visual appeal: You use the computer so often, so it's nice to have a pretty screen with an artistic wallpaper and a clean theme to look at. Of course, some find the CLI to be attractive in its own way as well.

Browsing the web: You can browse the web from the CLI, but obviously no one does this on a regular basis. Browsing the web is, by its very nature, a graphical operation and calls for a GUI.

Other applications: Just like browsing the web, there are things that just have to be visual. Digital drawing, 3D modeling, CAD, etc.

Games: CLI games can be fun, but obviously the GUI games are better.


So, what's the best option? Obviously, it is to have a system that has both a solid GUI and a fully functional CLI, so that users can use either, or both. Guess what? This is exactly what Ubuntu has.

I usually log into a GUI, but have several terminal windows open. I use them to edit text and program code files (vi is much, much, much faster than any other text editing software), create documents (LaTeX is more powerful and elegant than traditional word processors), do some image manipulation (mostly conversions, and other batch applications), sound and video conversion, moving files around, FTP and SSH, system administration, etc. However, I also usually have Firefox open, as well as programs like The Gimp, Inkscape, a GUI music player (I could use a CLI method, but I like it better this way), etc.

EDIT: now that the threads have been merged, I voted for CLI, but I think that the polarization is silly. You should use the right tool for the job, and there is a time and place for everything. The reason for my vote is simply that I enjoy the CLI more than the GUI, and find it to be underrated. It's difficult to say which I use more, because even when I use the CLI I am running it in a terminal in a window manager, so in a sense it is a GUI.

[23meg]

So, what's the best option? Obviously, it is to have a system that has both a solid GUI and a fully functional CLI, so that users can use either, or both. Guess what? This is exactly what Ubuntu has.

I'm sadly amazed at the piety and stubbornnes of people defending a certain position in the "GUI vs. CLI" debates, given that we have very advanced Free versions of both (GNOME, KDE, XFCE, BASH/DASH, etc.) at our disposal, and that they can work together. Actually, them working together is one of the greatest strengths of our platform for users keen on using their computers efficiently.

Improving the interaction and ways of coexistence of the two will make things even better. Projects such as dragbox (http://www.student.lu.se/~cif04usv/wiki/dragbox.html) are very inspiring in this regard.

I almost always find myself choosing a third way in "this or that" dichotomies, and the third way is often "both" or "neither". The subject at hand is no exception; I use both.

[aysiu]

It's probably about time we had a megathread on the terminal and the graphical user interface. Here are a couple of polls that got lost in the merger.

Here are some quick links to my two major lines of thought on the issue:
Why I think the command-line is user-friendly... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=315402#post315402)
Is Ubuntu really too dependent on the terminal? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1840857#post1840857)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Its different strokes for diffrent folks, personally I like GUI apps as I personally find it easier then command line apps, learning command line is very intimidating even after I spent 4 years in a linux enviroment.
but then again this is why i like distros like ubuntu as you barely have to lay a finger on a terminal.

[karellen]

I like the cli, it's fast and gives me a feeling of control and things-done-the-way-I-want

[maniacmusician]

I probably spend more time with the GUI, simply because I'm running X.org :) Most of the apps I use are GUI apps, like firefox, amarok, konversation, etc. However, for certain tasks, the CLI is faster and more efficient, so I of course use that. But I wouldn't want to spend my internet browsing time with links2 or something.

Basically, whatever gets the job done.

As a side note, does anyone know where poofyhair guy dissappeared to?

[euler_fan]

For day to day work I spend most of my time in the GUI, but I have done work command line (editing conf files, installing software, working with a few programs, etc) and can get around the basic tasks I need to do. I would like to learn more about it and use it more, but at this time I find that if there is a program to be started from the command line, I end up adding a new icon to one of my menus to get at it more easily.

As I mentioned in passing above, I do use a CLI program regularly (R) and would not mind learning more of them, especially if the help files are good (and those for R tend to be great).

[tbroderick]

Browsing the web: You can browse the web from the CLI, but obviously no one does this on a regular basis. Browsing the web is, by its very nature, a graphical operation and calls for a GUI.


Why is it obvious? I don't think browsing the net requires a GUI. Ads, flash, and unnecessarily large image sizes annoys the hell out of me; enter elinks. I would say my browser usage is 60/40 firefox/elinks, but elinks is gaining fast. I think CLI browsers have a great usage for browsing forums/message boards, news sites, blogs, torrent trackers, wiki, etc. I also love using it to view song titles at allmusic or cddb when tagging music, and if I need to see a particular image, I can just hit 'v' key on the IMG tag and it will open the image with feh.

[Tomosaur]

Elinks really is a great piece of kit. It's amazing how much crap it helps filter out. I don't want to see adverts, especially those annoying flash ones - elinks helps me get the job done very quickly. If you're only using the web to read stuff, then elinks is the way to go - the vast majority of images are totally pointless.

[Quillz]

I prefer a GUI.

[FuturePilot]

Let me begin by saying that I spend most of my time in the GUI but I do use the command line quite a bit.

At first I really didn't use the command line that much. But as my knowledge of Linux grew, I realized what a powerful tool it is. I think that new Linux users should get used to using the command line. At some point they're going to have to use it. They need to get used to it so when that time comes they won't be thrown into shock. There's certain things that you need the command line for. If you want Beryl, you're going to have to use the command line a little. So on and so on. The command line is what Linux is based on and I'm glad to see that it hasn't died out like DOS.

As for giving command line instructions to new Linux users: I think it's just easier. It's a lot faster to give them a little line of code they can copy and paste into the terminal than to give them a whole list of menus they have to go through.

I'm even beginning to use the command line more. Why just the other day I used it to move some files around. I wanted to move some images into the /usr/share/beryl directory. It's just faster to do that than through Nautilus.

[23meg]

I too use CLI browsers quite often. A lot of the time, I'm just looking to grab a specific bit of information from the web, and in doing that, a quick, to the point environment without distractions helps (even more so at the times I'm already working in it).

Another thing that helps is surfraw (http://surfraw.sourceforge.net/), which is a CLI interface to various search engines and the like. Check it out if you're into text only browsing.

[IYY]

Why is it obvious? I don't think browsing the net requires a GUI. Ads, flash, and unnecessarily large image sizes annoys the hell out of me; enter elinks. I would say my browser usage is 60/40 firefox/elinks, but elinks is gaining fast. I think CLI browsers have a great usage for browsing forums/message boards, news sites, blogs, torrent trackers, wiki, etc. I also love using it to view song titles at allmusic or cddb when tagging music, and if I need to see a particular image, I can just hit 'v' key on the IMG tag and it will open the image with feh.

I suppose that's a way of doing it, but the web is designed to be viewed in a graphical browser. You will be seeing more and more problems with your approach when Web 2.0 lifts off and many sites will be using AJAX that text-based browsers have trouble with.

Of course, to each his own, but I would not even try to convince anyone to start browsing the web in elinks.

[Tomosaur]

I suppose that's a way of doing it, but the web is designed to be viewed in a graphical browser. You will be seeing more and more problems with your approach when Web 2.0 lifts off and many sites will be using AJAX that text-based browsers have trouble with.

Of course, to each his own, but I would not even try to convince anyone to start browsing the web in elinks.

I dunno about that. It's certainly not true of 'traditional' websites. Most websites are still all about the content - they tell you something, provide information, opinions, news etc. There's no reason, other than aesthetics, why a graphical browser is 'required'. Some people just prefer to get the content, others like having the eye candy to go along with it. Sure, things like web-apps and forums make heavy use of graphics, but they still don't 'require' them. The problem is that browsers like elinks and other CLI based ones just simply do not have the features other browsers have, such as javascript, applets etc. Most things on the web are still not dependent on images and visual stuff - and could theoretically be made to work purely in text mode. Obviously, if you're using flickr, you need images, there's no way around it. Sites like Digg, or even this forum, do not 'require' images, they just depend heavily on features that text-based browsers simply do not have.

[tigerpants]

I like both.

[ShadowVlican]

GUI

been using GUI since Windows 3.1 and haven't looked back \\:D/

simply don't have the patience and time to memorize commands (and their many switches which differ for every command/program....)

GUI solves the problem by offering something visual so we don't have to know that "-vbr0 --vbr-new" stands for "highest quality variable bitrate using new algorithm"

it's ok to keep both.... but continually improving the GUI will kill off the fear people have of linux (whether you like it or not, command line is necessary in linux... that's a sad thing for it to be NECESSARY....)

[tbroderick]

The problem is that browsers like elinks and other CLI based ones just simply do not have the features other browsers have, such as javascript, applets etc.

elinks does have javascript support. It just needs to be built against spidermonkey. The ubuntu binary is built without spidermonkey.

[FyreBrand]

I like the console. I use it whenever I can. If I don't know the terminal method for something or if I'm configuring KDE settings then I use the GUI.

I use the GUI more for applications like web browsing, word processing, etc. I use the gui to write code (don't use VIM that often) but I use nano a lot to edit system config files. The command line is fast and easy. If I don't the CLI way then the gui is sometimes easier to use. Whatever works.

[solar george]

command line is necessary in linux... that's a sad thing for it to be NECESSARY.

Wrong.

That is if you mean having a command line and using it for advanced stuff, it means that if you try something and it doesn't work/breaks the gui you can mend it.


However if you mean having to resort to it to it to, say, configure wireless because the gui doesn't work it is unfortunate because it puts new users off but it doesn't make it impossibly difficult.

[seijuro]

STOP FREAKING AGREEING WITH ME!!!!!


Just joking.

Sorry I have to agree with you too. I consider myself an intermediate computer user in general and honestly I started out with far less user friendly distros and was not at all intimidated by the CLI I just don't buy the argument that gui is easier blah blah blah more familiar yes, easier not really. Most things can be done way faster in CLI than clicking through 15 flagin windows. I agree however that there should be the option for users to never touch the command line following one line of logic which is that linux is all about choice and personal preference well there are a lot of people the prefer NOT to use the CLI not even arguing which is better but which is "preferred". Personally I'll keep using my favorite do it all gui tool the console window. Also from my experience with new users I find it easier for most people to just give them a command they can copy past and hit enter rather than try to walk them through 15 pages of gui.

[ndefontenay]

When I consider this kind of issues, I like to put myself into somebody's else body and guess how it would look like from this perspective: My dad.

He knows computers for a long time but never really understood them. When he learns something painfully, he would stick to it for years and it's so hard to tell him that something new is better. I mean he played red alert for many years despite my efforts to show him starcraft...

So. My dad would be lost on a command line. I think we are appealing to people who knows where to get there information. They know who to turn to when they have a problem. We, Ubuntu user posting on this forum, know that there is an ubuntu community ready to help.
Some lucky dads might even go there because somebody who knows better told him where to look for solutions.

But for the noob, good but not enough, or not enough time to learn people (like my dad), they need something intuitive. This is the beauty and difficulty of the GUI.

You don't know anything about this new feature from you desktop. Yet, because the GUI allows you to hang around and discover new things (because you can see it), you will be able to get a little deeper, maybe configure a few things. If it's a really good GUI, you would know what to do without too much difficulties and if it's a good OS, your changes won't break your system or X.

I've voted CLI. I mean it's so much simple to explain things through this but by doing so we deny the chance to a large amount of people to get to know Linux without asking someone.

We need to keep the CLI, we need to really improve the GUI and make something better than MAC OSX.

I'm in for print screens explanations of how to do things from GUI. It's needed.

[Joneerickson]

I installed Ubuntu last nite. Then could not find only way to enter my PPPoE Info to hook to my ISP, so I had to reinstall Freespire in order to get to this Forum.

So I found the instructions under FAQs

#1
Open applications>Accessories> Terminal
Terminal That means Command Line
Command line is a Holdover from the beginning of Computers, when it was all NERDS & GEEKS

Was that a Space:confused: guess not :( start over
Opps- misspelled a word :( Start over
Opps- forgot the dash :( Start over
Oh- that one was a Space :( Start over [-o<

I HATE COMMAND LINE

Whe are into GUI'ies,- Use your Mouse-, -Point and Click-, Harry and Harriet Homeowner do not want to be sent to the Command line.
Other Application Packages, like Freespire and Mepis have GUI'ies for this.

So I will spend a half hour tonite reinstalling Ubuntu, and then another hour trying to set up my Internet](*,)
I HATE COMMAND LINE

[teaker1s]

guess it will be a love hate relationship with linux then, learning something new is about taking at a reasonable pace and gathering skills-look at me I joined in 2005 and am still learning new tips and features:lolflag:

Welcome to the forums

[charles.g.moore]

It's funny that all of the reasons you state for hating the command line boil down to your mistakes.

Was that a Space I guess not start over
Opps- I misspelled a word Start over
Opps- I forgot the dash Start over
Oh- I THOUGHT that one was a Space Start over

[christhemonkey]

You do know you can just press the up arrow and change the one mistake you made?

No real need to start over...

[jkeyes0]

I've used DSL before, and never had to use the OS to configure it (even in Windows). In one situation, the modem itself had a built-in webpage that allowed for the configuration (no, it wasn't a router, just a modem), and almost any router available on the market has a configuration webpage that can do this.

Alternately, if you want to manage it through your system, have you tried installing/using pppoeconf? Looking at my home system, it came preinstalled on Edgy, and I'm running it now. Try

sudo pppoeconf
from a terminal

[xopher]

Was that a Space guess not start over
Opps- misspelled a word Start over
Opps- forgot the dash Start over
Oh- that one was a Space Start over

Oh, and there's this thing we here in Finland call kopioi/liitä (copy/paste).

About the CLI, you'll learn to love it if you give it enough time. I was once a point-and-click sort of guy too, I still am, but I do use the terminal for quite a few things nowadays. It's just so fast, painless, and .. fast :) If you don't know what to do with it, then it's not though.

Bottom line, the terminal is a powerful feature when you get used to it, not a burden you are forced to struggle with.

[jvc26]

Copy/paste into the command line is possibly the easiest thing ever with just highlight and middleclick, CLI is faster on the whole than using the GUI - Synaptic compared with a single CLI command. You get used to CLI very quickly, and to do many things you'll actually end up preferring it if you get used to it.
Il

[insane_alien]

the command line is incredibly useful even now in the world of GUI. anyway, the GUI's are really just frontends to the CLI. also, linux is pretty much the best for servers that would get little or no human interaction anyway so a GUI would just waste space. i like that i don't need to scroll through menus and sub menus and sub-sub-sub menus

[justin whitaker]

Reminds me of the Banditos in Blazing Saddles:

"GUI? We don't need no stinkin' GUI! Vamonos!"

:)

[insane_alien]

nobody needs anything other than the kernel and lynx :P

[rolando2424]

I share the exact oposite feeling.

I LOVE THE COMMAND LINE :D

But I grew up using DOS, so I might be used to it.

[garlik42]

I have been using computers since just after the fall of the Roman Empire, and back then we didn't even have a command line!! It was all switches and lights.

Tell you the truth, I miss the switches and lights ...

I love the command line, it allows for the finest and most absolute control over the entire system.

GUI's are OK (I write them all day at work ...) And if I find a Gui that does everything I need, then great, otherwise I can always string together 20 or 30 linux commands with pipes and redirects and do it from there.

But, everyone is certainly has there own opinion .....

[tonyr1988]

1) Copy and paste commands. In fact, if you're reading what to do from a webpage, just select the text you want to copy, go over to your Terminal, click on it, and then push the middle mouse button (usually you press down on the scroll wheel). Tada!

2) Most people on the forums will tell you command-line methods of doing things because it's easier and (if you copy / paste) less prone to mistakes. For example, compare these:


-Go to Places -> Home Folder.
-Right-click anywhere within that white space (where your files and folders will appear) and select "Show Hidden Files"
-Double-click on the folder named .some_app
-Double-click on the some_config.txt file and edit blah blah..

as opposed to


-Go to Applications -> Accessories -> Terminal
-nano ~/.some_app/some_config.txt
-edit blah blah blah

[mikewhatever]

Actually, the command line is an interesting way of doing things for a Windows user. You may like it or not, but it is sure too soon to tell after 24 hours. You might like it after starting to have successes. I think expecting too much in too short a time is a general source of frustration for countless new Ubuntu users. Here is a nice thread for to relax and ponder on the meaning of the abbreviation OS
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=63315&highlight=is+ubuntu+for+you

[NT4usB]

For those (like me) who can't seem to click the scroll wheel without scrolling it, Ctrl+Shift+v to paste in the CLI.
And, no one has mentioned Tab completion in this thread yet...

ed: or not...
I failed to notice this thread's been going since a kernel only made chicken.

[aysiu]

I installed Ubuntu last nite. Then could not find only way to enter my PPPoE Info to hook to my ISP, so I had to reinstall Freespire in order to get to this Forum. If you want help with your PPPoE, post a support thread where you ask for help. Since all you're doing is complaining, I'm moving your thread to the GUI vs. CLI discussion.


Command line is a Holdover from the beginning of Computers, when it was all NERDS & GEEKS

Was that a Space:confused: guess not :( start over
Opps- misspelled a word :( Start over
Opps- forgot the dash :( Start over
Oh- that one was a Space :( Start over [-o<

I HATE COMMAND LINE

Whe are into GUI'ies,- Use your Mouse-, -Point and Click-, Harry and Harriet Homeowner do not want to be sent to the Command line.
Other Application Packages, like Freespire and Mepis have GUI'ies for this. Since all you're doing is complaining, I'm moving your thread to the GUI vs. CLI discussion.

[Brunellus]

the CLI does what it does quickly and without fuss. If you can't use it, consider this:

Can you sit down at an organ and play it well, never having learned it? No? Then the organ must be a terrible instrument, incapable of producing satisfactory results.

Of course, you could break down and learn how to play Bach. But that might require understanding on your part.

I hope the command line never goes away. I missed it in Windows. Graphics come and go, windowing systems freeze and lock, but the terminal is extremely robust.

[aysiu]

I'm going to repeat what I've said many times before:

1. Ideally there should be both a GUI and CLI way to do every task. That way, you have the best of both worlds. If you prefer to use the GUI, you can use the GUI. If you prefer CLI, you can use CLI.

2. GUI and CLI are different sets of tools. Sometimes one tool is more efficient than another. I can hammer in a screw, but it'd take me a lot longer to get it in than using a screwdriver.

3. CLI is like a language. GUI is like gesturing (and not even sophisticated gesturing--like sign language). Think of every computing task as visiting a foreign country and ordering bread, asking where the bathroom is, etc. If you perform a task once, it's probably not worth it for you to figure out syntax/vocabulary and polish pronunciation. But if you perform a task daily for hours at a time, maybe you should invest some time in learning direct commands and sentences instead of madly gesturing that you want ten cinnamon buns to go and that you have to go relieve yourself at the nearest location (where is that?).

Right now in Ubuntu, we don't have GUIs for every single task, but people who criticize Ubuntu's terminal dependence often exaggerate how greatly Ubuntu depends on the terminal, often underestimate the benefits of the terminal, or often lump Ubuntu in with all Linux distros (including those that do not have the same level of terminal-dependence).

[mech7]

CLI is that something from the 80ies :lolflag:

[Brunellus]

I'm going to repeat what I've said many times before:

1. Ideally there should be both a GUI and CLI way to do every task. That way, you have the best of both worlds. If you prefer to use the GUI, you can use the GUI. If you prefer CLI, you can use CLI.

2. GUI and CLI are different sets of tools. Sometimes one tool is more efficient than another. I can hammer in a screw, but it'd take me a lot longer to get it in than using a screwdriver.

3. CLI is like a language. GUI is like gesturing (and not even sophisticated gesturing--like sign language). Think of every computing task as visiting a foreign country and ordering bread, asking where the bathroom is, etc. If you perform a task once, it's probably not worth it for you to figure out syntax/vocabulary and polish pronunciation. But if you perform a task daily for hours at a time, maybe you should invest same time to learn direct commands and sentences instead of madly gesturing that you want ten cinnamon buns to go and that you have to go relieve yourself at the nearest location (where is that?).

Right now in Ubuntu, we don't have GUIs for every single task, but people who criticize Ubuntu's terminal dependence often exaggerate how greatly Ubuntu depends on the terminal, often underestimate the benefits of the terminal, or often lump Ubuntu in with all Linux distros (including those that do not have the same level of terminal-dependence).
. . . or indeed, greater terminal-dependence. Slackware, anybody?

[Cloudy]

I've grown to prefer CLI but I'd be lying if I said there weren't days I missed the simplicity of the GUI in Windows, etcetera. Then again, that's just me..

[aysiu]

CLI is that something from the 80ies :lolflag:
And music is from B.C.E. Should we ditch that too?

Hey, walking is from eons ago. Let's drive cars everywhere.

Actually, the CLI is probably from the 1960s (or even before). Mice and pointing and clicking are from the 1980s.

Basic gesturing is certainly more primitive than spoken language.
Gesturing with a mouse is also more primitive than typed language.

You only replace a more sophisticated form of expression with a less sophisticated form if the time and energy put into learning the more sophisticated form is not worth the benefits reaped from learning the more sophisticated form (as in my example of visiting a foreign country once and then ordering some cinnamon buns).

Visit a country once, you may not even learn anything and just frantically point at stuff or speak your own native language and hope the locals can make out what you're saying. Visit the country twice, you might learn a few phrases from a phrase book. But if you're going to move to that country, you better be working towards fluency.

[Cloudy]

Must say, that's a pretty good analogy aysiu!

[arbulus]

Brunelleus and Aysiu are definitely spot on with this. There are alot of users that come from Windows or Mac even that have used a GUI all their lives and aren't comfortable or knowledgeable about the CLI, but that doesn't diminish it's capability. Just like they mentioned, it's not something that you're going to know how to do natively. Even people who are just moving from Windows to Macs or vice versa have a difficult time adapting, and it's still just GUI. The fact is that it's something you have to learn, and if you've decided to change your OS, that must mean that you are open to the idea of learning something new and the CLI is just another part of that.

When I first said to myself that I wanted to learn Linux, I didn't think of it in terms of the GUI. I wanted to learn the CLI, the nuts and bolts of the system. Not only did I feel like it would be a great advantage to me to learn a new OS, but also to feel like I intimately knew how the system worked. And more than that, it just seemed cool. You know, there's kind of this air of intrigue and mystique to being able to use a computer and do amazing things with no graphics on the screen, just simple (or complex) commands you type in. Sure there are GUI ways to do many things is most Linux distros, but there are somethings that you have to do in the command line as well, and some distros divvy this up in different ways.

But I've always looked at the GUI as sort of training wheels. Since my initial purpose was to learn the CLI, that's what I've always focused on. Whenever I've had a problem, I've always wanted to find both a CLI and GUI solution to it. Now, don't get me wong, I enjoy GUI. It's very nice to boot up my comp and see my nearly-totally-configurable desktop, and that's one thing I love about Linux: I can make my environment look how I want, and I really enjoy that since no other OS has that kind of capability. But the aesthetics are just that: aesthetics. The real key to learning Linux is learning to be comfortable in the CLI; and learning is exactly what you have to do. You can't just pick it up today, having never used it, and expect to be fluent. Just like you have to learn a new language, how to play an instrument, how to fly a plane, etc. It's another thing you have to learn. And the learning process has it's ups and downs. You will probably at some point kill your system and have to reinstall because you typed a wrong key. It has happend to me several times. It happens to everyone. that's just part of it. But the frustrations you have make the successes so much sweeter. Whenever I finally figure out something after a few hours of pulling my hair out, I feel like I just climbed a mountain. It's a great joy to know you just figured it out, and that you didn't need the GUI to hold your hand to do it.

Sure, people used teletypes with acoustic couplers to connect to a mainframe at the university 30 years ago. So what? The fundamentals are still relevant. Being able to communicate with your computer directly and fundamentally is one of the most powerful tools that we can have as users, and I hope that we never lose that tool.

[userundefine]

CLI is that something from the 80ies :lolflag:
So is GNU. Hell, UNIX is from the 70s. So what are you saying?

I love the command line. I *try* do everything I can from it except for the obvious GUI things like web browsing. I use irssi for IRC. Why run a large, clunky GUI program just for IRC? I like Konversation and Xchat, but they're more hindrances when I want to get to the chat NOW. If it's minimized, I have to go click to bring up the chat. I want to stay at the keyboard as much as possible. So, I run Yakuake, a KDE terminal that is always running in the background and displays/hides on keyboard shortcut. Moreover, I run irssi in screen, and thus I have unlimited terminals through yakuake without having to create 'tabs' and navigate each with a click.

CLI is just so much faster, and I try to find ways to do less from a GUI and move those habitual actions into CLI. For example, why load up a GUI prog to convert some flac files to another format? I wanted to get oggs from some flacs. So, I went cd dir && oggenc *.flac. Done! I use mplayer to stream and dump the contents of an RM file, then use mencoder to output the dumped file to an .avi in xvid. I can't even imagine how I'd go about this through GUIs.

I'm not a CLI guru yet either. I'm not much of a scripter, although I'd like to be, and I'm constantly learning stuff about bash (and vim, another staple of CLI). CLI is a great strength of Linux, hardly a hindrance.

[FyreBrand]

the CLI does what it does quickly and without fuss. If you can't use it, consider this:

Can you sit down at an organ and play it well, never having learned it? No? Then the organ must be a terrible instrument, incapable of producing satisfactory results.

Of course, you could break down and learn how to play Bach. But that might require understanding on your part.

I hope the command line never goes away. I missed it in Windows. Graphics come and go, windowing systems freeze and lock, but the terminal is extremely robust.I highlighted the part that stood out to me.

This last week over spring break I had to get ready for my classes. This meant two major changes for my system. First I had to install Fedora for a networking and server class. Next I had to install Visual Studio 2005 for a programming class and project.

I got the VS2005 installed. MSDNAA gave us the "pro" edition. The "Developer Edition" of SQL Server 2005 was really SQL 2005 Express Edition. But it didn't have a front end to manage the database among other things. So I had to install the SQL Express edition with advanced services. This meant reconfiguring the whole damn SQL server. I waded through Microsoft's MSDN site and found the answers to the toughest configuration questions (I guessed on the easy ones). There were pages of instructions that had me clicking through menus and dialogue boxes. Clickety click click click click click! It was a gui nightmare and not easy.

I thought to myself if I was over in Kubuntu configuring Apache and MySQL I could do this whole damn thing in a few quick commands at the terminal. For one thing I would have had to wonder what version I was using. I could use the command line and get the straight answer right away. Then I could tell it to load encryption and security modules. I wouldn't have to click through endless windows only to find out that I don't have the option to install ssl anyway.

Sorry for a ramble and rant, but I am so glad there is a terminal to get things done. It would be a nasty fight to take that away from me.

[hanzomon4]

The command line was actually the thing that won me over when I made the switch. Basically I saw an OS-X ad with a transparent terminal and bam I fell in love...

Back to reality, learning to use the command line is not as difficult as it seems and the benefits that come with it's use are hardly obvious. One incident that showed me the power of the command line was when I needed to move all of my .m4p files to a one folder. I kept my itunes folder on a usb hard drive and when I moved to linux from xp I used this folder as my music library folder. Problem was music apps would get stuck trying to play the drm-ed files. I had about 40 drm-ed files all of which were in sub directories of the iTunes dir(iTunes/Artist/Album). Going through each folder with nautilus would have been a pain so I used the find command.

With the find command I was able to search all of the sub-directories of the iTunes dir and pluck all of the .m4p files to a separate dir outside of my music library(iTunes dir). The one command was this:
find /path/ -iname "*m4p" -exec mv '{}' ~/music/ \;

find /path/ - tells find to search *path(ex. /media/usb/) -iname - tells find to be case insensitive "*m4p" - tells find to find all files in the search path that end in "m4p" -exec mv - tells find to execute mv on the found files '{}' - represents the files found that are to be moved ~/music/ \; - tells mv were to move the files to and the "\;" at the end stops bash from expanding any symbols used by the shell(I think)

To be honest the only way to learn the command line is to actually need to use it. In my case digging down into tons of files with nautilus proved to be my line in the sand, thus I learned a better to accomplish the same task. Getting kicked out of X in the early days of compiz-quinn taught me how to be comfortable using the command line as a file manager. Testing feisty and losing synaptic for a few days taught me how to search for files using apt-cache and read descriptions of packages all from the command line.

To summarize: Only through need will you grow...

[FoolsGold]

CLI, easily.

The GUI is nice when you don't quite know what you're looking for, you just run with it and see what happens. Once you know how things can be done with a terminal though, it's much quicker/more powerful.

[slayerboy]

Studying the command-line takes so much effort. I have been using Linux for a while but I still am not used to the command-line. GUI does a lot of things and it does not require you to research as much as how you will research for the command line.

I only use the command-line whenever I am given a code to enter. I do not improvise. I do not use the command-line to rename, move files, or whatever.

It is also possible that, one day, people will not have to use the command-line or the codes that one has memorized are obsolete. I find it sort of a waste of time to memorize a lot of things that I could not be using one day. Also, I do not think that a code is universal. Maybe, different distros require different codes.

They say that using the command-line can save you time. I say, maybe, studying those codes will take me more time because knowing those very advanced stuff means a lot of time in front of the manual.

Another thing that hinders me is the idea that you will have to research on codes before you use a terminal. Imagine if someone who has no experience with the command-line has to face a black screen (terminal) or a black screen in a window (terminal emulator). When I opened the terminal emulator, it did not come with a manual. There were some basic commands from the local Ubuntu documentation, but seeing them is not that easy for an inexperienced user and they are not complete and comprehensive enough for beginners. If a person who knows how to maximize technology faces the command-line without prior knowledge, what he will do is to RTFM or google. That's the way, but it also takes experience to realize that.

If a tech savvy dude who is not familiar with the command-line googles for guides about it, he will still have a hard time seeking for comprehensive guides. Once he finds the best ones, he will still have to exert hours and hours reading it.

The good thing about the command-line is the idea that codes make life easier and faster, but I do not see it as a good enough reason for me to study the command-line.

Please help me decide whether or not I should study the command-line.

I have an open mind when it comes to this issue.

Take a look at the post that is right above yours in this thread:


I highlighted the part that stood out to me.

This last week over spring break I had to get ready for my classes. This meant two major changes for my system. First I had to install Fedora for a networking and server class. Next I had to install Visual Studio 2005 for a programming class and project.

I got the VS2005 installed. MSDNAA gave us the "pro" edition. The "Developer Edition" of SQL Server 2005 was really SQL 2005 Express Edition. But it didn't have a front end to manage the database among other things. So I had to install the SQL Express edition with advanced services. This meant reconfiguring the whole damn SQL server. I waded through Microsoft's MSDN site and found the answers to the toughest configuration questions (I guessed on the easy ones). There were pages of instructions that had me clicking through menus and dialogue boxes. Clickety click click click click click! It was a gui nightmare and not easy.

I thought to myself if I was over in Kubuntu configuring Apache and MySQL I could do this whole damn thing in a few quick commands at the terminal. For one thing I would have had to wonder what version I was using. I could use the command line and get the straight answer right away. Then I could tell it to load encryption and security modules. I wouldn't have to click through endless windows only to find out that I don't have the option to install ssl anyway.

Sorry for a ramble and rant, but I am so glad there is a terminal to get things done. It would be a nasty fight to take that away from me.

Let me tell you why I favor the CLI over the GUI in some instances, and some others I favor the opposite. If I'm trying to install or configure software in a GUI, it's a series of constant clicks. If I am not familiar with the software and I look online for help, it's a constant flipping between the actual program and web browser or I have to print out the instructions, and even then I still might click the wrong thing. This is fine for simple tasks.

But when I go search the forum or google on how to install drivers for my nvidia graphics card and just copy and paste the command into the terminal, it's almost insulting my intelligence. But that is MUCH easier to type a command to execute a script that does several things and see output almost instantly if there were any errors. Granted you could probably do this in a GUI, but it makes the file size to download that much bigger and bloated. Copy and paste is really about all I know with the CLI, besides stuff like "ls -a, ls -l, cd, etc...etc...etc" Don't be fooled when someone tells you to enter a command in the terminal.

And actually...I have to admit....without the GUI, you wouldn't really have copy and paste, so the GUi has +1 there. But CLI does things much quicker, especially updating your system. Not to mention it's easier to support someone when you can tell them exactly what to copy and paste, there's really no confusion there.:)

[arbulus]

Aysiu kinda beat me to it, and also relating back to my earlier post: learning Linux is an interesting concept. Where any of us to say to someone "I use Linux", it wouldn't make much sense to most people. There are so many flavors of Linux that one has to be specific. I use Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat, etc. That's because things work differently between distros. Take an average new-comer to Ubuntu and drop them in the middle of Gentoo and they'd be lost. But on an even more simple note, switch the Desktop Environment.

Say you run Ubuntu with Gnome, but then you're put in front of a comp running Xubuntu with XFCE. Or, a little further, you go from Ubuntu with Gnome to Ubuntu with Fluxbox. Suddenly, you're in a completely new world. Things don't appear the same way. Menus are different, things function differently. Now, it's still the same OS underneath, but your GUI is a completely new world. How do you level the playing field between all of these variables? The Command Line. Your commands are going to be roughly the same. Now granted, there are a few differences, such as Slackware's use of rc instead of init for application control, or the differnces with repositories between distros, but those things are a pittance compared to the other 99% of the commands that are the same. If you were given a Gentoo CLI next to an Ubuntu CLI you could still type "mv ~/pictures/rome ~/pictures/vacation" on both machines and achieve the same result. Conversely, if you had Gentoo with Fluxbox and Ubuntu with Gnome you'd have to seach around a bit to figure out exaclty what you needed to do in the GUI in order to do that on each one.

My point is that GUI is superfluous. It comes and goes. Gnome, KDE, FVWM, Fluxbox - you have different worlds of UI here that require learning in each. But there is a universal language that transcends all of that: the CLI. If you know the CLI, then you know Linux and Unix. You become a power user that can be comfortable in any environment that you end up because you know how to ask the computer to do exactly what you want it to do without confusion. Then, you can experiment with the "window dressing" that makes your experience more aestheticly pleasing, but can hold on to the knowledge that no matter what that aesthetic is, you can still get a job done.

[eentonig]

Apache and proxy can be done through webmin if I'm correct. So they can be removed from the list.

[Brunellus]

Apache and proxy can be done through webmin if I'm correct. So they can be removed from the list.
Webmin's security has been a concern lately.

A headless server, administered via the command line, accessed via ssh, simply has fewer things that can go wrong.

[waxapple]

I voted, then I was somewhat surprised to see GUI way out in front.

CLI all the way.

[n0dl]

World War III will be fought with ENIACs and Punch cards. Are you prepared?
I voted CLI by the way. I like X... But i use it because i can open 20 Xterminals at once...

[tbroderick]

I voted CLI by the way. I like X... But i use it because i can open 20 Xterminals at once...

Have you tried screen? Great tool if you want 20 terminals open but don't want 20 separate windows.

[PrimoTurbo]

I think it's important to create a desktop that doesn't require the use of a terminal to accomplish all tasks, however at the same time a terminal should always by an option.

I think the problem with new users is that they have no idea what they are doing when using the terminal, instead of telling people to type up a command maybe explain clearly what the command does and how each part works. Perhaps there needs to be a New User guide provided after an install of Ubuntu that explains very clearly and easily some of the BASICS of a Linux desktop and command line.

[Tundro Walker]

This topic is way over-posted, so I doubt anyone will read this, but...

I think both the GUI and the CLI can use improvement.

1) I agree that CLI-phobes should have a GUI way to do things. However, a GUI solution usually involves more overhead (windows, button clicking, etc) to do things then CLI. But, it gives folks a nice, presentable way of doing things where they don't have to guess at what to type, or what options they have. They can just explore the GUI and figure it out, w/o needing a manual on-hand.

2) I also agree that the CLI is more powerful. But, I think it needs to be made even more powerful by using "intellisense" and such. I know you can type a command, and hit TAB to see a list of possible ones to complete it with. But, I think while you type, it should start auto-suggesting such to begin with, much like modern IDE's do today. The CLI is powerful, but it's still pretty archaic. I think modern-day ideas should be melded into it, like intellisense.

[Brunellus]

This topic is way over-posted, so I doubt anyone will read this, but...

I think both the GUI and the CLI can use improvement.

1) I agree that CLI-phobes should have a GUI way to do things. However, a GUI solution usually involves more overhead (windows, button clicking, etc) to do things then CLI. But, it gives folks a nice, presentable way of doing things where they don't have to guess at what to type, or what options they have. They can just explore the GUI and figure it out, w/o needing a manual on-hand.

2) I also agree that the CLI is more powerful. But, I think it needs to be made even more powerful by using "intellisense" and such. I know you can type a command, and hit TAB to see a list of possible ones to complete it with. But, I think while you type, it should start auto-suggesting such to begin with, much like modern IDE's do today. The CLI is powerful, but it's still pretty archaic. I think modern-day ideas should be melded into it, like intellisense.
God save me from a shell that is "smarter" than me. I would be horrified to see the shell autocomplete things that I hadn't even typed yet.

If you're interested in shells other than bash, you might want to check out fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell). I haven't used it myself, however. I stick with bash, since that's the Linux default. I've used (*ever* so briefly) ch and tsch and busybox (which isn't really a shell). But picking a shell is one of those things: if you don't know how to use bash, you won't know to pick another shell. If you know to pick another shell, you either have very specific needs or you already know bash...

[goumples]

I'd say Linux without a command-line is a long, long way off, so till that time new users need to be introduced to it. It's a very scary thing in most cases so the earlier they get used to at least doing a couple of things here and there, the better. It doesn't have to be a throw in the deep end, it can just be splashing your feet in the water, as long as you realise that in the end, it's just water (or a command line).

On a side note, I'm getting pretty annoyed at Windows' auto-complete (TAB) feature. I'll type 'cd Proga<TAB>' and change into the directory, and the VERY NEXT THING I'll type is 'ls'! Every time!

I perfer CLI to GUI when doing alot of things.. I suppose one day things will be so seemless that a command prompt will be redundant.. but not this day!!

[rai4shu2]

I use Worker, but I wonder whether Midnight Commander counts as GUI or CLI.

[hsweet]

Beginners these days need a gui.

Even for experienced folks, it's hard to remember all the switches and commands. (It would be nice to have a good, small handbook of some sort). man lists all the dozens of switches but I would like to have a few simple examples at the top before all the screenfull of details. I usually head to a web browser to find an example or 2 if I can't remember some command's syntax.

The cli can't be beat for automating stuff. And for when the gui misfires (I had a server's ip stuff set up gui-wise where the mask was reported incorectly by ifconfig. The gui wouldn't fix it but the cli did)

Maybe what is needed is something similar to w3schools.com where you can play with live examples of how to..... whatever without a gui.

enjoy the beer.

[Foxmike]

Well, as I love GNOME GUI, I must say that CLI is very fun to use once you get used to it.

Since I began with Linux (1 1/2 y ago with Breezy), I've never been afraid by command line instructions to copy/paste in terminal, though I would have sometimes appreciate a comment after each just to explain the action the command line is doing. That way, it would have been a lot easyer to learn. I actually try to do that as much as I can when helping someone.

As for the end, I found command line so fun that I decided to give Gentoo install (via stage3 tarball) a try... Tho some people might call it masochism :roll:

[johntkucz]

hey poofy, brilliant initial post, love the detail. laughing about the F.No F. multiple-answer.

[johntkucz]

plus the CLI just looks WAY cooler in action than dragging around windows, but it's good to have the GUI as a back up.

[unrandomsam]

This topic is way over-posted, so I doubt anyone will read this, but...

I think both the GUI and the CLI can use improvement.

1) I agree that CLI-phobes should have a GUI way to do things. However, a GUI solution usually involves more overhead (windows, button clicking, etc) to do things then CLI. But, it gives folks a nice, presentable way of doing things where they don't have to guess at what to type, or what options they have. They can just explore the GUI and figure it out, w/o needing a manual on-hand.

2) I also agree that the CLI is more powerful. But, I think it needs to be made even more powerful by using "intellisense" and such. I know you can type a command, and hit TAB to see a list of possible ones to complete it with. But, I think while you type, it should start auto-suggesting such to begin with, much like modern IDE's do today. The CLI is powerful, but it's still pretty archaic. I think modern-day ideas should be melded into it, like intellisense.

Try zsh

http://grml.org/zsh/zsh-lovers.html (should get you started - you can set it up to make things much more intuitive than with bash)

[stylofone]

I've done a fair bit of training with computer users of all levels of experience, on text-based and GUI systems, and this is my take.

The GUI is the start and end of most people's computer experience. If Ubuntu does not encompass this reality, it will remain a niche system for geeks. The CLI looks to most people like a black hole, telling them nothing, mocking their ignorance. To use it you need to know the command and the options. A GUI can, for example, present the command, and all the options in a drop down box, with little hints that pop up on rollover. It's so much more useable to so many more people.

Here's another example. I used to have a little windows program to list in a text file the contents of a directory. I used it to catalog discs. I replaced the whole program in linux with this command:

ls -RCla /media/cdrom0> /home/stylofone/stuff/list.txt

Now, there's no way I have the patience to type that out every time, or remember it, or even remember the name of a script I include it in. So I made a panel icon for it. Now I just click that icon. One click! It's just so much more organic and easy once it's turned into a GUI element. I can tell my Mum and she'll remember it.

Yes, there are things the CLI can do very well. There are also things a GUI can do better, yet a GUI does not yet exist for them in linux. This OS is not finished! Give us GUIs!

I'm coming to this debate late, but it pops up very high in a google search, so I guess the thread is still alive and kicking.

[Genecks]

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"

I started messing with computers in the days when a person needed to boot Windows from DOS. ^_^ I'm more comfortable with a command-line interface, as long as it does what I want it to do. Yet since the revolutionary days of Windows 95, when things became more graphical and complex, I've begun to use the GUI more often. I keep thinking of DOS whenever I play with bash, so I feel like it's a step in the past.

The only thing that made me walk away from Linux was the inability to use wireless Internet two years ago. However, I am now able to use my netgear, so there is little problem.

I don't like the idea of using CLI anymore, because GUI's were created to simplify everything. If I did use a CLI in later versions of windows, it was for two important things:

1) I could manipulate files and directories faster that way
2) I needed to use an old program

WIth the additional speed by today's computers, I can quickly move things in WIndows, so I don't have any large problems. GUIs were created to simplify actions that were done over and over and over again, by multiple, various users. I had all the commands of DOS memorized at one point in life. Yet, as the speed in personal computer began to rise, I could use the GUI faster than the CLI. Apparently, I'm going to reduce work and time needed, thus giving me more power as a user.

As I'm using Kubuntu more and more, I believe some GUIs would be in order. I'm starting to use some simple commands over and over again, and a GUI could easily take the place of these actions.

[a12ctic]

CLI apps are so much simpler. I don't like having to drag my mouse all over the place. For somethings I like a GUI (like a web browser, instant messager, or music player) but for thigns like encoding, moving files, renaming files, installing programs, etc, i prefer the command line by a long shot. I mean seriously, whats simpler than apt-get install x or if its not on apt just do wget *.deb
dpkg -i *.deb

[aysiu]

I don't like having to drag my mouse all over the place. Well-designed GUI apps have a full set of keyboard shortcuts.

[Genecks]

Ultimately, it's all about saving time. I'm sure if you could click on the program within a directory twice instead of having to type "apt-get," then you would reconsider the CLI.


]I'd say Linux without a command-line is a long, long way off, so till that time new users need to be introduced to it. It's a very scary thing in most cases so the earlier they get used to at least doing a couple of things here and there, the better. It doesn't have to be a throw in the deep end, it can just be splashing your feet in the water, as long as you realise that in the end, it's just water (or a command line).

I remember being in Best Buy, a electronics-retail store, over four years ago. The first thing I asked the person at Best Buy was this: Does it have MS-DOS?

Sure, command-line interfaces are still nice for typing out things and getting tasks accomplished. Typing "ping" in a CLI is faster than loading and using a program.

[mrgnash]

There is no 'VS.', the two are complimentary.

[GrueTamer]

As some people know, the CLI is my best friend, and I run a window manager that utilizes none of the pretty gui tools of Gnome, or of KDE. These tools are still important, mind you, as they can save new users from terror (cmon, most people think that they'll mess up in a CLI more often than in a GUI), and can help users who don't know much of the CLI/are learning it a chance to still use their computer without much CLI knowledge/learn how the CLI works.

But knowing the CLI, even in this day of GUI dominance, is still one of the most important, if not THE most important, thing to learn, no matter how long it takes you. If your X won't start, and you don't know how to do basic things in a CLI, your computer may have become useless. It is for this very purpose that I have started compiling a lot of information about the CLI for my own knowledge, and so that I may better help users of ubuntu who need CLI help.

Even if the CLI scares you, the only way to gain dominance over the fear is to embrace it, even if it's bit by bit, every day for a few years. Just open your mind and jump in, it's worth it :)

[stylofone]

The CLI is important you say, but important to who? The original point of this forum was how to help newcomers. Try to think of a casual computer user; I imagine how my parents would react if I tried to introduce them to Ubuntu. If they are forced to use the CLI, then I've failed. When it comes to their computer, they don't want to launch some self-improvement project that will take years, they want instant gratification.

I guess what I'm saying is that we need to focus on CLI avoidance for people like my parents, and CLI enhancement for people like you and me. So yes, I agree with you that the CLI is great, in fact it's a mature and well-developed part of Linux... but I want to make the point that the advancement of the GUI is the real mountain to climb, it's not finished and it needs development.




But knowing the CLI, even in this day of GUI dominance, is still one of the most important, if not THE most important, thing to learn, no matter how long it takes you. If your X won't start, and you don't know how to do basic things in a CLI, your computer may have become useless. It is for this very purpose that I have started compiling a lot of information about the CLI for my own knowledge, and so that I may better help users of ubuntu who need CLI help.

Even if the CLI scares you, the only way to gain dominance over the fear is to embrace it, even if it's bit by bit, every day for a few years. Just open your mind and jump in, it's worth it :)

[aysiu]

I guess what I'm saying is that we need to focus on CLI avoidance for people like my parents, and CLI enhancement for people like you and me. If you want to focus on CLI avoidance for your parents, fine. You can help your parents in person.

For online help on a text-based forum, the CLI is the best, easiest, fastest, and most informative way to offer help to people experiencing problems. And most people on these forums are "people like you and me." They are not your parents or "casual users" as you call them.

In any case, you don't have to force new users to use the CLI to rip a CD or edit a photo, but if someone tells me "Synaptic Package Manager seems to launch, but then the window disappears right away," I have no idea how to help that person. If, instead, she posts the terminal output of the command
gksudo synaptic I can better diagnose what's going on.


The original point of this forum was how to help newcomers. These are support forums, and the best way to give support (especially since some people use Kubuntu or Xubuntu) is through terminal commands.

In some cases, I'll post screenshots if I think they're appropriate for the problem at hand, but this is an online forum, and it's not that difficult to copy and paste commands (retyping is for the birds).

[init1]

I use the xterm a lot, so I will go with CLI

[Feba]

I don't understand the command line, yet, but I definitely appreciate it more than the GUI, despite the fact that I'm practically dead without a GUI.

[blackspyder]

While I spend most of my time working with the GUI (as its just a little easier for me). i am not shy about opening up the command line and getting something done from there if the need arises. While Im still a N00B at the *nix commands I have books on essential Linux commands and phrases. If the person helping me tells me to use the command line and gives me the command to use I look up each part of it in my little books so i can understand it and if I cant find it I'll ask after i do it.

Learning the command line is important even if you use windows. If explorer goes down because of a virus all you have is the command line left to run various anti-virus programs like HiJackThis so your not stuck in a reformat and reinstall motion.

[ep2011]

I'm very similar to many others. I usually use guis (Gaim and firefox mostly). But if I need something such as moving files, deleting root files, editing root files, etc, I use nano and the Command Line. So much simplar (I acually used to run "gksudo nautilus" but I don't anymore).

Edit: I also ALWAYS use aptitude to install packages. (To search packages I use aptitude search *blah*)

[Channic]

I'm not a master at CLI, I forgot most of the basics. At least I can start with a bare linux system (arch, net-install debian, gentoo, etc) and get everything working from there. But when in GNOME I usually stick to the GUI program that I have. But then again when I get documentation I like to have it in command line for simple copy and pasting . . . so lazy here.

[Celegorm]

I suppose I use the GUI more, but I use the CLI a lot, especially for writing simple C programs or doing anything complicated. There are a lot of things that I'll do either in the GUI or CLI depending on my mood, like moving files or installing new packages. Plenty of things are easier or faster in the CLI, and some things that are easier in the GUI (like web browsing, have you ever tried to browse the web from a terminal?) and it's generally best to know ways to do the same thing in both.

The advantage of the GUI is that you usually don't need to know what you are doing in order to find out how to do at least the simple things, and so of course it's more comfortable for someone who is entirely new to linux (and doubly so for anyone who has only used a GUI in the past), but I definitely think that new users should be introduced to the CLI early on, so they will see that it doesn't bite ;)

[tashmooclam]

I believe that people will usually feel more safe using the GUI, because it seems that you can "cancel" anything you think may be likely to screw up something.

For example, I noticed that I like download manager GUI because I think it "knows" what I should and should not try to download.
I used the terminal a couple of times, entering the info given to me by a complete stranger. I crossed my fingers because I was afraid I had made some irreversible change to something.
Having just begun using Ubuntu, I have no idea if I can do more "damage" using the terminal or a GUI for something.
GUIs are inherently more approachable by the new user.
It's cool that the terminal is there however. Impress your friends! :cool:

[userundefine]

I believe that people will usually feel more safe using the GUI, because it seems that you can "cancel" anything you think may be likely to screw up something.

For example, I noticed that I like download manager GUI because I think it "knows" what I should and should not try to download.
I used the terminal a couple of times, entering the info given to me by a complete stranger. I crossed my fingers because I was afraid I had made some irreversible change to something.
Having just begun using Ubuntu, I have no idea if I can do more "damage" using the terminal or a GUI for something.
GUIs are inherently more approachable by the new user.
It's cool that the terminal is there however. Impress your friends! :cool:
If you're worried about a command someone has given you, you should always man *command* and read what it actually does.

And CLI has a cancel button too. It's Ctrl+C. But you're right, you can do much more damage from CLI.

[aysiu]

If you're worried about a command someone has given you, you should always man *command* and read what it actually does.

And CLI has a cancel button too. It's Ctrl+C. But you're right, you can do much more damage from CLI.
Or, if you're lazy, wait an hour or two before running it. If someone gives a bad command (with ill intent or not), it's very likely that another forum user will step in and say, "Hey, don't run that command."

[TheeMahn2003]

In the past I have read and learned much from you, you are quite the Mahn of *nix especially when it comes to eyecandy. I have used your howto for composite video, before any beryl, compiz or for that matter compiz-fusion, or whatever they decide to call it even existed... I do have intentions of doing the exact thing that this topic is based upon. In windows world called a mime type based application, I will make it happen, I do have priorities that I have to take care of first but none the less when I am done the terminal will be dead. I personally like the terminal, but do not feel others should have to tolerate it.

I have written perhaps 100's of programs for windows, most utilising the API (advanced programming interface). A simple task, or so I hope to create exactly what this post is here for. I thought I would touch bases with you for testing purposes, for not just my version of Ubuntu but all. Do you mind if I post code and scripts to your thread for testing?

I would like to know if anything has been started, one thing I have learned is do not re-create the wheel when it comes to programming.

Best regards,

TheeMahn

[Kossilar]

When I first installed Ubuntu, my videocard didn't work. So I had to download and install the driver from the commandline.

I was lucky because I had a second computer in the same room and used it to figure out how to do that. The experience helped me to become very familiar and comfortable with getting things done in this way and my Linux experience has been much improved as a result.

I think that Linux should never remove the command line entirely. However I think its also important to have simple, streamlined ways of taking care of simple problems.

[RageOfOrder]

Gentoo & Slackware user, I think you know which I use the most. :)

[Omnios]

Hi Poof.

Personally I kind of prefer both but this got me thinking. I hacked a few scripts and added open terminal here.


#!/bin/bash
#
cd $NAUTILUS_SCRIPT_CURRENT_URI
exec gnome-terminal


Anyways this got me to thinking about GUI and CLI and its integration. So kind of thinking it might be interesting to be able to add open terminal here etc to the GUI. I llso got thinking it might be interesting to have a CLI terminal that has some GUI linkit type features. So say you use the ls command and a bunch of files show up. Now with a linkit a user could click a file in the ls list and navigate to that file from doing so.

I think there can be a lot of things done like this but one of the problems is getting interest of developers and posting it in community discussions will not do that.

Another interesting aspect of this could be a remote server control to make it easier to control than a normal terminal.

Um soft of like a terminal simplified browser program with a lot of abilities.

[ubuntu27]

Hi Poof.

Personally I kind of prefer both but this got me thinking. I hacked a few scripts and added open terminal here.


#!/bin/bash
#
cd $NAUTILUS_SCRIPT_CURRENT_URI
exec gnome-terminal


Anyways this got me to thinking about GUI and CLI and its integration. So kind of thinking it might be interesting to be able to add open terminal here etc to the GUI. abilities.

This already can be done. Simply install nautilus-open-terminal from the repository.


sudo aptitude install nautilus-open-terminal

As for your idea about CLI and GUI integration, i like it. :)

[flatwombat]

I'm really surprised to see the current state of the Poll. Approximately one third of the responders use the CLI more than Gui and this is in a distro that has been labeled by some as a 'new user' distro.

To me, it shows that people who are attracted to linux like to get under the hood, no matter what the distro and don't mind learning coding in the process. I suspect that even the 2/3rd. majority does open a terminal and do some typing from time to time. :)

[rolando2424]

Anyways this got me to thinking about GUI and CLI and its integration. So kind of thinking it might be interesting to be able to add open terminal here etc to the GUI. I llso got thinking it might be interesting to have a CLI terminal that has some GUI linkit type features. So say you use the ls command and a bunch of files show up. Now with a linkit a user could click a file in the ls list and navigate to that file from doing so.

I think there can be a lot of things done like this but one of the problems is getting interest of developers and posting it in community discussions will not do that.

Another interesting aspect of this could be a remote server control to make it easier to control than a normal terminal.

Um soft of like a terminal simplified browser program with a lot of abilities.

ah... Hotwire?

sudo apt-get install hotwire (I think...)

I can't remember if it has all those feature though.

[thinsoldier]

Most windows users I know have never even seen the command line in windows.

The few that have used it to release/renew their ip address with ipconfig.

The thing about the few reasons why an average windows users would use the CLI is that in most cases it's fully explained to them what they're doing in the command line and commands like 'ipconfig' obviously mean that it has something to do with configuring your ip address. A few dozen calls to ISP tech support and most people eventually understand what an IP address is and it's importance to being able to "surf google"

People hopefully have at least a vague sense of what's going on when using a gui and it's more of a 'physical' process in that they can remember the 'directions' to a location and a goal.

Some seem to handle multiple steps in a gui better than in a cli where everything you see is some cryptic nick name or code word. GUI windows tend to have plain English titles and plain English menu items

Someone (like me) might ask:
"Why can't I save files on my windows drive?"
and get an answer like this:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=217009&highlight=ntfs-3g+easy

W T F ???
A brave person might be willing to try but there's a good chance that when it's all done they still have no clue what they just did or why/how it worked.

If anything you type in a CLI can be saved as a script file and made executable why don't people try just scripting up what will fix someone's problem and tell them to download and double click the file and all their troubles will go away. That's what most people really want.

[aysiu]

Someone (like me) might ask:
"Why can't I save files on my windows drive?"
and get an answer like this:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=217009&highlight=ntfs-3g+easy

W T F ???
A brave person might be willing to try but there's a good chance that when it's all done they still have no clue what they just did or why/how it worked. That HowTo is a bit old.

This one is more up-to-date:
Windows NTFS Partitions Read/write support made easy in Ubuntu Feisty (http://www.ubuntugeek.com/widows-ntfs-partitions-readwrite-support-made-easy-in-ubuntu-feisty.html)

[smartboyathome]

I usually use the terminal for little things like installing programs that I already know the package name of (no need to waste time waiting for Synaptic to search for it). Other than my Python lessons, I don't use it all that often.

[WeeWillyWacko]

The basis of what you use boils down to how you were taught to use the computer. I know lots of folks who started on mainframes who think that the whole personal computer thing is a fad. I also know a number of *VERY* intelligent people who wouldn't be caught pointing and clicking. Ultimately, the human-computer interface has to make the next quantum leap. Neither remembering the entire command ref for Linux nor the exact sequence of stuff to point and click really get us where we need to be. I personally, point, click, kbd (shortcut), and command-line based on shortest path. Whatever method is fastest (and I can remember) is what I use.

[DaveAK]

Personally I hate using the mouse, it slows things down. A good GUI to me would have to be easy to navigate using just the keyboard. I want to know WHAT I'm doing, not just HOW to do it, and I think CLI helps with that. As a newbie I'm having to learn a lot of stuff, and all these HOW-TOs with their commands are helping me to do that. I'd like to learn alot more keyboard shortcuts to use from the desktop, they're fantastic time savers, I use them all the time in Windows.

ETA: Oh, and I vary rarely read an entire thread that's this long. :D So ditto what WeeWillyWacko said. :)

[g2g591]

I gotta agree, because once you learn the basics of the command line, you fix your system far more easily (like when you must reinstall windows and it takes over your mbr, or another distro uses their own boot menu)

[extremenachos]

so, I installed Ubuntu a few days ago, and other than tripping up my XP install, I'm really impressed with the professional quality of the OS. I've never used Linux before, so this being my first foray into using the terminal window, I really am struck at the unneeded complexity it brings.

I grew up with a Mac, switched to Windows during 98, so I never needed DOS. So why the heck do you need a terminal window in Linux? why can't I just double-click an installer and let it install the files where they belong? why doesn't Ubuntu come with a manual on how to work in the terminal, maybe a little tutorial or at least a crib sheet.

Trying to get software to install in Ubuntu (i.e. flash player) is more frustrating than any problem I have ever dealt with in Windows. Honest to god! Seeing Linux using a terminal reminds me of how smug MS-Dos users about their DOS skills.

Can somebody please explain to me why Linux needs a terminal window before I give up on it all together!

[Nekiruhs]

This surprises you? Macs still have a terminal too you know. And a functional console was one of Vistas major selling points. Any reason Synaptic didn't work for you? Its under System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager.

[Seti]

A terminal is a wonderful way for those of us that know how to execute commands directly using GNU utilities and talk directly to the linux kernel. Although you can do just about everything using the GUI in most modern linux distros, the CLI is still a very nice option to have.
Nobody is telling you that you HAVE to use the terminal to do stuff. Over time, however, if you have any interest in learning how to do stuff in the terminal, you will find it very liberating, trust me.

[picpak]

Trying to get software to install in Ubuntu (i.e. flash player) is more frustrating than any problem I have ever dealt with in Windows. Honest to god! Seeing Linux using a terminal reminds me of how smug MS-Dos users about their DOS skills.

Installing Flash is easy (http://ubuntu.freehostia.com/guides/addremove/#flash).

We don't use the terminal for instructions because we're smug, it's because people use different desktop environments (Gnome, KDE, Xfce, etc) and doing so ensures that we support all of them. It's also quicker and less error-prone to copy and paste instructions than to point-and-click.

If you don't want to use the terminal for installing software, you can use System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager or Applications > Add/Remove.

[Paul820]

You don't need to use the terminal all the time, most software can be installed through synaptic, or clicking on a deb file. The terminal is a very powerful tool to communicate directly with the kernel. Here is a link to teach you some commands http://www.linuxcommand.org/

I'm not a expert on the terminal so some other guys/girls could tell more. Don't be put off by it, once you learn some of the commands it's very easy to use. I am learning it and i think it's really good.

[Pancetilla]

Why not?

I'm clumsy with the mouse, I prefer apt-getting. It is much faster and you have more control. My terminal starts automatically every time gnome starts.

[Henry Rayker]

CLI is an amazing tool that accomplishes things you could not possibly (without an ungodly amount of complexity) do in a GUI. Sure, installing things can be daunting, but once you learn that a vast majority of packages can be installed by:

cd /location/of/tar
tar -xvf nameoftar.tar.bz2
cd nameoftar
./configure
sudo make install

You will be fine.

[stimpack]

Linux shells are not comparable to DOS. Linux shells are insanely powerful in the right hands. They also better for batching and automating tasks than GUIs

However!, you don't need to do much in a shell if you dislike them. Most things have a GUI frontend.

For installing software, look at Synaptic in Ubuntu or Adept in Kubuntu.

[23meg]

so this being my first foray into using the terminal window, I really am struck at the unneeded complexity it brings.

If you find the complexity it brings unneeded for your needs, don't use it.


why can't I just double-click an installer and let it install the files where they belong?

You can. Try double clicking a deb file.


why doesn't Ubuntu come with a manual on how to work in the terminal, maybe a little tutorial or at least a crib sheet.


It does: System / Help And Support / Advanced Topics / Using the Command Line



Trying to get software to install in Ubuntu (i.e. flash player) is more frustrating than any problem I have ever dealt with in Windows. Honest to god!

Beside the fact that you can install Flash in the exact same way as in Windows, many tasks are handled differently, since this is a different operating system. You'll have to do some unlearning and relearning.


Seeing Linux using a terminal

Linux doesn't and can't use a terminal; you may choose to use it, or not to use it.

[Dragonbite]

I've gotten 99.9% of the functionality out of my Edubuntu without even touching the command line. The only time(s) I have is more by choice than by necessity and the time it was necessary it wasn't Ubuntu or Linux, it was Cisco and their VPN client. Since it isn't something in the repositories (I tried all the others, nothing worked) I was trapped by what Cisco gave me which was bare-minimum.

[extremenachos]

Well I'm glad to see so many responses to my thread. Thanks everyone, though it seems this forum is use to Linux bashers.

I think my view of the command line is similar to the whole notion of 'elite Speak', its kind of a self-satisfying, self-congratulatory way of showing off your computer skills. Everyone who responded to this thread comments that you have more functionality, but didn't exactly note any specific gains from (excluding a vague reference to talking directly to the kernel). I think that this is a very telling observation.

I think the trouble here is that Linux/Ubuntu is going to need to dumb it down for the masses if we ever want to see a large enough number of PCs switching to Linux; Which is a good thing because that means that Microsoft will have to respond to the completion by not releasing crap like Vista. the Add/Remove and Synaptic is a great idea, but I think the terminal needs to be completely removed from the picture.


And the problem I was having with Flash was that it's not compatible with Ubuntu 64.

but still, I'm completely impressed with Ubuntu.

[fuscia]

if you're having trouble with something, it's a lot easier to copy&paste a few commands into a terminal than to have the poor helper have to go through a whole pile of illustrations of gui solutions. all you're really experiencing now is unfamiliarity. once you realize how easy it is to enter commands someone else wrote, you'll appreciate the benefit.

[toupeiro]

I think its important to note for the sake of relevance,

Linux is a Command Interpretor based operating system that happens to have a GUI. Without the CLI, there would be no gnome, kde, or anything else. This separation adds a dynamic that is pretty much lost in the windows world. Sure, windows has a command prompt. a linux OS IS a command prompt, gnome is a suite of X11 applications.

So, asking why Linux needs a terminal window is kind of like asking why windows needs a GUI. :)

Command line tools give you the added abilities of batch processing, stringing several completely independent commands together, and very easy text input, output manipulation that can be cumbersome in a GUI. also, when a GUI freezes, you have a completely separated layer to work on and fix your problems, most times without rebooting. They also streamline and make efficient, tasks that do not require the overhead of a GUI interface, so the performance of command line tools are usually better and more resource efficient.

We're in an age where routers and switches are configured by housewives and 10 year olds, and Jr. High Schoolers are coding in XML on their personal blogs... I think dumbing down is the last thing needed. Microsoft Windows vista is the result of what happens when you "dumb down" an operating system. I invite you to use if if thats what you feel you need.

[stmiller]

Linux existed as a text-only operating system at first (the same as early MSDOS, and Unix). So the fundamental roots of the operating system are ones that are completely text / command line based. It is on top of this base that we have nice desktop applications now. (Or you can still only have a text-based install of Linux!)

Early graphical 'X' windowing systems looked like this: (we've come a long way!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:X-Window-System.png

[Spr0k3t]

And the problem I was having with Flash was that it's not compatible with Ubuntu 64.

There are two ways around this problem.


32bit browser with 32bit plugins
64bit browser with 32bit plugins using 64bit wrapper classes


I prefer the later method; however flash is not extremely stable and can crash some times. The result of this is flash will just not work. The way to fix this is to close the browser and load it back up.

Installing 32bit flash with a 64bit browser. I used Kilz install script and haven't had a problem outside of the above mentioned. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=476924)

From what I've seen though, installing 32bit plugins (such as flash) is cake with the 32bit install.

As for Linux bashers... I'm fairly sure we've heard them all. Feel free to stick around and ask any questions you may have. If you want a particular application and don't know the linux counterpart for it, drop a note, as I'm sure someone may know of one.

[Celegorm]

I think my view of the command line is similar to the whole notion of 'elite Speak', its kind of a self-satisfying, self-congratulatory way of showing off your computer skills. Everyone who responded to this thread comments that you have more functionality, but didn't exactly note any specific gains from (excluding a vague reference to talking directly to the kernel). I think that this is a very telling observation.

Unlike leet speak, the terminal is actually vastly useful. I'm sure there are those who use it to brag about their skills, but personally, that's not something that ever even occured to me to brag about. In fact, one time I asked a mac using friend if he ever used the terminal in OS X and was surprised at his response "Oh no, I'm not that advanced a computer user." because it revealed his perspective of viewing terminal usage as something difficult or amazing that real experts and computer nerds do, whereas I view it as something common place that most linux users do. I suppose it was a bit misguided to think it likely that non-nerd mac users would use the terminal just because their OS is unix-based now, especially as most "normal" computer users (and even nerds) tend to be intimidated by the terminal if they've never used it before. Using a terminal is not actually that hard, once you've taken a little time to get used to it.

Being able to use the terminal whenever I want is actually one of my favorite things about linux, more so the longer I use it. I feel as if I have a lot more control over things when using a terminal, and that I better understand what is going on than I do when just clicking things in a GUI. In menus and control panels, you can only put so many options, but a CLI allows you tweak (using options) and combine things (using the pipe) in so many ways, and when something generates an error, the terminal often gives useful error messages, whereas a GUI application (unless you started it from a terminal) won't necessarily tell you what went wrong when it crashed or something went wrong. I'd explain more about why the terminal is so cool and useful, but I have a feeling this post would turn into more of a command line tutorial if I did so.

[slavik]

so, I installed Ubuntu a few days ago, and other than tripping up my XP install, I'm really impressed with the professional quality of the OS. I've never used Linux before, so this being my first foray into using the terminal window, I really am struck at the unneeded complexity it brings.

I grew up with a Mac, switched to Windows during 98, so I never needed DOS. So why the heck do you need a terminal window in Linux? why can't I just double-click an installer and let it install the files where they belong? why doesn't Ubuntu come with a manual on how to work in the terminal, maybe a little tutorial or at least a crib sheet.

Trying to get software to install in Ubuntu (i.e. flash player) is more frustrating than any problem I have ever dealt with in Windows. Honest to god! Seeing Linux using a terminal reminds me of how smug MS-Dos users about their DOS skills.

Can somebody please explain to me why Linux needs a terminal window before I give up on it all together!

1. Right tool for the right job. There are things I can do in a terminal that will take ages to do in a GUI
for example(not, find syntax is most likely wrong):
find -atime 1 . | xargs rm #remove all files accesses a day or more in the past.

2. once you unpackage adobe's file, you have the choice of running the shell script without opening a terminal. but why are you doing that anyway? the repo should have flash-nonfree :)

here's another goody (in perl):
cat /etc/passwd | perl -ne `s/^(.*?)(?::.*?)+:(.*?):.*?$/print $1."\t".$2."\n"/e;` #print all users in the system and their home paths/directories

there are things I've seen done to archived ticker files that takes like 5-6 lines of shell commands that take 2 minutes to write out. and no extra space needed :) (besides the buffering of pipes)

[Henry Rayker]

Well I'm glad to see so many responses to my thread. Thanks everyone, though it seems this forum is use to Linux bashers.

I think my view of the command line is similar to the whole notion of 'elite Speak', its kind of a self-satisfying, self-congratulatory way of showing off your computer skills. Everyone who responded to this thread comments that you have more functionality, but didn't exactly note any specific gains from (excluding a vague reference to talking directly to the kernel). I think that this is a very telling observation.

If you compare the command line to elite speak, you've obviously got a LOT to learn. First of all, there have been clear examples given as to what gains you get. For example, explaining how to do something via the command line is much easier than trying to explain something via the GUI (because there are so many completely different desktop environments). Telling someone to give you the results of "lsmod | grep sound" is a LOT easier than describing every single possible way that any desktop environment could give you to get to the hardware and separate the sound from that. By the way, that was a complex use of the CLI. First, lsmod shows the modules loaded in the kernel. The output of this is piped into grep which searches for the string "sound". The total command returns only the lsmod entries with the string "sound" contained in them. Is that harder than, say, describing every possible desktop environment's method?

The issue I explained above is partly due to the fact that Linux is, at its heart, very modular. Because it is so modular, people will and have made different desktop environments to suit their needs. Gnome, KDE, XFCE, E17, fluxbox, etc. all bring something unique to the table and excluding one in favor of another is just asking to have your head bitten off. The command line is universal, the command line is fast, and the command line is efficient.

I work in a silicon design center for a major semiconductor company. At least 50% of my work is all done within the command line or with a very simple text editor (I'm finally getting used to vim...recovering nano addict). The only other software I really use are layout and schematic suites, as well as a waveform viewer. Due to their graphical nature, they are obviously going to use a GUI, but most of the interface is with keyboard shortcuts. I hate to break it to you, but the ENTIRE group uses almost an identical set of apps. We don't do it because it is self-satisfying, we do it because it is faster and more efficient and more powerful. Sure, we may be outside of the mainstream, but honestly, life is SO much easier if you understand the command line.

Another very useful aspect of the command line is mixing it with perl. You would be shocked with the types of things you can do with a simple perl script (for example, re-encoding your entire music collection with a single command, or reformatting your music collection's titles...the possibilities are endless)

[slavik]

another thing I wrote in perl:
1. script to get all "seen" members in a windows domain/workgroup
2. parse the names given by #2 and find the computer's IP and MAC address

I work where we have to support over 500 Windows XP workstations. And we reimage them at least twice a year. The automation factor is a biggie because of the way we assign unique computer names and active directory accounts to every station, which also includes a way for the department handling the network to identify on their terms and we can map it to a real physical system instead of something on port xyz.

[PartisanEntity]

It's much easier to tell someone to type: cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf_backup in the terminal than to say: "Click on the round thingy icon, oh you have a different icon set? Then move than file with the number on it, oh you don't have that?". :)

[AndyCooll]

I have come from a Windows background having never used the command line. I'm not a programmer either. And I too prefer to use a gui wherever possible.

I've grown to appreciate the command line for the power, control and flexibility it can bring to your handling of your OS. I see it as being given an extra choice. I never need to use it if that were my preference. However there have been quite a few occasions where I've started a task using a gui and then switched to the command line because it was less complicated.

For instance, we have a couple of old laptops that when doing an update the update app seems to hang when putting in my admin password. Instead I just go to the command line and type "sudo apt-get upgrade" and the job's done.

In a more advanced mode, on the laptops I usually use XDMCP and login to my faster pc which is sitting in the loft. XDMCP is great for that, as it works as if I'm sat at the fast pc. The one downside is that XDMCP doesn't have the capability to send sound across the network. And I like Amarok. So to play music via Amarok using a remote machine, after I've logged in to my fast box I use the command line to ssh back in to the laptop I'm actually using and then type "amarok". This then opens up the Amarok gui on the remote desktop (which is now being sent across my network and displayed on this laptop) but is still playing the sound on the local machine. Since the "local machine" just happens to be the laptop I'm actually using I've now got both gui and sound!
There might be simpler ways of getting sound on a remote machine using XDMCP that I don't know about, but this works for me.

:cool:

[aysiu]

I've merged this with the GUI vs. CLI discussion thread.

[Jason.TJ.Johnson]

For Cliff Notes (Quick Summary) Scroll toward bottom of post.


I'm fairly new to Linux. I've been around since early Dapper and I've loved it ever since. Ubuntu has piqued my interest in Linux. I've installed Redhat, Xandros, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva (back when it was called Mandrake), Fedora Core, OpenSUSE, among others. I've always stuck with Ubuntu, nothing quite like it.

I was born in 84, started using computers back when DOS was the major things. Playing DOS games on my floppy drive and see if I could max out my 400MB hard drive. Because of this, and the fact that I didn't have anything else to do during the summer, I've become really comfortable with DOS. When I migrated over to Ubuntu, one of the first things I learned about was the terminal, and not because I chose to, but evidently it's the preferred method to do things around here. There's our problem.

Don't get me wrong, I love the terminal, I use it every day. I can't remember the last time I actually ran synaptic package manager to install something. For new comers, the terminal and every command to retype to use it in is scary. You have to understand that these people are coming from an OS where the closest thing to DOS they've probably seen was a BSOD and the POST process. All people really want to do is point and click, and check the occasional "I agree" box. Synaptic Package Manager has come a LONG way to help solve this problem, and so has Automatix, regardless of how much it isn't supported. A lot of new users come here to get help, and some of the first things they see is "Ok, in the terminal type "sudo apt-get blah blah" and people start getting a bit worried. Once they find out what the terminal is, it gets even scarier. Once they type "sudo apt-get install update" and see all those lines of text, all hell breaks loose.

Gutsy is also coming a long way to help minimize the use of the terminal, but what I think we need to do as a community is find a way to avoid using the terminal to do simple tasks. People like progress bars, next, next, yes, next and ok. At first, I didn't even know you could copy and paste into the terminal. I use to sit here and retype log as commands and hope I don't make a typo and screw the entire system. Is there anyway to turn these terminal tutorials into scripts? I know that if you copy more than one line of terminal code the terminal is submit each line waiting for the other process to finish. There must be a way we can make a ".bat" file or something, where a person would paste all the commands into it and watch the terminal perform it step by step, or better yet, just watch a progress bar.

Sorry for the long, cluttered, unprofessional post. I only got about 20 minutes of sleep last night.




======
SUMMARY

To help new users stay, we should, as a community, keep from telling new users to use the terminal to do anything as much as we possibly can. Maybe even develop software that automates tutorials that uses the terminal.
======

[Tomosaur]

The terminal is really just one big scripting engine. It is entirely possible to just have the user download a script to do X task - but not all users have the same problems, and we need specific information from them to solve whatever problem they're having in many cases.

This topic comes up time and time again - and every time, we tell them the reason why we show them the terminal commands:

The terminal is uniform, the GUI is not. We don't know what your GUI is, we don't know if you've messed around with the menus, so on and so forth. It saves us time and effort to say:


sudo apt-get install build-essential


Than it is to say. "In your package manager (System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager), type in your password, click the 'search' button, then type 'build-essential' and press 'ok'. Click the little box on the left of the 'build-essential' package, and click 'Install'. Click apply, and the software will download and install itself.

We don't really have time to keep typing the same stuff over and over again, posting screenshots or whatever. There are a million tutorials out there, and most questions of this nature have been asked, and answered, about a million times.

The simple truth is that people don't want to read, and barely ever use the forum search feature. With terminal commands, we can tell them what they need to know very quickly, and move on to the next person, while the user can simply copy and paste whatever the command is.

It's true that we need more GUI tools to do some tasks which users have trouble with frequently - and all we can say to that is that it's being worked on.

[fdhdghdg]

I think you are right (less terminal guides for the so called simple tasks) BUT most of these users are self-proclaimed computer experts already, probably the technical genius of their family. And they often try to install it on non-supported hardware, and they want the latest crap they just watched on youtube. So they find a bash script to do the job, eventually it breaks the system and the bitching and whining starts.

[bigbearomaha]

I have come to think of C/L operation as the "back door" way to get things done.

The C/L is no problem for me, I also come from DOS days and first started with early RedHat (5.1) and Mandrake, who pushed GUI as much as possible even then, but back then, that wasn't a lot. I also learned on a big old mainframe running unix in high school, sitting at the good old terminal.

most not all but most people age say 35 and under, have grown up the MS way, GUI all the way. or most of it.

Also, most people just USE a computer. they want to read email, surf the web, do the checkbook, etc...

They have no desire or interest in working with or using what they think of as an "antiquated" method.

Geeks, hackers, techs, call us what you will, we have an interest to know how these things work
we not only want to get things done, we want to know how it's done and maybe, how we can make it work better.

Geeks ( I use the term respectfully, for I fall smack dab into that classification) are very much the "minority" in the world of computer users.

There are many more "Joe average" users than there are geeks.

and it is the "joe average" users who demand a single,unified presentation of linux. to simplify the instructions and make possible GUI solutions, because the GUI will be consistent then ( Thanks Bill)

As a tech and a small business network consultant, I make a point to know how to get around in many distros so that I can get a feel for which one will fit a certain clients needs best and I can then be best prepared to help them.

I don't expect or ask my clients ( joe averages by 90%) to know the C/L, but no matter what they do to mess it up (and oh lord are they good at that ) I know of a reliable "back door" to get in and fix it and make it "better".

Big Bear

[23meg]

To help new users stay, we should, as a community, keep from telling new users to use the terminal to do anything as much as we possibly can. Maybe even develop software that automates tutorials that uses the terminal.

Simply saying "select this line, open a terminal, middle-click and hit Enter" would go a long way in preventing the potential "terminal horror" that not all new users have. It's enough to make them feel, or tell them, that using the terminal to do things isn't compulsory, that it's simply the best way to give them help over the net.

[aysiu]

I'm appalled that people (with the exception of Recovery Mode, lack of an internet connection, or an X server crash) would ask new user to type a command. Typing will get the new user only frustrated... and likely to make a typo or forget about case sensitivity.

Copying and pasting is the way to go for terminal commands.

And if you want to know the benefits of recommending terminal commands, just read the thread I merged yours with.

We are a text-based support forum, so the support is text-based. If we were standing in the living room of everyone who had a problem, of course it'd be easier to say, "Click on that menu," etc.

[bone2006]

I absolutely love Linux and made the switch and have been trying to install Linux on any system I get my hands on.

So I was at a friend's house who was having problems with his computer, so I suggested that he uses Linux.

I told him there's no viruses, no worrying about software with spyware, a system that runs faster with no antivirus taking up resources, more stable, better security and it's free. Plus I install swiftfox with opendns and he never saw his system run so fast, he was excited.

he wanted a dual boot system, which is what was setup, but he wanted the default operating system to be windows and if he wanted to get into linux he would select it when it boots up. Easy enough.

So I open up the terminal type in sudo mouspad /boot/grub/menu.lst as the file come up. What is that crap, your not telling me I have to start typing in commands in a black screen to use this system are you. I told him no, but and that once this is setup he'll never have to touch it again.

But it has me thinking. Most hardcore linux users prefer the command line, which I respect and understand, but if people are coming from Windows for desktop users, they aren't comfortable with opening up a terminal and typing in commands, they want 100% gui.

It makes me wonder, why aren't more things setup for ease of use for people who don't like to use the CLI?

I can gurantee that my friend wouldn't have flipped out if I would have just opened up a file manger, browsed to boot, then grub and then if I right clicked on the file and selected an option that says open in super user, he wouldn't have said a word. He's used to editing file in windows, but he's never used the command prompt in windows.

The look on his face was as if this is too geeky and he didn't want to learn/memorize commands. The more and more I use the command line I absolutely use it. But what's ironic is that people will tell you anything you can do in the gui, you can with the command line, yet it's not the opposite.

Almost 90% of the the "how to" here involve the command line, which is more than good enough for me, but I enjoy using computers and the command line. Some of the people who I'm trying to get to use Linux aren't very computer savy. The command line is beyond intimidating for them. It's just very interesting that if we can do everything with the terminal then we should be able to do it with a gui as well, yet it seems that power users are more concern with themselves and other power users.

I honestly do believe a lot of windows users won't come to Linux until the day that the terminal can be used, but is not required. Maybe it's my ignorance, but out of the box I cannot accomplish a lot of tasks without the terminal. I use the terminal every single day, but I just can't see a lot of people who use windows as a desktop use the terminal on a daily bases.

[BigSilly]

Well, I don't think it's "killing" Linux, as more and more are making the switch. But it's definitely a fair and accurate point otherwise: people just don't want to have to type commands in. Some old-timer PC users are willing to give it a shot and are a perhaps a bit more open minded, but there's no doubt the Windows generation doesn't want to use text based input.

Luckily with most modern day distros you don't really have to use it. It's a benefit if you can learn it, but not a complete necessity. Your mate should be fine.

[Tomosaur]

It's easier using the command line than the GUI - simple as that. Both for ease of support (the command line is - mostly - identical on every distribution of Linux, the GUI is not) and just general speed of use - the command line wins hands down.

While it'd be nice to have a GUI tool for everything, people do make too much of a big deal about using the command line. How often does it need to be used, seriously - and for the stuff you use it for, is it not true that you could do it using the GUI? Installing software? Synaptic. Editing files? Text editors. Configuring various parts of your system? Most common ones have GUI tools available.

So what we're left with is a handful of people who genuinely don't already have some GUI tool to do something, and a majority of people who have switched to using the command line for most things since it is so much faster and more flexible than clicking around on the screen. File management, editing files, system maintenance etc - they're ALL quicker on the command line - the only problem is learning the syntax, which is no different from learning which sequence of buttons to click.

The 90% of support requests which are solved by a command line solution could generally have been done using the GUI - but it's a pain in the backside telling someone how to navigate a GUI, especially if that person doesn't use the same desktop environment as you. Granted, there are quite a few problems which can ONLY be solved by using the command line - and all that can be said is that they're being worked on - eventually we'll have GUI tools for everything - not that it will matter, since it'll still be faster to use the CLI, and that is what many people will continue to do.

So no, I don't think the CLI is 'killing' Linux - particularly since Linux is still increasing in popularity despite the CLI still being widely used. What I DO think is that the more people watch The Matrix - the more they'll think using the command line for whatever purpose constitutes programming.

[Nano Geek]

Some old-timer PC users are willing to give it a shot and are a perhaps a bit more open minded, but there's no doubt the Windows generation doesn't want to use text based input.Hey, I'm young by most standards, and I can get along just fine in the command line just fine thank you very much. :)

But I disagree with the OP, nothing is killing Linux, and several people like the command line better for doing certain tasks, like opening files buried deep in the system.

Just remind your friend that Linux is not a better Windows. Although you don't have to run anti-virus or do defragments, it does have a learning-curve like anything else.

[wersdaluv]

I would not say that it is what is "killing" Linux. It could be what is making it hard for new users to switch to Linux.

[mostwanted]

I absolutely love Linux and made the switch and have been trying to install Linux on any system I get my hands on.

So I was at a friend's house who was having problems with his computer, so I suggested that he uses Linux.

I told him there's no viruses, no worrying about software with spyware, a system that runs faster with no antivirus taking up resources, more stable, better security and it's free. Plus I install swiftfox with opendns and he never saw his system run so fast, he was excited.

he wanted a dual boot system, which is what was setup, but he wanted the default operating system to be windows and if he wanted to get into linux he would select it when it boots up. Easy enough.

So I open up the terminal type in sudo mouspad /boot/grub/menu.lst as the file come up. What is that crap, your not telling me I have to start typing in commands in a black screen to use this system are you. I told him no, but and that once this is setup he'll never have to touch it again.

But it has me thinking. Most hardcore linux users prefer the command line, which I respect and understand, but if people are coming from Windows for desktop users, they aren't comfortable with opening up a terminal and typing in commands, they want 100% gui.

It makes me wonder, why aren't more things setup for ease of use for people who don't like to use the CLI?
I can gurantee that my friend wouldn't have flipped out if I would have just opened up a file manger, browsed to boot, then grub and then if I right clicked on the file and selected an option that says open in super user, he wouldn't have said a word. He's used to editing file in windows, but he's never used the command prompt in windows.

The look on his face was as if this is too geeky and he didn't want to learn/memorize commands. The more and more I use the command line I absolutely use it. But what's ironic is that people will tell you anything you can do in the gui, you can with the command line, yet it's not the opposite.

Almost 90% of the the "how to" here involve the command line, which is more than good enough for me, but I enjoy using computers and the command line. Some of the people who I'm trying to get to use Linux aren't very computer savy. The command line is beyond intimidating for them. It's just very interesting that if we can do everything with the terminal then we should be able to do it with a gui as well, yet it seems that power users are more concern with themselves and other power users.

I honestly do believe a lot of windows users won't come to Linux until the day that the terminal can be used, but is not required. Maybe it's my ignorance, but out of the box I cannot accomplish a lot of tasks without the terminal. I use the terminal every single day, but I just can't see a lot of people who use windows as a desktop use the terminal on a daily bases.

Compare having to use the terminal on Linux to change which OS to boot first vs. not being able to do that at all on Windows. I don't see any problem here.

[LowSky]

This issue doesn't occur with Mac users. Go to an Apple store and look at all the people who show up with their Macs so that a store technition can install their new programs or set up certain things most of them do not want to learn. That why each new version of OS/X becomes less terminal required. Most people gave up command lines with MS-DOS. From Windows 95 and on most people have not needed to know a Command line.

I really think Linux needs to be more GUI intensive in relations to letting a user select everything with a mouse cursor. Personally I like the terminal, I can actually see what is being done. With a GUI interface like windows instalations I have no idea what it is actually doing. On the flip side sometimes I just want thing to just click and work, and I think most people want this 99% of the time.

What I really want is a easy way to install software. I dont want to learn how to recompile a program originally designed for a rival linux version. I want it to install and put an icon into application menu or on my desktop.

[blithen]

Some old-timer PC users are willing to give it a shot and are a perhaps a bit more open minded, but there's no doubt the Windows generation doesn't want to use text based input.

I LOVE the Command Line.
Heck, my music player is there. (cmus)
And I'm 16. Now you didn't specify the age group. but if 16 happens to be in there, I defiantly would before the Command Line, over the GUI. :D
A lot faster. For the OPs example of 'sudo mouspad /boot/grub/menu.lst'
That's a lot faster then using the GUI.
But I could use the GUI, just would take more time.

[Eddie Wilson]

All in all the command line doesn't have to be used. If you want to compare the distro with windows you also have to use the command line in windows to do certain things. You do not have to use the command line to edit the grub menu. Just tell the people that its there if they want to use it but that they don't have to. Myself I like the command line but I know a lot of people who don't. Most people after a while will start to explore the power of the command line and its use will increase from there.
Thanks, Eddie

[notwen]

If ppl don't want to acknowledge the CLI is present and running underneath their beloved GUI and are scared at the sight of it, then Linux may not be for them. There are tons of alternatives to CLI, but what is alway going to be present should you need to do something manually and edit it, CLI is. =] CLI is one of the major reasons I enjoy Linux. Sure I'm all for Linux being a OS for users coming over from OSX or Windows, but they have to be open-minded enough to not be intimidated by the CLI.

[aysiu]

(I've merged this with the GUI v. CLI thread.)

Showing someone the command-line as a first introduction to Linux would certainly be a bad way to sell it to most users. Using the command-line because you personally prefer it or because you're helping someone in a text-based online forum is a different story.

The best way to do it would be to take the computer away, install and configure Ubuntu out of sight (the way OEMs would for Windows or Ubuntu) and then present it to your friend. "Here it is."

To be fair, though, you wouldn't edit the registry in front of someone as an introduction to Windows... or edit a .plist file in Mac OS X as an introduction to Mac.

[nvteighen]

I think the lack of CLI is dangerous and it's what has killed Windows... quite a paradox. In Win 3.x, if you had a problem, you could run to MS-DOS and solve it from there. In GNU/Linux, if X or GNOME or any GUI app makes something weird (hey, it occurs), you can run into console and kill the problem down... In Windows 9x/Xp/Vista, when you have a problem, as the GUI is almost the system itself, you must reboot.

But also, there's another thing. Apologize me if I may sound a bit "elitistic", but IMHO people that know how to use CLI know better what a computer is and does: a machine designed to receive orders and perform them. You type "top" in Terminal (or any other command you like) and you get what you wanted... People that only have used GUIs, are used to message boxes asking them for things (a computer telling the user what to do!... something in CLI almost doesn't exist), they usually don't understand commands, just know "where" it is located... and think that the prettier the GUI the better the OS (something MS exploits a lot, of course)...

Of course, there must be both: GUI and CLI, but you must give CLI total power. But only-GUI systems have made people a bit more ignorant on computing and, thus, less conscious of what you shouldn't do.

[bone2006]

mostwanted you have a valid point. Linux has so many advantages over windows and linux gives you the option to dual boot, now ubuntu even brings over your documents. Windows just doesn't care about customers, while linux is customer driven since the customers are the users.

It would be nice though if every instructions could be done via a gui or maybe it can but the instructions are always using the command line. It's not if I like or love or hate the terminal I think having more users coming over to linux is good for the community and the more we can do via gui the more that will come over.

I've had friends try linux and go back and I believe somethings are ignorance about not being able to install this or run this program.

But I have a friend who is almost computer illiterate in my option. He is now on the computer a lot, but he called me once for help on windows and I was telling him to copy and paste a file in a directory. His words were, ok I'm right clicking on a file and a menu comes up, do I right click or left click on the menu to select the copy option..............I'm not kidding........... these little things we take or granted. Linux and windows follow some basic fundamentals, which this guy really only uses a browser most of the time.

I've thought that linux would be better for him, better performance, firefox and he would be more secure and have a faster system. But then I started to think I really don't want to be on the phone telling him to open up a terminal and type in sudo then this then that. I'll probably spend 20 minutes telling him the word is sudo and not something else. Yet I do believe it would be easier for him if there was just a program to open up and do a few steps.

I think the problem is that people feel that they like something that everybody should do it that way. I love linux and I think everybody should use linux, but who am I kidding myself. The terminal scares people and you can't even does

[Tomosaur]

I think the problem is that people feel that they like something that everybody should do it that way. I love linux and I think everybody should use linux, but who am I kidding myself. The terminal scares people and you can't even does

Well why should the GUI users tell us what to do? We know the benefits of using the CLI - if they don't, then that's their problem. As mentioned before - the stuff the vast majority of people use the CLI for can be accomplished using the GUI. There is very little which cannot. The GUI is just inefficient eye-candy for the most part, and while nobody's denying that it makes computers more friendly, it also slows those users down who know what they're doing and don't want to be hampered by clicking about when a single command would suffice.

We need both GUI and CLI, and this is what Linux has. The reason we tell everybody commands to perform some function is because telling them where to click is slow, prone to error, and just plain annoying - NOT because the task can't be done in the GUI.

[nvteighen]

Also, beware that to give GUI instructions for example in these forums is absolutely unpractical. When you give commands, you don't have to care what locale or desktop envorinment is the user using: CLI is a great lingua franca!

[bigbearomaha]

I originally posted this in response to a similar thread in Mint, I think it fits here as well.



The real question for me is, why do people use computers?

To get thing done. to accomplish tasks and perform services that will likely assist getting a certain job done.

What is an OS for? for people to interact with the computer in able to perform said tasks and services.

I don't think anyone would argue, one of the primary reasons windows is success is because it "tries" ( doesn't always succeed, but it tries ) to make those tasks and services as simple as possible.

One could even go so far as to say, an OS's primary role is not just to provide interaction with the computer, but to facilitate that interaction.

One of Windows greater failures is that it doesn't allow those people who need or want access to the "guts" of the machine or, to use the infamous auto reference, it locks the hood. " Sorry, you can't do that tune up yourself, got to have permission from the factory to do that. sucks to be you."

Why, because many people have the interest to work on their own car or computer. to make it go faster, or pull more weight, or carry a heavier load, etc.

Things that the people can learn to do that will save them money and make their car/computer customized to their specific needs.

Now, do all people want to be a mechanic/tech just to have their car/computer "customized/optimized?Of course not. BUT , we want to know it is possible, because maybe, I have a neighbor who is mechanically inclined/computer oriented who might "trade me" He'll work on my car/computer and I'll frame up his new deck ( cuz I'm a framer/carpenter maybe).

At least I know, even though I am not going to work on that computer myself, it can be done easier and cheaper than going back to the factory.

SO. what do I want Linux, a computer OS to do? I want it to facilitate and help me, as easily and directly as possible, get my tasks/work done on it.

I am willing to learn how to work with the computer, I just shouldn't have to be a tech to learn how to use a word processor.

( note. I am one of those computer oriented people who likes to work on computers, but I know that there are many many more people who are exactly as I describe, my wife and kids among them. My clients are people who want to use a computer, not be the tech for it just to type letters or print images.)

That's what I think people Use Linux, to have a better way to use a computer. How does this relate to the GUI/CLI issue? both are interfaces. and it's about choice and comfortability.

If you are comfortable with the idea of using C/L and feel it's more efficient for you and you don't think you need that much facilitation, by all means use the Command Line.

If you are more comfortable in a graphical presentation and prefer to have your user experience facilitated, the GUI is probably going to provide a better user experience for you.

There are those who have said that there should be no C/L, I strongly disagree with that as much as I disagree with not providing a "full-blown" GUI environment. I think they are both of great value, even necessity. people will choose the environment that allows them to be the most productive.

just my two cent,

Big Bear

[eentonig]

The drive for a omni-present GUI is good. (Redundant in my opinion, but good) Because it will allow noobs and housewifes to get to use the computer. But don't be fooled. Even with the best of best of GUIs, housewifes, noobs and bosses will always rely on some 'techie' to put the nuts and bolts together.
Most of the calls I get from friends and family regarding their windows problems, they could easily solve themselve. If they were just brave enough to read those damn popups.

People who are interested in evolving and growing, will get to know and appreciate the CLI. People who aren't interested, will be able to stick to the GUI and use their programs. And call their local 'techie' if anything extra needs to be done.

But in the rush for this full-blown, omnipotent, allmighty GUI... please don't canibalize the CLI. Or even text based configuration files.

In the old days (:mrgreen:) If I wanted to change something, I googled to find which was the name of the configuration file(s), opened it with vi or gedit and read the comments to find out what parameter I needed to alter to achieve my goal. A few weeks back, I tried the same for some gnome related thing (can't remember what is was). I found the file, opened it.... and couldn't figure out what to change, becasue comments were non-existing. That's a sad, sad road to go on. And if that's going to be the consequence of a GUI, I'd rather stick with CLI.

[capink]

I have not read all the posts in this thread. The point I want to add here is that I feel lucky I was introduced to linux at this time, when you still need to use the CLI. This made me discover the power of the command line. I still do most things using the GUI. But the command line is one of the reasons I prefer linux.

I think in the future, say two or three form now, new linux users will not hear about a thing called CLI. Everything will be done graphically and most of them will not be aware of the terminal. And that is why I feel lucky that I was introduced to linux now.

I hope that linux progams will be desinged with the same backend/forntend philosophy. Because that gives you the power of using the applications from the command line with all its power, and it also gives you the choice between multiple fontends that suit different needs. I hope that linux becoming mainstream will not take that away, this would make the applications just a replica of the windows programs, and it would take away form linux one of its most important strengths IMHO.

[danny joe ritchie]

I'm pretty much new too linux and I like the command line, all that pointing ,clicking and dragging crap in confusing!
I never cared for Windows because of that garbage! I don't know why but I'd rather enter a couple of commands than to try and click my way thru a bunch of windows !

[aysiu]

The discussion appears to have picked up in a new thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=623518).