Can we please stop saying you need to learn CLI to use Ubuntu?

[50words]

I don't care whether you love the CLI or hate it, it is no longer required to use Ubuntu.

I have not used the command line for anything since I installed 7.10. Not once.

So when someone asks what makes Ubuntu different, I don't think it makes sense to warn them that they need to get used to the command line. They don't. They can treat it just like the terminal in Windows, and ignore it.

When you tell people they will need to use the CLI, all it does is scare them off.

[lisati]

For most of the stuff I use Ubuntu for, I don't need the CLI.
Having said that, I sometimes use it when checking out how to respond to requests for help on these forums, just to make sure I've remembered correctly.

[earthpigg]

the problem is that the advanced users that are used to the CLI find it easier to give CLI directions. Thus, everyone must use the command line.

very silly notion.

i almost wish there was some guidance on the issue... is the preferred method of helping others on these forums via the CLI or GUI?

disclaimer: yes, i know CLI is often the best, and sometimes the only, way to troubleshoot.

[rudihawk]

I love using the CLI, its just faster to do most admin related tasks...

[aysiu]

i almost wish there was some guidance on the issue... is the preferred method of helping others on these forums via the CLI or GUI? Here's my guidance:

GUI: If a task is a repetitive one and can be achieved through some simple points and clicks, you should give GUI instructions. (Installing and selecting themes in Gnome, for example.)

CLI: If a task is complicated to execute through the GUI, CLI instructions may be more efficient for both the helper and the helpee. (Properly installing the Mozilla version of Firefox so that it's integrated with a launcher and with plugins and in the proper path.)

CLI: If there is a problem and the cause of the problem is unknown, the CLI will almost always be better at diagnosing the problem ("Whenever I launch an application, it looks as if it's going to launch but then nothing happens").

[forger]

Learning the command line can provide you with some extra speed in your every day tasks, it all actually depends on what you do.. I mean there are days that I think I would be lost without grep, sed and find!

Instead of getting arthritis of the ever so many repetitive and long explanations, I like to give one command through console :)
It helps you understand your system better and if you just try some tutorials online for each command for say 5 minutes per day, you'll eventually feel attracted to its simplicity yet tremendous power.

[vishzilla]

i find cli faster in many ways. firstly there are some useful tools like imagemagick, ffmpeg, scrot which are really handy. plus sometimes administering is easier with cli esp. with the tab completion.

really, its upto the user to choose between the gui and cli. ubuntu makes it easier for new comers to linux. for advanced users, cli is here to stay.

[earthpigg]

you folks are straying off topic, imo - no one has denied that once you learn to use it (if you happen to feel like learning), the CLI is usually faster than the GUI method. In fact, we probably all agree on that.

however,

I don't care whether you love the CLI or hate it, it is no longer required to use Ubuntu.

[vishzilla]

you folks are straying off topic

we get the point. its no longer necessary for a user to use it. we are sharing our views. ;)

[Maucca]

I disagree here. If a task is too complicated to execute through GUI there is something wrong with the GUI. :KS Normal users and even audio-professionals havent used CLI since the nineties! And even those probably used mac = no CLI EVER!

This is the year 2000. Why should a normal user have to use CLI for anything?

And btw. With PC:s there are always problems and issues with firewire and wireless and drivers etc so if you switch to linux you DO have to use CLI. RLY. In windows trouble shooting can be done by the nerd next door... Not in linux. It seems everytime anyone has a problem the solution that worked on the other guys computer doesn't work here, ergo you have to think of another way to do it. With CLI of course.

In my line of work (customer service) most computer users have no idea of what a plugin is. And even clicking the right buttons in the right order proves to be an impossible task. Please do recognize that in GUI ubuntu is pretty much on the stone age of computing... This is the only reason why CLI is so popular.

All you guys listing the benefits of CLI, I can't help to think that you are also listing the shortcomings of the GUI. Even if you praise it. A paradox I know, but the linux community seems full of these.

[Idefix82]

I disagree here. If a task is too complicated to execute through GUI there is something wrong with the GUI.

Well, that's the Windows brainwashed point of view.
Here is a little anecdote: On these forums someone who was a total newbie asked a question and people gave him the correct answer. He had to open some file and append some code at the end of it, the code was given clearly legible. Basically, the whole instructions were completely unambiguous. This guy came back after a couple of minutes, saying that it didn't work. He was getting some errors. To cut a long story short: he was entering the lines in the command line, rather than writing them into a file. So the person giving advice ended up saying "look, just copy and paste this into your terminal"
cd folder/subfolder
sudo echo "something or rather" > filename
sudo echo "something else" > filename
and so on. I think this incident demonstrates perfectly why the CLI is the ideal way of helping newbies. It's completely unambiguous, much faster to explain and much faster to execute than via the GUI.

[Maucca]

I think this incident demonstrates perfectly why the CLI is the ideal way of helping newbies. It's completely unambiguous, much faster to explain and much faster to execute than via the GUI.

I think this incident demonstrates that you are far too lazy to learn the newbie anything about how linux works.

This might solve his problems alright but doesn't help him become an independent, problem solving "user".
Basically what you did is jumping way above his level, instead of telling him how to correct this himself on his level. How can't you see that? Perfect way of helping newbies stay ignorant.

Windows-brainwashed... Great. Ever heard about ad hominem? You should probably want to look that up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemOf course, that renders your argument useless as default :)

[joninkrakow]

I love using the CLI, its just faster to do most admin related tasks...

I'm no Linux guru. I love the gui, and have used Macs since 1987, and exclusively since 1993--until two summers ago. I installed Ubuntu. At first, I made it a matter of pride that when people gave cli instructions, I would find the gui method. However, after a few of those, I discovered, like you said, that often using the gui was more time consuming. Also, one can follow cli instructions very simply, without "understanding" the command line.

One recent example was downloading and compiling the wifi driver for my Wind a couple weeks ago, and again this week. (I decided to reformat my Wind without Windows). It was very simple. Simply hilight the cli command from the web page, and middle-click the command into the terminal. Within minutes, and with no real knowledge of what the various commands were doing, I had working wifi. Granted, in my case, I understood those commands--had I bothered looking at them, but my point is that cli commans are _very_ simple to follow, and can be universal, regardless of the de or wm being used (For instance, if I were using either KDE, Gnome, xfce, icewm or whatever, the cli instructions do not change. So, even for newbies, this is actually a very gentle way to help. I would only recommend that if somebody gives cli instructions, that maybe, at the beginning, they could give some simple explanation as to how to use the instructions (for example, the middle-click trick, or that they do not need to understand everything they are doing--and maybe some checks to make sure that their commands are working (like a ls command to make sure a file is there)

So, while one need not learn the command line, to be honest, for fixing things, it can be far superior to the gui method that one is forced to use in the MacOS or Windows. :-)

-Jon

[qazwsx]

CLI programs are most certainly required in order to run Ubuntu.

just remove bash, dash and every other installed shell and even booting becomes very hard (rc scripts for example). Lots of CLI magick happens in bakcround. For example in order to start kde in normal you run shell script called startkde(cat /usr/bin/startkde). CLI is very essential part of Linux distributions and will be in the future as well.


But really using CLI is not that hard. Even some newcomers might want tobecome more efficient ;)

[lisati]

Way back in the days when I was an MS-DOS user, I wasn't sure about Windows, with its GUI; I had a half-baked suspicion that it was eye-candy for people who couldn't (or wouldn't) learn to use the keyboard. Experience has taught me that the GUI has its place as a tool, even if it is just an illusion of "pressing" buttons.

IMHO, both the CLI and GUI have their place.

[eentonig]

Can you point me to the posts where they tell you that CLI knowledge is mandatory to use Ubuntu? I never saw those.

CLI is definitively NOT mandatory for every day use. And not even for 99% of the admin tasks neither. But there will still be those 1% issues were a CLI will be the only way to get things done.


This said, I use CLI continuously every day, because I happen to prefer the speed, complexity and simplicity of it.

[Idefix82]

Well, three things: firstly, it wasn't me who was trying to help this guy. I looked into the thread after all this had happened and was rather amused.
Secondly, I would be the last person to argue that one shouldn't teach people how to use Ubuntu and explain to them how it works. If you don't believe me, have a look at my recent posts.

However, not everybody wants to learn that. Many people just ask something to the effect of "xyz stopped working, please repair it". My general approach is to first tell people what they need to do and then wait. Disturbingly many are quite happy just doing whatever you told them to do and not bothering understanding it. If they ask "so what have I actually done, what do these commands do?" I am more than happy to explain it to them.

If you want somebody to become an efficient Ubuntu user then why not teach them the more efficient ways of doing things, like the CLI?

And lastly, the "brainwashed" thing certainly wasn't supposed to be a personal attack. I am sorry if that's how you read it. I was merely regretfully stating my observation that many people start using Linux with the attitude that if things don't work the way they worked in Windows then they are broken. Your statement about the CLI was just another manifestation of this phenomenon. As a matter of fact, you can't do half as many things with the Windows GUI as with the Linux/Unix CLI.

One more thing: you mentioned your customers to whom clicking the right buttons in the right order is quite a challenge. This problem will exist in every GUI. If you gave them instructions with the CLI you wouldn't have these problems.

[earthpigg]

I think this incident demonstrates that you are far too lazy to learn the newbie anything about how linux works.

This might solve his problems alright but doesn't help him become an independent, problem solving "user".
Basically what you did is jumping way above his level, instead of telling him how to correct this himself on his level. How can't you see that? Perfect way of helping newbies stay ignorant.

Windows-brainwashed... Great. Ever heard about ad hominem? You should probably want to look that up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemOf course, that renders your argument useless as default :)

that. right there. any hey, im moving to Helsinki next month... what bars and such should i check out?

CLI programs are most certainly required in order to run Ubuntu. remove bla bla bla and bla bla bla doesn't work.

yeah, no one cares. they just care about what they have to interact with to do whatever they want to do.


if there is a GUI way to do it, then that is the way it should be explained to newbies. if johnny-end-user wants to learn linux, then he has plenty of resources available. if he wants to learn to make ubuntu work, then just help him do that and take your preachyness to the Slackware forums.

teach people to fish with ubuntu in the simplest way possible, dont give them ubuntufish.

edit: by 'simple' i am referring to simple from the end user's point of view. not the design point of view.

[Maucca]

How many times have you had to consult a forum to set up a wireless in mac and windows and to use terminal commands to achieve what you want? I grant that the GUI is stupid, in windows and doesn't work all the time, but I quite like the Mac OSX and it is pretty reliable, and pretty user-friendly as well.

How is the regular consumer ever going to get linux, if something as simple as wireless requires a work amount of that proportion? Think of this person as one who has difficulties writing on keyboard and writes with one finger at the time. My mother is one of them... This person will never ever learn how to write commands in a shell.

I personally think it is great that the problem is solvable by the terminal. But something like wireless? What... That's like having driver problems with generic hard-drives nowadays. In my opinion ubuntu has been ignorant of the customers needs in this case - even if they do a better job than those EVIL counterparts...

You should most definetly check out the rock-bar on bulevardi. It rocks - and is pretty cheap comparing. And if you are there the first of may, the whole city will be one non-stop boozeparty for about 3 days. Thats a pretty crazy holiday.. You could go walking on the sea at january/february. Usually the sea freezes. Thats pretty cool.

[earthpigg]

You should most definetly check out the rock-bar on bulevardi. It rocks - and is pretty cheap comparing. And if you are there the first of may, the whole city will be one non-stop boozeparty for about 3 days. Thats a pretty crazy holiday.. You could go walking on the sea at january/february. Usually the sea freezes. Thats pretty cool.

rock bar is good. cheap is good. ill check it out.

and i will be there on may day - im sure i wont have to go out of my way to check that out.

hey, if i feel like doing possibly unsafe ****.... how far out can i walk on the semi-frozen baltic before im at significant risk of dropping through the ice and dying?

[Idefix82]

The drivers for windows are usually made by the hardware manufacturer. The Linux community has to make their own. It's not like Ubuntu is ignoring the needs of the customers. With every release more wireless cards work out of the box. But if the manufacturers don't provide their own drivers and don't publish the specifications so that the open source community can write their own, then reverse engineering an guessing is a tough job.

While I agree that its a problem I don't see how you can say that the open source community is ignoring the needs of the user and I completely fail to see how you can expect the solution to lie in a better GUI.

[Maucca]

Like a couple of kilometres i guess... Ofcourse you need to watch that the weather has been -0 C at least for a few weeks before going there. It is usually safe if you see other people out there. The ice is like a couple meters thick, would hold a truck pretty easily.

Okay you are right. All I am just saying is that the GUI needs to be as smart as the CLI!

Finland is pretty safe, save for schoolshootings and the like...

[zombrax]

again, another case of ops comparing Linux to wind$ & Mc....

CLI is one of the fundamentals of *nix; dont like it... well maybe stick with some other os.... just IMHO.

maybe not required but every person that has an interest in Linux should learn it again IMHO...

[mr.propre]

I don't use is more than I use it in windows.

[Maucca]

Yep. Keep linux a little dooditty for your own needs to fiddle.

I think that CLI easiness or simpleness is irrelevant as it comes to the basic user that buys hp, fujitsu or dell computers because of the simple fact that people find stuff like that too advanced.

You have no control of how people think. You do have control of linux. What do you do?

Im tired of microsoft and apple. I WANT A F*** CONTENDER.

[Greyed]

I personally think it is great that the problem is solvable by the terminal. But something like wireless? What... That's like having driver problems with generic hard-drives nowadays. In my opinion ubuntu has been ignorant of the customers needs in this case - even if they do a better job than those EVIL counterparts...

And this is a perfect example of the ignorance that is running rampant in this topic by people who don't get why the CLI is needed and, indeed, preferred when helping newbies. You're blaming Canonical for not having wireless drivers when in the grand scheme of things Canonical is about the last group you should be blaming.

Do you honestly think Microsoft programs the drivers for all that hardware? Nope. The manufacturers program the drivers for that hardware and Microsoft certifies their work.

So why would you blame Canonical for "ignoring their customers" when it is the manufacturers who refuse to write drivers for Linux and therefore it is the manufacturers who are ignoring their customers.

As for the CLI being the preferred method of helping newbies that part is simple.

Run this command...

ifconfig -a

...and paste the output here.

No, really, do it. I'm serious. Do it.

Now, go into the network manager, find your current ethernet card on there, take a screenshot, crop out the rest of your desktop, upload it to a internet accessible site and post the link here.

No, really, do it.

When you're done tell me which was easier for you. I'd say the one that is 3 words to get the information here instead of a paragraph just might be it, huh?

[Greyed]

Okay you are right. All I am just saying is that the GUI needs to be as smart as the CLI!

Wait, so you're saying that the CLI is smart and advanced so ignorant people are scared of it but you want the GUI to be as smart and thus as advanced as the CLI.... erm, wouldn't the ignorant people be scared of it then, too?

And no, I'm not using ignorant as a pejorative. I meant that as one who is unlearned and unfamiliar in the usage of something. I use it deliberately. Why? Ignorance is not an incurable disease. Designing interfaces for the ignorant means once they no longer are ignorant the interface is useless.

[techmarks]

again, another case of ops comparing Linux to wind$ & Mc....

CLI is one of the fundamentals of *nix; dont like it... well maybe stick with some other os.... just IMHO.

maybe not required but every person that has an interest in Linux should learn it again IMHO...

I don't agreen with that at all.

If someone is using a graphical desktop then they should never
need to use the CLI unless they want to.

That should be one of the main goals for a graphical desktop.

That's why it's called a graphical desktop.

Why should every person that has an interest in Linux learn the
CLI? tradition? pride? because you say so?

Sure people who program and write scripts and such of course
will learn the CLI.

For users who just want to use the desktop, they ought to be able
to completely forget about the CLI.

Like was stated earlier if a user has to use the CLI to complete
a task because it cannot be accomplished graphically, the problem
is with the desktop design, not the user.

[jethro10]

Learning the command line can provide you with some extra speed in your every day tasks

Never in everday tasks.

sometimes possibly, but never every day.

It needs to go the way of the Dinasour if linux is to compete.

I agree, ban the CLI. (And I do an IT job for a living)

[jethro10]

Ignorance is not an incurable disease.

No but it is immaterial to this issue.
Do you know what chip is in your DVD recorder or TV or Sattelite box or how to access them or program them. I bet not.

Most folk are ignorant of the CLI as they are scared, or don't want to invest time in learning it, probably cos they have more interesting things to do with their life!

It needs to go for 'most' people i'm afraid.

[billgoldberg]

I don't care whether you love the CLI or hate it, it is no longer required to use Ubuntu.

I have not used the command line for anything since I installed 7.10. Not once.

So when someone asks what makes Ubuntu different, I don't think it makes sense to warn them that they need to get used to the command line. They don't. They can treat it just like the terminal in Windows, and ignore it.

I agree.

I use the CLI a lot because I choose to do so. I could easily use the GUI interface to do so. I don't because it would take more time.

And in the rare case you do need a terminal, copy/paste instructions are giving.

Really, if you can't copy/paste something and press enter, you shouldn't be using a pc.

[Greyed]

That should be one of the main goals for a graphical desktop.

That's why it's called a graphical desktop.

No, it's called a graphical desktop because that is convenient. There's nothing to those words that implies that all areas of configuration must be achievable through it. Nothing. In fact if you want to take it literally look at your desktop and wonder why you need drawers to put things away. Or other rooms in which to prepare food, expel bodily wastes and to sleep. That should be all on the desktop since desktop clearly means, "do everything I wand or need right here".

Why should every person that has an interest in Linux learn the
CLI? tradition? pride? because you say so?

Because it is 1/2 of the coin. It's like saying a coin has heads.

For users who just want to use the desktop, they ought to be able
to completely forget about the CLI.

Fun facts.

1: Even Windows users need its craptastic CLI. Not everything that Redmond's wonderful OS can do is available from the GUI. Try releasing a DHCP lease sometime from the GUI.

2: Even OSX users need its awesome CLI. Why awesome? Simple. It's UNIX!. Modified Mach kernel, FreeBSD userspace, Apple polish on the GUI.

Like was stated earlier if a user has to use the CLI to complete
a task because it cannot be accomplished graphically, the problem
is with the desktop design, not the user.

Nope. Sometimes the graphical paradigm just doesn't fit.

[Greyed]

No but it is immaterial to this issue.

Sorry, no, it is the crux of this issue. "These ignorant people are scawed of the CLI and it is bad and evil and wrong and should be banned!"

Do you know what chip is in your DVD recorder or TV or Sattelite box or how to access them or program them. I bet not.

No. And those are prime examples of general use devices which can do many different things. Oh... wait, they're not.

Most folk are ignorant of the CLI as they are scared, or don't want to invest time in learning it, probably cos they have more interesting things to do with their life!

Like taking 20 minutes to do what could be done in 1?

Sorry, don't buy that argument. Know why? I'm lazy. I don't like wasting time on useless junk. It is because I'm lazy that I learn. Specifically why I learned to program at least in scripting languages such as Perl and Python. It is why I learned the CLI. Why? Because I am also intelligent enough and can do basic math. Yes, basic math. I spent, maybe, 20-30 hours to learn how to program Python. I spend another 10-20 hours to program a script that made a tedious task that took me 2 hours a week take less than 10 minutes. So even if I never, EVER, wrote another script in Python again (which I have in the 10 years since learning Python) I've saved time.

50 hours (on the outside) to produce that script. 1.83 hours per week saved. That's 95 hours in the first year alone. 95 is greater than 50 by 45 hours. So by frontloading the 50 hours I've saved myself 45 in the first year and 95 every year after that.

Why do I use vim instead of notepad for all my administrative tasks? Obviously vim is harder to learn than notepad. Because I'm lazy! *ONE* list of "replace columns 8-20 in each line with a modified version of it oh and there are no repeats" cost me more time to do than learning the portions of vim needed to address that problem. In notepad I would have to do every portion by hand. In vim I mark with CNTL-V and modified with a regex.

So if these people really had more important things to do than, say, staring slack-jawed at reality shows, they would learn how to effectively utilize the tool they have to do the repetitive, mundane tasks for them. Since it is clear they don't want to learn it is equally clear they have nothing better to do than waste their time.

[karellen]

who says that?:confused:

[cmay]

Can we please stop saying you need to learn CLI to use Ubuntu?
i hardly use the terminal for anything myself. but when i do it is a part of my programing hobby. i have a reason not to want to use the terminal as i cant see that well. my eyes and typing into terminal a lot is not a good mix. however. linux is a unix like clone and the terminal is linux.
it was written as a terminal first that then became a full blown kernel
that again had the gnome desktop and kde ported to it.

so when i try to help someone in these forums i will do what i always have done no matter this tread or not.
if user just need program as i know can be found easy in synaptic or even add remove programs menu i guide this way. as i use that as the first option myself due to my problems with my eyes.

but sometimes i do not and as example i see many that get their gcc compiler to compile a c program. so i give a single terminal command as solution. this is to fix problem and install a single package, sudo apt-get install build-essential

now c compiler compile s and all are happy.

there is one thing that is very important to remember and that is that the terminal is the most close you can have with you pc and the GUI is just a nice abtraction layer for the user to feel comfortable with.

but here is what you can do with a very very basic knowlegde of bash terminal such as i have. please remember that i do not use the terminal if i can help it. this is a script that i wrote to start up and it shows more about this system in few lines than i can find in the programs with a gui anywhere. if you do not know the commandline you do not know the computers operative system and your lost when something goes all wrong. you need that skill. i do not think you ave to be a progammer or shellcripter to use ubuntu . but you do to be a poweruser . and if you want to help others it is a goal worth to pursue to become superuser.
#! /bin/bash
# a simple start-up script to show uptime sytem and who admin is
echo user logged on system
#
who
# system runnning
echo system running
uname -a
# uptime
echo uptime
uptime
# number of uses on the system
echo users currently logged on
who
#
echo admin
# admin stuff here for the rest
cat /etc/group | grep admin
# shows the admin
cat /etc/group |grep admin > admininf.txt

thats it. shows who is logged on who is the admin on the system and how long it has been running. kernel name and who you are logged on as. if added the lastb commmand one can also see how when the last bad passwd is entered. you cant change gui this way.

[mrgnash]

I disagree here. If a task is too complicated to execute through GUI there is something wrong with the GUI. :KS Normal users and even audio-professionals havent used CLI since the nineties! And even those probably used mac = no CLI EVER!

This is the year 2000. Why should a normal user have to use CLI for anything?

And btw. With PC:s there are always problems and issues with firewire and wireless and drivers etc so if you switch to linux you DO have to use CLI. RLY. In windows trouble shooting can be done by the nerd next door... Not in linux. It seems everytime anyone has a problem the solution that worked on the other guys computer doesn't work here, ergo you have to think of another way to do it. With CLI of course.

In my line of work (customer service) most computer users have no idea of what a plugin is. And even clicking the right buttons in the right order proves to be an impossible task. Please do recognize that in GUI ubuntu is pretty much on the stone age of computing... This is the only reason why CLI is so popular.

All you guys listing the benefits of CLI, I can't help to think that you are also listing the shortcomings of the GUI. Even if you praise it. A paradox I know, but the linux community seems full of these.

No, the reason it is 'so popular' is because those who actually know what they are doing prefer to use it for a variety of tasks.

[t0p]

This morning I installed Ubuntu to my eeepc, and I've been following a few tutorials on how to tweak the system to work well on the little computer. This isn't a nerdish thing to do, lots of folk want ubuntu on their eeepcs. Check out the forums at eeeuser.com (http://eeeuser.com) if you don't believe me!

Anyway, here is a short excerpt from one of the guides:

sudo apt-get remove powernowd
sudo apt-get install cpufrequtils sysfsutils
sudo modprobe p4_clockmod

You should spot at this point that your processor has slowed down. Hurray! You've just enabled processor scaling. We need to make this stick now, so you need to pop into a config file:

sudo nano /etc/sysfs.conf

…and add the following line:

devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor = ondemand

…then, edit a different config file:

sudo nano /etc/modules

…and add these two lines:

p4_clockmod
cpufreq_ondemand

…create files for ACPI, so that it goes in full power mode as soon as you put on AC power:

sudo echo > /etc/acpi/ac.d/90-cpufreq.sh '#!/bin/sh'
sudo echo >> /etc/acpi/ac.d/90-cpufreq.sh '/usr/bin/cpufreq-selector -g performance'
sudo echo > /etc/acpi/battery.d/90-cpufreq.sh '#!/bin/sh'
sudo echo >> /etc/acpi/battery.d/90-cpufreq.sh '/usr/bin/cpufreq-selector -g ondemand'
sudo chmod +x /etc/acpi/ac.d/90-cpufreq.sh
sudo chmod +x /etc/acpi/battery.d/90-cpufreq.sh

…finally, reboot, just to make sure you've done the trick, using

sudo reboot

Okay, Mister GUI, how about you tell me in nice, simple terms how to do that in gnome or kde?

When I help newbies out in these forums, I give instructions for CLI or GUI, depending on what I'm trying to tell them to do. Very often, if the required procedure is complicated or involves installing several bits of software, it is easier to give them some terminal commands to cut and paste. If the newbie wants to know what the commands actually do, he can ask and I'll tell him.

In my opinion, using the command line is something that most ubuntu users will want to do at some point.

[thestig_992]

You can do so much with cli compared to gui...
If you ever have a problem with linux, 90% of the time it can be fixed with a few lines of code, and the people here will more often than not be able to provide that.

So if you think cli is useless, dont come here for help

[K.Mandla]

I don't care whether you love the CLI or hate it, it is no longer required to use Ubuntu.

I have not used the command line for anything since I installed 7.10. Not once.

So when someone asks what makes Ubuntu different, I don't think it makes sense to warn them that they need to get used to the command line. They don't. They can treat it just like the terminal in Windows, and ignore it.
Amen. I haven't needed the terminal in Ubuntu in a very long time. Of course I still use it because it's quicker and easier than dinking around with a GUI for most tasks. And it's got a huge horde of really cool text-based applications. And it's stylish and cool and flexible and looks awesome with pseudotransparency (or true transparency). And it's terrifyingly geeky and anyone who sees one on your desktop just assumes you are a technophiliac overlord of the nth degree, and goes and gets you a refreshing beverage while you type. And it's like a magnet for a romantic interest. And nothing strikes fear into the hearts of politicians like an army of registered voters armed with terminal emulators.

Yeah, it's pretty cool. No need to use it really, but everybody should.

[linuxguymarshall]

For the most part yes but it may require some additional setup. For example, adding a menu command for gksudo nautilus, make a script for fixing synamptic when it gives those unholy 'dkpg --configure -a' commands etc.

[rune0077]

As for the CLI being the preferred method of helping newbies that part is simple.

Run this command...

ifconfig -a

...and paste the output here.

No, really, do it. I'm serious. Do it.

Now, go into the network manager, find your current ethernet card on there, take a screenshot, crop out the rest of your desktop, upload it to a internet accessible site and post the link here.

No, really, do it.

When you're done tell me which was easier for you. I'd say the one that is 3 words to get the information here instead of a paragraph just might be it, huh?

From a freshly booted computer, it takes almost exactly the same amount of time. I don't need to take a screenshot and crop out the rest, I just mark it, copy it, and paste it, which is the same I would do with the information from running the command. And opening Network Manager and locating my card, takes the same amount of time as opening the terminal and typing in the command. There's no speed gain here at all. I'm sure there's tasks that easier on CLI, but for 99% of what an average user (Read: me) does, GUI is faster and far more intuitive. I have no problem using the CLI, and has learned it just for the fun of it, but I almost never use it now, because it is slower.

[bp1509]

d

[andrewabc]

CLI is needed to use ubuntu.
I have to use it to edit xorg.conf, menu.lst and other stuff.

Sure it is possible to use ubuntu without the CLI but some things wont work as good as they should.

[rune0077]

CLI is needed to use ubuntu.
I have to use it to edit xorg.conf, menu.lst and other stuff.

Sure it is possible to use ubuntu without the CLI but some things wont work as good as they should.

I can just open the file through the GUI and edit it. But granted, then I'd have to open Nautilus with root first, instead of just using the sudo command, so yeah, CLI would be quicker here (but not necessary)

[davidryder]

There are ways to do nearly everything via GUI but there are just certain things you must use it for.

If you ever have to troubleshoot, you with much certainty will want to use the CLI. Also if you are having problems with MythTV and want to check the databases how would you do so without the CLI?

For the average user CLI will never be necessary but for any type or degree of power user you must learn how to use the CLI.

[xebian]

I don't care whether you love the CLI or hate it, it is no longer required to use Ubuntu.



I've never heard it until now, so stop saying it.

But when your system boots/starts, what do you see first?

[Dr Small]

I couldn't live without the command line. And giving instructions to a newbie is far easier than taking a screenshot of every step and cropping them out in GIMP. Instead, I can write out a single line to preform the action, and they can be done, and move on with their lives.

Users should remain knowledgable in the command line, otherwise we are not making Linux users, but GUI users on an Operating System that they know nothing about... (This reminds me of Windows Users).

If you 'just want to use your computer', that's fine. You do that. But don't come whining to me asking for GUI instructions on how to fix your computer, when it is broken. GUI instructions take 3 times as long to write up, instead of writing one line of commands.

[p_quarles]

Moved to Recurring Discussions.

If your hardware supports X out of the box, then it's very likely you can do everything without getting your hands "dirty" in the command line shell.

No, it's not necessary to learn the CLI, particularly if you have someone else to take care of all the installation and configuration stuff for you. Like -- I dunno -- a technical support forum that gives you cut-and-paste instructions.

I've never told anyone it's necessary to learn Bash before they can use Ubuntu. In return, I don't want to be told (as I have been many times) that giving Bash instructions to solve technical problems is directly reponsible for the fact that Ubuntu hasn't overtaken Microsoft in the desktop computing market.

[Bachstelze]

In return, I don't want to be told (as I have been many times) that giving Bash instructions to solve technical problems is directly reponsible for the fact that Ubuntu hasn't overtaken Microsoft in the desktop computing market.

When that happens, I usually respond something like "So what? Just like Linus, I'm not here to destroy Microsoft."

[crimesaucer]

..... Here's a situation where GUI can't do what the terminal can:

Resizing ".svg" images in bulk to ".png" images, such as a whole icon pack of "scalable.svg", "48x48.png", "24x24.png", "22x22.png", and "16x16.png" images.


For example, let's say that you want to create a customized icon pack in the fastest way possible. You might like the "Human" icon pack but you don't like the color orange, so you want to change all of the icons to a new color without having to make each icon from scratch.


Easy.


You just use your GUI app like Inkscape to modify the colors of the scalable svg images. Well, then you realize there isn't a button to press to transform the "*.svg" images into "*.png" images..... and there isn't a way to resize them properly.


So do you give up because there isn't a GUI option in Inkscape, GIMP?



No.


Just try this code in a folder full of about 100 different "*.svg" images that you would like to transform into "*.png" images of a different size:


for i in *.svg; do inkscape -f "$i" -e "$i.png" -w24 -h24; done


..... so fast. Now all you have to do is fire up a nice GUI app like "Thunar's bulk rename" and you're all done. I'm sure there is even a way to write some terminal code that would rename all the images at once without having to use "Thunar's bulk rename" app.

[Sorivenul]

I couldn't live without the command line.
+1. It is absolutely essential to me. To help troubleshoot my own as well as other's issues as they arise.

[50words]

I did not ask whether people could or could not live without the CLI, whether people liked it better or not, or anything liked that.

I asked if we could stop scaring off people interested in Ubuntu by telling them they will have to use the CLI. They don't have to, and there is no reason to tell them so.

[aysiu]

I did not ask whether people could or could not live without the CLI, whether people liked it better or not, or anything liked that.

I asked if we could stop scaring off people interested in Ubuntu by telling them they will have to use the CLI. They don't have to, and there is no reason to tell them so.
No, you don't have to. Many people don't have to.

That doesn't mean no one has to.

If you have hardware compatibility problems or want to install obscure software, you may very well have to use the terminal.

I think it'd be false advertising on both counts... to say that you have to use the terminal in Ubuntu or to say that you don't have to use the terminal in Ubuntu.

As people have varying circumstances, I'd say the fairest thing to say is that you may have to use the terminal in Ubuntu.

[davidryder]

I did not ask whether people could or could not live without the CLI, whether people liked it better or not, or anything liked that.

I asked if we could stop scaring off people interested in Ubuntu by telling them they will have to use the CLI. They don't have to, and there is no reason to tell them so.

Two things:

1) It depends on the person. If they are 100% computer illiterate and don't have any interest in learning anything about computers I would probably be more likely to recommend XP or Vista because they are going to be calling me every 10 minutes for help. If it's someone interested in getting under the hood or at least doesn't feel uncomfortable issuing commands through a prompt then I will introduce them to Linux. Linux is getting there, but it's not quite to the point where you can do absolutely everything in GUI. Basic internet & email users - yes.

2) Just because you created the topic doesn't mean you get to steer us in the direction you want the conversation to go. Nothing is hardly as matter-of-fact as you stated in your OP. As many have said, there are some things that require the command prompt. Take it or leave it. Your snappy attitude isn't going to make people any more likely to agree with you.

[KOld Iron]

I am not sure, whether I get or not, but consider this:

- Entering a URL is done on a command line (even though it is part of your browser
- Entering search words at google.de is done on a command line, isn't it?

Fact is, everybody is using some form of command line all the time. Why? Because it is the fastest way of getting your keyboard input to the application. You would have a hard time using e.g. an on-screen keyboard and clicking each character individually (apart from those people, who don't have a choice, because they have some form of disability). You wouldn't want to use your word processor that way, which means this too is just another program which has a command line interface mixed with a GUI. It's all just a way of viewing things.

So THE command line is just another interface to your OS or application. Of course you can click, but sometimes it just easier (and faster) to type it out, even on Windows. At least I type every time "calc" in the "Run ..." prompt instead of finding the entry in the menu structure. Or "ipconfig /all" in the Windows command line, to see what my IP address is.

Of course, nobody forces you to use it and I agree with others here, I don't think anybody says that it is necessary to use the command line to be able to use Linux. It just makes sometimes life easier and why should beginners not profit from that experience?

[taseedorf]

whoever started this thread... im in St. Cloud Minnesota! nice to know some other minnesotans use ubuntu/// anyways... I think you're dead wrong.

You will always need command line in Linux or Unix as far as I'm concerned. Something will need it.

Older hardware...newer hardware... graphics cards...etc...many things do still need it.

hell, you need command line to do anything with a program you have to build yourself.

[p_quarles]

I asked if we could stop scaring off people interested in Ubuntu by telling them they will have to use the CLI.
You are ignoring many responses in favor of responding to only those comments which feed your sense that people are deliberately misrepresenting both Ubuntu's user-friendliness and your point. Stop that.

Now, two points:
1) Some situations do require use of the command line. That is undeniable to anyone who has spent any time with Linux on troublesome hardware.

2) No one gives command line instructions for the purpose of scaring away new users. Rather, those instructions are given in order to help new users and to prevent their needing to become experts simply in order to use Ubuntu. If we were telling them they had to learn the CLI to use Ubuntu, we would recommend books and tutorials rather than giving copy-and-paste instructions. The message you are ascribing to people here is completely incompatible with the practice of giving one-off commands designed to fix a problematic situation.

The larger point, however, is this: while it is not necessary to learn Bash in order to use Linux, it is a good idea. Just as it is a good idea to learn how to hack the registry if you use Windows. No one is going to recommend against learning how to deal with these basic elements of each operating system, and no one should.

By analogy, it is not necessary to know how to change your oil or tires just to drive a car. However, very few mechanics or car geeks are going to go out of their way to encourage new drivers to avoid developing these kinds of skills. It is the same way with computers: not everyone wants to get under the hood, but you will find very few competent users who won't encourage you to understand how things work.

[cardinals_fan]

I disagree here. If a task is too complicated to execute through GUI there is something wrong with the GUI. :KS
My school posts grades online. I like to keep up with the overall percentages as they are updated. Using the GUI, I have to individually visit each class page. Using a simple shell script, I can have my computer do the hard work for me. It takes the text of each page (gathered with lynx) and filters out the overall percentages. The end result? I can check all of my grades with one command. This wouldn't be possible with a GUI.

As for the original topic, I'm a bit confused. I don't think I've ever told someone that they must use the CLI to use Ubuntu, but I often provide help using the CLI, because it is more convenient for me and the person I'm helping. What exactly are you complaining about?

[zombrax]

No, it's called a graphical desktop because that is convenient. There's nothing to those words that implies that all areas of configuration must be achievable through it. Nothing. In fact if you want to take it literally look at your desktop and wonder why you need drawers to put things away. Or other rooms in which to prepare food, expel bodily wastes and to sleep. That should be all on the desktop since desktop clearly means, "do everything I wand or need right here".



Because it is 1/2 of the coin. It's like saying a coin has heads.



Fun facts.

1: Even Windows users need its craptastic CLI. Not everything that Redmond's wonderful OS can do is available from the GUI. Try releasing a DHCP lease sometime from the GUI.

2: Even OSX users need its awesome CLI. Why awesome? Simple. It's UNIX!. Modified Mach kernel, FreeBSD userspace, Apple polish on the GUI.



Nope. Sometimes the graphical paradigm just doesn't fit.

well said dude and like some others; I wouldnt be able to think of a linux system without using the CLI. Half side of the coin.. never thought of it that way but well said indeed!!

Long live CLI yeehaaa ;)

[Bachstelze]

My school posts grades online. I like to keep up with the overall percentages as they are updated. Using the GUI, I have to individually visit each class page.

Tell them about RSS ;)

[davidryder]

Tell them about RSS ;)

You mean XLM?

[geoken]

2) No one gives command line instructions for the purpose of scaring away new users. Rather, those instructions are given in order to help new users and to prevent their needing to become experts simply in order to use Ubuntu. If we were telling them they had to learn the CLI to use Ubuntu, we would recommend books and tutorials rather than giving copy-and-paste instructions. The message you are ascribing to people here is completely incompatible with the practice of giving one-off commands designed to fix a problematic situation.


I don't think it really matters what motive someone has for giving command line instructions. The fact is, that when a casual observer constantly sees actions which can be carried out in 4 GUI steps on Win or OSX explained in the CLI their general perception of Linux is that most regular tasks must be done in the CLI.

Giving a CLI command to download and install a .deb may be quicker than giving a link to the .deb, but the casual observer who knows little of linux is going to look at that and say 'Wow, I even need the CLI to install specifically packaged apps'.

[pp.]

the casual observer who knows little of linux is going to look at that and say 'Wow, I even need the CLI to install specifically packaged apps'.

And even if the solution is given in terms of the GUI (provided the giver of the solution has the same kind of GUI as the one seeking help, and uses the same language settings and so on), the same casual observer who knows little of linux is going to look at that, too, and says either 'Linux must be fiendishly difficult to use if it takes such a long-winded explanation to install specifically packaged apps' or he says 'Linux users sure are slow-witted if they need such long and detailed instructions'.

[oldsoundguy]

just a plug in here .. CLI is in WINDOWS also, it is called CMD or the Command Window. It is used to help maintain the system (so it is NEEDED). It has to be used (in a way) to do a chkdisk for one, or to reset internet connections after an internet crash or a myriad of things.

The Linux CLI can be learned by copy/paste and you do NOT, in the main, have to write line after line to use it. A little investigation into many of the Linux help and "build a better version of" sites will yield that information and help.

Learning is a frightening process to some because it alters their perceptions and destroys pre-conceived and dogmatic ideas. It moves them out of their comfort zone.

[rune0077]

just a plug in here .. CLI is in WINDOWS also, it is called CMD or the Command Window. It is used to help maintain the system (so it is NEEDED). It has to be used (in a way) to do a chkdisk for one, or to reset internet connections after an internet crash or a myriad of things.


I have used Windows for years and years before I began with Linux, and I have never used the command line, ever. I was always aware that it was there, but I never came into a situation where it was needed. I don't even think most people even knows about the command line in Windows, and yet they use the system every day, and has done so for years. So to say that it's needed, is probably a bit of an exaggeration.

[oldsoundguy]

I have used Windows for years and years before I began with Linux, and I have never used the command line, ever. I was always aware that it was there, but I never came into a situation where it was needed. I don't even think most people even knows about the command line in Windows, and yet they use the system every day, and has done so for years. So to say that it's needed, is probably a bit of an exaggeration.

Trust me, you take that crashed Windows box into a tech, one of the first things they are going to do is run some tests from safe mode and the CMD window. A lot of the help you get from your router maker will be running stuff in CMD. Just because YOU did not use it, does not make it an invalid or unused program.
(and if they can't fix it, they will use a live Linux distro to recover the files .. and that will require CLI.)
This "fear" of CLI is to the point of paranoia for some. (it is akin to not being able to drive a stick shift car or truck and being petrified to even learn!)

[Canis familiaris]

In a very rare circumstance (and really a rare one) CMD is needed in Windows. Though it can be pretty useful, if you know how to use it.
In Linux, most prefer if not need the Terminal most of the time for configuring it.
Seriously, who will want to?
(1) Edit Menus and Add Browse by Root.
(2) Scroll to /etc/X11/xorg.conf
(3) And double click to open it.

In terminal it's much more simpler.

Sorry to dissapoint those who think Terminal is not needed but Terminal is an integral part of a Linux or any *nix for that manner.

[pp.]

I have used Windows for years and years before I began with Linux, and I have never used the command line, ever. I was always aware that it was there, but I never came into a situation where it was needed. I don't even think most people even knows about the command line in Windows, and yet they use the system every day, and has done so for years. So to say that it's needed, is probably a bit of an exaggeration.

When you do the same things with a Linux computer as with a Windows computer, you usually use the respective CLIs about equally often, give or take a few occasions. Well, yes, Windows has the Registry which usually is edited with the Regedit tool instead of with an editor.

That is to say, when writing letters you don't use the CLI at all, when installing the OS and drivers you may or may not use it, when debugging the network, you presumably will.

YMMV, and there are some people who use the CLI for writing letters, but that's because they want to do that, and they'd do that in Windows as well.

[rune0077]

Trust me, you take that crashed Windows box into a tech, one of the first things they are going to do is run some tests from safe mode and the CMD window. A lot of the help you get from your router maker will be running stuff in CMD. Just because YOU did not use it, does not make it an invalid or unused program.
(and if they can't fix it, they will use a live Linux distro to recover the files .. and that will require CLI.)


I didn't say it was invalid, just that it wasn't needed. I can assure that people like my mom (and most of my family) have all been using Windows for years, and if I told them to "open a command line" they would have no clue what I was talking about. So they never needed it (and they don't trash their computers either, so they don't need to take it to the repair guys). Software may use a command line, but that's no different in Linux: most GUI apps are just frontends to CLI commands. What we're discussing here is not whether these commands are needed or not (they most certainly are), but whether I need to type them in manually, or if I can get by with having a GUI app do it for me.

When you do the same things with a Linux computer as with a Windows computer, you usually use the respective CLIs about equally often, give or take a few occasions. Well, yes, Windows has the Registry which usually is edited with the Regedit tool instead of with an editor.


Windows probably have more GUI software, though, making it less necessary to use CLI. Like installing software, which is always a GUI-based experience in Windows, but requires command line in Ubuntu if it doesn't exist as a deb package.

On the other hand, I like CLI for debugging and wouldn't really want a GUI for that, since the terminal gives me lots of useful info. But in an ideal world, "normal" users shouldn't have to do any debugging.

[pp.]

Windows probably have more GUI software, though, making it less necessary to use CLI. Like installing software, which is always a GUI-based experience in Windows, but requires command line in Ubuntu if it doesn't exist as a deb package.

On the other hand, I like CLI for debugging and wouldn't really want a GUI for that, since the terminal gives me lots of useful info. But in an ideal world, "normal" users shouldn't have to do any debugging.

I have installed software in Windows which did require a CLI (some by design, some because the installer was broken).

I could argue that installing software already exceeds the gamut of what a "normal" user can be expected to do on a computer, anyway.

[aysiu]

Well, as I think I might have alluded to earlier (can't remember), there are two issues here:

1. General practice

2. Troubleshooting

If it's a matter of general practice (How do I do this basic task?), I would recommend GUI instructions. And if you're too lazy to type them out, link to a good screenshot-laden tutorial. I have a bunch on my Psychocats site, but there are also lots of other good tutorials sites for stuff I don't cover (Ubuntu Geek, for example).

If it's a matter of troubleshooting (When I launch this application, it looks as if it's going to start but then just disappears), the terminal is the only way to go to get a good diagnosis and fix.

[davidryder]

I think since Windows 95/98 it has been unnecessary to every use the command prompt.

While I believe it is necessary to use the CLI in Linux at one point or another (and I personally will probably never move away from it) I also believe that the further we get away from it the more popular and mainstream Linux will become.

[aysiu]

While I believe it is necessary to use the CLI in Linux at one point or another (and I personally will probably never move away from it) I also believe that the further we get away from it the more popular and mainstream Linux will become. With that strategy, we'll probably gain a few hundred or a few thousand new users. If we work on a proper advertising campaign, more preinstalled and preconfigured models, and an actual slick brick-and-mortar store where people can try out Linux computers (think Apple Store but without the proprietary software, artificial hardware restrictions, and DRM), then we'll gain millions of new users.

It's great to have a GUI interface to troubleshoot an installation, but why even bother people with an installation when the OEM can do it for them?

How successful do you think Windows would be if it didn't come preinstalled, if people just got blank computers and a Windows CD?

[cardinals_fan]

Tell them about RSS ;)
They live in the early 90s. I'm just thankful that they even have a system for online grades.
I don't think it really matters what motive someone has for giving command line instructions. The fact is, that when a casual observer constantly sees actions which can be carried out in 4 GUI steps on Win or OSX explained in the CLI their general perception of Linux is that most regular tasks must be done in the CLI.

Giving a CLI command to download and install a .deb may be quicker than giving a link to the .deb, but the casual observer who knows little of linux is going to look at that and say 'Wow, I even need the CLI to install specifically packaged apps'.
Giving GUI instructions isn't always possible. Some of us use other distros/WMs and still want to help.

[*PTR]

[QUOTE][And even those probably used mac = no CLI EVER!
/QUOTE]

Eh, from where comes that information that MAC don't have a Command-Line.?
http://www.macobserver.com/tips/macosxcl101/index.html

Even the earliest MAC's had a possiblility to run commands, but it was more common that it was used from technicians and support personal.
And i think its more common now since Macintosh have adopted much of BSD.

Can you please tell me about one-just one OS that doesn't have a CLI.?

[davidryder]

Eh, from where comes that information that MAC don't have a Command-Line.?
http://www.macobserver.com/tips/macosxcl101/index.html

Even the earliest MAC's had a possiblility to run commands, but it was more common that it was used from technicians and support personal.
And i think its more common now since Macintosh have adopted much of BSD.

Can you please tell me about one-just one OS that doesn't have a CLI.?

I think he was saying Mac users don't use CLI.

[Calmatory]

Just my two cents: I've used Linux(read: Ubuntu) for more than two years now. During that time I've learnt alot how Linux works and how to use it. However, just a week or so ago, I installed Arch Linux to my server machine and played around it for few days, and I must say that during those few days I learnt more about Linux than what I learnt in two years with Ubuntu.

[uberdonkey5]

Personally, I like both GUI and CLI methods to be shown. For one thing, not everyone has or wants the specific gui.

For example, apparently you can download a GUI to alter the boot up timeout, and boot menu order, but using the CLI to edit the file directly is easier.

Some long strings of CLI are confusing and potentially dangerous, but its also easier for people to explain this way sometimes.

[joninkrakow]

I think he was saying Mac users don't use CLI.

I dunno. I think your typical knowledgeable Mac user is interested in using/learning the command line. I know my own knowledge of the Mac's terminal served me when I started using Linux. :-)

-Jon

[hessiess]

keybord = good
mouse = bad

GUI's are good, so long as thay are easy to use with the keybord.

[Canis familiaris]

keybord = good
mouse = bad

gui's are good, so long as thay are easy to use with the keybord.

+1

[perlluver]

Ok, I know most of you like Window Managers, and the CLI, I prefer the CLI myself, however this being 2008, I prefer to have a GUI, so I use Gnome, not everyone coming to Linux wants to run Openbox. They would prefer to have a working Desktop GUI. Granted it is easier to give sudo apt-get install whatever but not everyone cares, so you say open up synaptic and look for whatever. That will save a lot of headaches later, trust me I know from experience on that one.

[SqdnGuns]

Learn to use the command line or run the risk of becoming a "monkey clicker" like the M$ sheep.

[Thelasko]

Unless you have some sort of issue, you don't need to use the CLI in Ubuntu. This isn't about your preference for the command line. This is about the command line being necessary to use Ubuntu. The fact is, the command line is no longer necessary. You can install and configure Ubuntu without the command line at all.

Please stop telling people that they need to learn the command line, because it's simply not true. Using the command line is a preference not a necessity. Stop forcing your preference on to other people.

This does not mean people should fear the command line. If someone asks you for help, it is still perfectly acceptable to give them instructions using the command line. It is a more effective way to communicate in the forums. If you are instructing them properly, they should know everything they need to know to use the command line, even if it's not their preferred environment.

[cardinals_fan]

Learn to use the command line or run the risk of becoming a "monkey clicker" like the M$ sheep.
That was a constructive bump.
Unless you have some sort of issue, you don't need to use the CLI in Ubuntu. This isn't about your preference for the command line. This is about the command line being necessary to use Ubuntu. The fact is, the command line is no longer necessary. You can install and configure Ubuntu without the command line at all.

Please stop telling people that they need to learn the command line, because it's simply not true. Using the command line is a preference not a necessity. Stop forcing your preference on to other people.

This does not mean people should fear the command line. If someone asks you for help, it is still perfectly acceptable to give them instructions using the command line. It is a more effective way to communicate in the forums. If you are instructing them properly, they should know everything they need to know to use the command line, even if it's not their preferred environment.
How can I possibly know whether someone will need to use the CLI? Maybe they will, maybe they won't. It depends on their individual hardware and software needs.

[aysiu]

I don't think you can make absolute statements either way (that people will need to learn CLI or that they won't need to learn CLI).

In some circumstances, you will need to learn the CLI.
In other circumstances, you won't.

Even in certain circumstances in which you don't need to learn the CLI, it may be useful for you to learn the CLI.

And even if you don't learn the CLI, there may be times when it makes sense for you to use the CLI (not understand, but simply copy and paste).

The fairest statement is that everyday tasks do not require the CLI, but you should be comfortable cutting and pasting commands to diagnose problems, especially if you are not buying Ubuntu preinstalled.

[bodhi.zazen]

The CLI interface is quite empowering and I hope it never goes away.

With that said, I know several Ubuntu users who never use the CLI, one of whom is my wife.

Just like windows, with Ubuntu one only "needs to use the CLI" if they are performing system administration and the GUI tools fail. If you are in that situation you have my sympathy.

[ranch hand]

As a new user of Ubuntu, my first linux OS, I was not told I would need to use the CLI.

I knew that I would be able to and that was one of the reasons that I gave this a try.

In Vista I never used it and it certainly is not easy to do anything to administer your system with that GUI. There is stuff spread all through the thing that needs to be turned off for security and just privacy from the prying into what you are doing by MS.

I started out on a DOS machine and I don't really think that Vista, as an example, is a great leap forward.

CLI may not be nessecary but it certainly is easy and quick. I live in a very remote area so that tech support is not here. If I were to suggest Ubuntu to someone in this area I would mention the CLI option as a plus.

bodhi.zazen - HI from the other end of the great state of Montana.