Linux could become the third option if it gets rid of the terminal!

[global citizen]

The largest obstacle for Linux to become a widely used operating system is the lack of easy software installation and other things which can be done very easily in Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X operating systems. Not everyone wishes to use the terminal and commands to do minor things. If Linux, and for that matter the leading Linux distro, Ubuntu could get rid of this thing, they could really emerge as a real challenge to both Windows and OS X being the third alternative for people who dont like Windows and OS X and who wish to try Linux but are afraid of commands and terminals. Dont you think that its quite an old fashioned way of doing things? Until Linux can get past the terminal and commands it would remain where it is today.:)

[zmjjmz]

No.
I can think of a tonne of reasons.
No.

[cardinals_fan]

The largest obstacle for Linux to become a widely used operating system is the lack of easy software installation and other things which can be done very easily in Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X operating systems. Not everyone wishes to use the terminal and commands to do minor things. If Linux, and for that matter the leading Linux distro, Ubuntu could get rid of this thing, they could really emerge as a real challenge to both Windows and OS X being the third alternative for people who dont like Windows and OS X and who wish to try Linux but are afraid of commands and terminals. Dont you think that its quite an old fashioned way of doing things? Until Linux can get past the terminal and commands it would remain where it is today.:)
The terminal makes my life much easier by automating software installation/upgrades and allowing me to write basic scripts to perform common tasks, ie checking my grades online.

[tuxxy]

You aint taking my terminal!

[ODF]

It has to be possible to use linux whitout the terminal. But why removing it ?

[RiceMonster]

That's nice, I don't care if Linux becomes popular.

Software installation doesn't have to be hard in Linux. What is so hard about using add/remove in Ubuntu? Isn't that even easier than in Windows? Click what you want, and then click apply changes. What's hard there? Also, clicking a .deb is easy enough as it is. Double click a .deb then click install, and type in your password. It's not hard.

Lastly, while the terminal may seem "old fashion" to someone like you, but for someone like me, it makes everything faster, and everything seems to be in one place. Right now, I'm unfortunately unable to use Linux (just for this week while my laptop gets fixed) and I'm getting sick of clicking through menus in Windows. Yes I know there's a command line in windows, but it sucks compared to the bash shell.

[p_quarles]

Moved to Recurring Discussions.

Yes, this is really the problem with Ubuntu: the developers just aren't trying to provide GUI alternatives to commonly used system tools. Really. ;)

[lswb]

Linux IS the third option.

[sujoy]

wow, a fresh new thread to bring up an old rotten topic. i am happy with my terminal, its the XServer that bugs me at times.

[RedPandaFox]

The largest obstacle for Linux to become a widely used operating system is the lack of easy software installation and other things which can be done very easily in Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X operating systems. Not everyone wishes to use the terminal and commands to do minor things. If Linux, and for that matter the leading Linux distro, Ubuntu could get rid of this thing, they could really emerge as a real challenge to both Windows and OS X being the third alternative for people who dont like Windows and OS X and who wish to try Linux but are afraid of commands and terminals. Dont you think that its quite an old fashioned way of doing things? Until Linux can get past the terminal and commands it would remain where it is today.:)

/slaps global upside the head

People don't NEED to use it if they don't want to.
You do have GUIs without paying you know?

[LaRoza]

Anyone who disparages the terminal itself shows a grave lack of knowledge.

Windows has a terminal, and it is sometimes needed. In fact, there are some things (power management, and other tasks) that can only be done in the terminal in Vista.

[hanzomon4]

Good lord I read these threads and think that some people post without having ever used Ubuntu and are going off of something they "heard" or read "somewhere". Software installation is one area where ubuntu is ahead. The iPhone app-store is nothing but a crippled implementation of the basic idea of standard linux package management and everyone is losing their minds over it. I wish OS X would keep everything updated like apt. Terminal, you don't have to use it. The only reason why you would is if you follow a how-to. It's easier to say cut and paste this then trying to explain how to accomplish the same thing in the gui.

The real beef with Linux is that it won't support everything with drawbacks or painful hacks that effect stability. Casual users (anyone who would call geeksquad to install iTunes) should only judge Ubuntu on 100% supported hardware (with foss drivers) pre-installed. Anything less might just be to much for them to handle. Hell, I've used Ubuntu for almost 4 years and I won't buy a PC that isn't supported 100%, with foss drivers, just to avoid the headache of "getting linux to work" when it can just work.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Really though both Windows and OSX still use the terminal too

[ryaxnb]

If that's the case, then how come the friendliest OS in the world (Mac OS) recently got a terminal? Terminals are very useful.
10 reasons to like a terminal:
* Shell scripting rocks!
* Easy app design
* Easy app interconnection through pipes
* Everything can be piped through grep
* Unifies Linuxes to a standard
* Quicker to work with for experienced users
* Better with remote access than graphics.
* Makes a great back-end to a GUI frontend
* Terminal configuration options are versatile (the --blah thingies)
Terminals rock!

[ryaxnb]

oh and linux is the third option, like someone said. At 3-4% of the market, compared to Mac at 8% and Windows at around 85%, it is clearly the third. All choices below linux have significantly smaller marketshare than the 2nd and 3rd choices, which both have in the "1-10%" range. Other choices are mostly under a % or just barely at 1%, whereas Linux is at a minimum of 2%, most likely 3 or 4%. For comparison, Linuxes marketshare in Desktops and Workstations is comparable to Windows 2000 or slightly under, by about .5%. No other OS comes up on W3Counters 10-count chart, only various Windows, Mac, and Linux, and a mobile phone OS. Haiku, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeDOS are absent, indicating their workstation usage is likely under .2% apiece

[snowpine]

Please don't take my terminal away! I've been computing since before GUI, so for me, performing simple tasks by using the mouse and clicking on icons feels confusing and unintuitive.

For example, if I want to use Abiword, I type:

abiword

The terminal couldn't be simpler, in my book! :)

ps Often, Ubuntu gives you several options for the same task. Want to install an app? You can use Add Remove Programs (easy GUI), Synaptic (full-featured GUI), or apt-get (terminal). So there are different options depending on your preferences. Having the option to install via the command line doesn't make using Add Remove Programs any harder. :)

[technotitclan]

first off, Linux IS the third option.
second, Ubuntu works a little better (in my opinion) on home build machines like mine. instead of spending a week looking for windows drivers for my sys i installed Ubuntu and TA-DA! everything worked.

and third, you have to know command in windows if you want to fix say, um, internet difficulty. the only way to fix windows networking trouble in windows w/o cmd prompt is to reload the os.

[lukjad007]

@global citizen

You say that the terminal is harder. I say that you only think that it is harder, so it is. You just never learnt how to "read" a command. Take this command:

sudo apt-get install supertux-stable

It looks scary if you don't know what it means. sudo is a warning that you are about to do a system level task. What you do in sudo can and will affect your computer. After you insert a command with sudo you will be asked for your password. One you enter it, you are acting as an admin. This is where the term sudo came from: Switch User DO. You are now, in that terminal "switched" from a normal user to an administrator. (There is also gksudo, which is for opening something graphical from the command line. For example, if you wish to edit a file deep in the system or add a few different repositories. There is also something called kdesudo for when you are using Kubuntu. It replaces gksudo.)

Below are three rules to use before you do anything with sudo:

#1) Respect the privacy of others. (Assuming you are on a shared computer.)
#2) Think before you type. (Always a good idea.)
#3) With great power comes great responsibility. (Or, in other words, BE CAREFUL!)

Now you know about sudo you now have only have three more parts left to learn to understand a command line.

I will focus on the next: apt-get.

apt-get is a tool used by APT (Advanced Package Tool). It is the program that installs the software you want (in this case supertux-stable). Now you know apt-get, you can forget about it. It is like Synaptic.

install is the next phrase. This is simple, and easy to figure out. It is telling apt-get what to do with supertux-stable. If it is installed, you can remove it by changing install to remove.

supertux-stable is the name of the file you want to install. If you remember a game and you just remember that it is called super something, you can hit the tab key and apt-get will give you a list of all the programs that begin with super.

There are many more things you can do with APT and the terminal, but I just listed a few. For further reading and some of my sources:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UsingTheTerminal (A must read!)

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AptGet/Howto?action=show&redirect=AptGetHowto (Very interesting.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudo

http://www.linux.com/feature/40745

https://help.ubuntu.com/6.06/ubuntu/serverguide/C/apt-get.html

Please note that I have done my best to explain things in a simple, clear and most importantly, correct way. If I made any mistakes, please tell me so that I can correct this post and learn.

[smartboyathome]

lukjad007: Sudo stands for SuperUser DO, not Switch User DO.

[lukjad007]

lukjad007: Sudo stands for SuperUser DO, not Switch User DO.
That is a misconception. Sudo comes from SU (Switch User or Substitute User). The SuperUser DO is a meaning that came later. It is like SOS. What does it stand for? The answer is: nothing. It was the simplest signal to send by Morse Code (which was most likely not invented by Samuel Morse). It went like ... - - - ...

The whole Save Our Souls is just something that "they" invented. :)

Thanks for reading BTW! I hope I didn't sound to harsh before this edit. If so, I apologize.

References:
www.bellevuelinux.org/su.html
www.ss64.com/nt/su.html

[Sephoroth]

The largest obstacle for Linux to become a widely used operating system is the lack of easy software installation and other things which can be done very easily in Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X operating systems. Not everyone wishes to use the terminal and commands to do minor things. If Linux, and for that matter the leading Linux distro, Ubuntu could get rid of this thing, they could really emerge as a real challenge to both Windows and OS X being the third alternative for people who dont like Windows and OS X and who wish to try Linux but are afraid of commands and terminals. Dont you think that its quite an old fashioned way of doing things? Until Linux can get past the terminal and commands it would remain where it is today.
...
That would probably cause a loss in market share because things have technically become harder and a portion of the Linux market share (those running computers which solely run in a CLI). New users can no longer copy + paste commands or run scripts given by more experienced users. Distros would become further divided along side desktop environments since differences in GUI arrangement MUST be noted by users. Lastly, system recovery becomes difficult with a LiveCD becoming the primary viable method.

oh and linux is the third option, like someone said. At 3-4% of the market, compared to Mac at 8% and Windows at around 85%, it is clearly the third. All choices below linux have significantly smaller marketshare than the 2nd and 3rd choices, which both have in the "1-10%" range. Other choices are mostly under a % or just barely at 1%, whereas Linux is at a minimum of 2%, most likely 3 or 4%. For comparison, Linuxes marketshare in Desktops and Workstations is comparable to Windows 2000 or slightly under, by about .5%. No other OS comes up on W3Counters 10-count chart, only various Windows, Mac, and Linux, and a mobile phone OS. Haiku, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeDOS are absent, indicating their workstation usage is likely under .2% apiece

Mac OS X usage sounds too high on that statistic with Windows seeming too low....

[Xanatos Craven]

Following through with OP's suggestion is the equivalent of ripping off Linux's limbs and expecting them to somehow grow back bigger than they were before. Uh... no. The ideal scenario is that the GUI tools become good enough that for nearly all purposes you don't need the CLI. In my opinion, as an average end-user, Ubuntu's already reached that point, but I guess there'll always be something you can't do in the terminal or in X. Anyway, what Linux really needs is more third-party hardware and application support, and to become mainstream as a preinstalled OS.

[Canis familiaris]

If the Terminal is taken away from me in Linux...I'll switch to *BSD/OpenSolaris.

[akiratheoni]

If Linux gets rid of the terminal completely, then it's not Linux any more :(

[xuCGC002]

The largest obstacle for Linux to become a widely used operating system is the lack of easy software installation
[-(
No, No, No, No, No.

[BLTicklemonster]

The largest obstacle for Linux to become a widely used operating system is the lack of easy software installation and other things which can be done very easily in Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X operating systems. Not everyone wishes to use the terminal and commands to do minor things. If Linux, and for that matter the leading Linux distro, Ubuntu could get rid of this thing, they could really emerge as a real challenge to both Windows and OS X being the third alternative for people who dont like Windows and OS X and who wish to try Linux but are afraid of commands and terminals. Dont you think that its quite an old fashioned way of doing things? Until Linux can get past the terminal and commands it would remain where it is today.:)

I concur with the spirit of your post, but I think you mean "get rid of the reliance on the terminal for so many things, and make it a more graphically interfaced OS". The terminal can reside in the operating system from now on, the purists will always have it at their side, but today's computer users are used to the technologically advanced user interfaces they see in other operating systems, so what would tempt them to even consider an operating system where you have to use the terminal to do so many things that could (should) be able to be done in a graphical interface?

Don't get me wrong, I can do some things faster in the terminal than I can in a window, but honestly, Joe consumer doesn't want to be bothered with that, he wants familiarity. Not a Windows or Mac clone, but something familiar. Which is evidenced by the amount of programs in new Linux distributions that rely more and more on a window to do your stuff in, rather than typing commands in a terminal.

Jeez I butcher stuff when I try to talk about a gui.

[InfinityCircuit]

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html

It's the other way around.

[LaRoza]

I concur with the spirit of your post, but I think you mean "get rid of the reliance on the terminal for so many things, and make it a more graphically interfaced OS". The terminal can reside in the operating system from now on, the purists will always have it at their side, but today's computer users are used to the technologically advanced user interfaces they see in other operating systems, so what would tempt them to even consider an operating system where you have to use the terminal to do so many things that could (should) be able to be done in a graphical interface?


Windows has a terminal that is very useful, as Windows doesn't have the GUI's to do common tasks (but Linux does).

OS X has a terminal as well.

The issue is needing to use it. Anyone installing anything on random hardware usually has to cope with weird things happening. The issue isn't Linux, it is people installing Linux. If people had to install their own OS, Linux would be the standard. OS X only works on expensive hardware. Windows is hard, as it supports no hardware out of the box.

[karellen]

Linux has everything it needs in order to become not the third, but the second option besides Windows. all that has to be done it's OEM to sell Linux installed and properly configured on their boxes. that's all. no more hardware incompatibilities, no more deleted partitions or overwritten MBRs attempting to dual boot, no need for the CLI (for those who don't like it)

[billgoldberg]

The largest obstacle for Linux to become a widely used operating system is the lack of easy software installation and other things which can be done very easily in Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X operating systems. Not everyone wishes to use the terminal and commands to do minor things. If Linux, and for that matter the leading Linux distro, Ubuntu could get rid of this thing, they could really emerge as a real challenge to both Windows and OS X being the third alternative for people who dont like Windows and OS X and who wish to try Linux but are afraid of commands and terminals. Dont you think that its quite an old fashioned way of doing things? Until Linux can get past the terminal and commands it would remain where it is today.:)

Have you even used Ubuntu before you wrote that?

Software installation is as easy as it gets. (add/remove -> synaptic)

If you insist on downloading from the web, a .deb is also very easy to install.

I don't have to use the terminal if I don't want to. My brothers and mother sure don't use it.

I use it because I prefer it for various reasons.

--

People who are complaining about the terminal are the people who don't realize it's strengths.

I couldn't life without a terminal on a OS.

OSX and Windows both have terminals. The Windows one is very limited, while the OSX one is pretty good.

--

PS: as far as I know, linux is already number three.

And with the current success of the netbooks that come with linux, that market share might increase.

Those linux distros are easy to use and also don't require terminal usage.

[billgoldberg]

Windows has a terminal that is very useful, as Windows doesn't have the GUI's to do common tasks (but Linux does).

OS X has a terminal as well.

The issue is needing to use it. Anyone installing anything on random hardware usually has to cope with weird things happening. The issue isn't Linux, it is people installing Linux. If people had to install their own OS, Linux would be the standard. OS X only works on expensive hardware. Windows is hard, as it supports no hardware out of the box.

Agreed.

Together with the fact that my both computers worked OOTB, it is a lot easier and faster to install than any other OS.

[ukripper]

I could become the millionaire if I win the euro :KS lotto