Some suggestions for those advising new users...

[abyssius]

I would like to see the Ubuntu advisors on this forum show a little more sensitivity toward the "Windows" mindset, when providing advice to brand new Ubuntu users. Windows users are of the GUI mindset. A GUI environment creates a psychological comfort level when someone takes on the sometimes daunting task of configuring their system. A GUI environment presents them with a clear set of options, guides them through procedures in logical steps, and delivers the feedback (e.g. a Finish button or Success message) that lets them know that what they did was successful.

There is no doubt that command line techniques often "cut to the chase" when solving problems, but my question is - does advising someone to "cut and paste" an often obscure set of textual commands really educate and encourage a new user to adopt Ubuntu? I think that very often it actually discourages potential users. I'm old enough to remember the DOS command line days, so when I first ventured into the Linux desktop world, command-line syntax and its usage wasn't so daunting to me. However, I also recognize that nowadays the vast majority of Windows users never had to edit config.sys of autoexec.bat or system.ini, etc. To them, the command line seems primitive, unintuitive and sometimes frightening.

I think that two things might serve the Ubuntu Forum community better.

(1) If there is a GUI method provided to solve a problem, then suggest that method first, even if you know that a textual command would accomplish the task more efficiently. Windows users are fully trained on manipulating convoluted GUI windows and menus. I suspect they would trade a few extra mouse clicks for the psychological comfort level the GUI technique provides.

(2) If you post a line of code, sometimes take the time to provide a brief explanation of what your recommended command and its options actually mean. This would serve to "educate" the new user and lower the intimidation level.

After one year of usage, I consider myself a fully-committed Ubuntu advocate. But, I recognize the fact that the growth of Linux as a viable desktop environment will be in direct proportion to its comparison to the Windows OS work flow that over 90% of computer users now know. IMHO, this translates to how effective the Ubuntu GUI environment is at solving the everyday configuration problems that will be encountered. Ubuntu has come a long way since I began using it, and I hope that the 'advisors' on this forum make an effort to encourage the use of the GUI environment to solve problems whenever possible, even if they find the method 'distasteful'.

[hansdown]

Good post abyssius.

I'm still new to the command line, and still very intimidated by it, even though it is faster and achieves the same end. I will grow more used to it I'm sure.

[jrusso2]

The problem with giving GUI based instructions is that the user maybe not running the same GUI you are. Linux has so many. I run KDE and often forget the steps in Gnome.

[oldos2er]

Bash is pretty much the same everywhere. GUIs aren't; running Gnome? KDE? 3.5 or 4.x? Fluxbox? Something else? Quite often a new user will not know which DE they're in--why should they (particularly if they're coming from a Windows environment)? In other words it takes time and many posts to explain what to click, where, and when. The new user is often impatient to fix the problem, and just wants a solution. CLI is quick, easy, and to the point.

[handydan918]

I think that two things might serve the Ubuntu Forum community better.

(1) If there is a GUI method provided to solve a problem, then suggest that method first, even if you know that a textual command would accomplish the task more efficiently. Windows users are fully trained on manipulating convoluted GUI windows and menus. I suspect they would trade a few extra mouse clicks for the psychological comfort level the GUI technique provides.
There are a couple of compelling reasons that the cli is dominant on support foums.
1) This forum supprts ALL versions of Ubu, which includes several different guis. The cli is the only way to make instructions for a fix universal.
2)The instructions would need to be many times longer in order to guide someont through all of the possibly nested paths to the ultimate fix. The cli instructions are quick and compact.

(2) If you post a line of code, sometimes take the time to provide a brief explanation of what your recommended command and its options actually mean. This would serve to "educate" the new user and lower the intimidation level.


Your second point is well taken, and I fully agree. Users should be told what a command does, whenever possible.

[jimmy the saint]

While there are various gui's available, threads are marked with Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu...etc. to address this very issue. I usually (well sometimes) try to give both the graphical and cli solution if they are both practical. Often, the gui solution is so simple that having a new user delve into the command line is just not worth it, especially in the beginner forum. In other forums, I think the preference can usually be given to a CLI solution.

Let's not forget that one of Ubuntu's strengths is the time and effort put into making a solid and comprehensive GUI environment in which most things can be accomplished in a gui. It is kind of working against that effort to treat the GUI as a second rate feature, especially to new users. There are distros out there that put far less effort into a robust GUI, and ignoring it in their forums is far more appropriate. As long as we are here to help out with Ubuntu, lets make an effort to put aside our personal preferences and play up the Ubuntu way. That means GUI, when possible.

here here!

[abyssius]

The variation of GUI available is valid point. However, I would argue that Gnome is the "default" GUI for Ubuntu. When a new user downloads the live CD from the Ubuntu site, they are guided to the Ubuntu live CD, which provides Gnome as the GUI. The example screens shown immediately on the Ubuntu site are Gnome. Locating the Kubuntu or Xubuntu variations requires additional knowledge and site surfing. Therefore the argument that a 'Windows' user would download Kubuntu or Xubuntu without knowing that they did that, sounds a little condescending to me.

In my experience, other websites where GUI advice is given (e.g. Ubuntu geek comes to mind), Gnome manipulation is most often presented as the 'default' solution. Even the official Ubuntu documentation pages use Gnome examples. My point is it is a safe bet that a new user without prior knowledge of Ubuntu alternatives will most likely download Ubuntu (not the available GUI alternatives). Therefore, providing Gnome-centric advice is a safe bet.

I would also dispute the point that users are 'impatient' and want quick fixes by default. I believe that beginners who use this forum want to learn Ubuntu just as much as they want to get their current computer problem fixed. This is my experience with using the Ubuntu Forum anyway.

[abyssius]

Bash is pretty much the same everywhere. GUIs aren't; running Gnome? KDE? 3.5 or 4.x? Fluxbox? Something else? Quite often a new user will not know which DE they're in--why should they (particularly if they're coming from a Windows environment)? In other words it takes time and many posts to explain what to click, where, and when. The new user is often impatient to fix the problem, and just wants a solution. CLI is quick, easy, and to the point.

Very condescending indeed. If they didn't know what GUI they were using with Ubuntu, it would probably be Gnome. This attitude only disrespects and discourages new users, which is not my motivation for participating in this forum.

[1packer]

I don't think anyone is saying they may have downloaded a different distro of Ubuntu. It is quite easy to change what GUI you're running if you simply want to try something new. Someone might have changed it and not think to mention it. Also, there may be an issue marked for Kubuntu that someone who uses Gnome really knows how to do. Why should they have to attempt to figure out the steps in KDE as opposed to just providing a few lines from the command line.
I switched from Windows to Ubuntu and I didn't have any problem with the cli. After 7 months I prefer the cli for most things and prefer instructions given in it. I never have a problem implementing cli solutions, gui leads to problems if things accidentally get skipped, or there are variations in the system. As another person stated, I do think that explanations of the commands are highly useful, and may make people feel more comfortable.

Another note, another major advantage of the command line is the error output. If something goes wrong in a GUI you're out of luck.

Edit: What was the purpose of that double post? You said the same thing and continued to insult the people who were willing to offer opinions for your topic.

[abyssius]

While there are various gui's available, threads are marked with Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu...etc. to address this very issue. I usually (well sometimes) try to give both the graphical and cli solution if they are both practical. Often, the gui solution is so simple that having a new user delve into the command line is just not worth it, especially in the beginner forum. In other forums, I think the preference can usually be given to a CLI solution.

Let's not forget that one of Ubuntu's strengths is the time and effort put into making a solid and comprehensive GUI environment in which most things can be accomplished in a gui. It is kind of working against that effort to treat the GUI as a second rate feature, especially to new users. There are distros out there that put far less effort into a robust GUI, and ignoring it in their forums is far more appropriate. As long as we are here to help out with Ubuntu, lets make an effort to put aside our personal preferences and play up the Ubuntu way. That means GUI, when possible.

here here!

Thanks for getting my point about beginners, Jimmy. And, I'll be partying right along with you on Jan. 20. Free at last!!!

[oldos2er]

Very condescending indeed. If they didn't know what GUI they were using with Ubuntu, it would probably be Gnome. This attitude only disrespects and discourages new users, which is not my motivation for participating in this forum.

*I* wouldn't have known what DE I was running when I first installed Ubuntu, and I've read many posts from new users not knowing this info either.

Please, if someone wants to post GUI directions in answer to someone else's post, do so. Participation is what makes these fora what they are.

[abyssius]

I don't think anyone is saying they may have downloaded a different distro of Ubuntu. It is quite easy to change what GUI you're running if you simply want to try something new. Someone might have changed it and not think to mention it. Also, there may be an issue marked for Kubuntu that someone who uses Gnome really knows how to do. Why should they have to attempt to figure out the steps in KDE as opposed to just providing a few lines from the command line.
I switched from Windows to Ubuntu and I didn't have any problem with the cli. After 7 months I prefer the cli for most things and prefer instructions given in it. I never have a problem implementing cli solutions, gui leads to problems if things accidentally get skipped, or there are variations in the system. As another person stated, I do think that explanations of the commands are highly useful, and may make people feel more comfortable.

Another note, another major advantage of the command line is the error output. If something goes wrong in a GUI you're out of luck.

Edit: What was the purpose of that double post? You said the same thing and continued to insult the people who were willing to offer opinions for your topic.

I'm sorry if you think my post was insulting - I honestly believe that the comment was condescending and discouraging. The double post was because noticed later that I replied to the wrong poster originally. I guess I shouldn't have done that. For this I apologize.

I hope you don't take offense to my comments on some of your points. For a beginner, I think "quite easy" is a relative term. IMHO, it takes a conscious decision and a little more that absolute beginner knowledge to change GUI environments. If a user did do this, and then posted a question without identifying that fact, he/she could initially be given erroneous advice. I know this because I've been guilty of this myself. That is the nature of this forum and all forums for that manner. Sometimes it takes many attempts to solve a problem. Fortunately, there are members who will demonstrate the patience to help beginners through their problem no matter what it took. I am a beneficiary of this type of patience and effort.

I think you may be missing my point. I totally agree that cli is more efficient and provides error messages, etc. that may be missed by the GUI equivalent. Every point you make in favor of cli is right on target. My argument is that it is easier to grow Ubuntu converts by providing them with a GUI experience that they are used to rather than making the argument that cli is more efficient, etc. etc. Linux users have been cli experts for years. My point is if Ubuntu is going to remain a cli Operating System, then it will never be able to challenge Windows or MAC in terms of a user base. This may not be important to you, but it is very important to me. Ubuntu has grown in usage - not because of clever cli manipulation, but because it is developing a GUI that is very competitive with Windows. If converting Windows users is important, then configuring Ubuntu via GUI is important. It is not realistic to think that average Windows users will embrace the cli. Isn't this is why every major Linux distribution is aggressively developing GUI desktop versions that diminish the need for cli configuring?

are

[Skripka]

Bash is pretty much the same everywhere. GUIs aren't; running Gnome? KDE? 3.5 or 4.x? Fluxbox? Something else? Quite often a new user will not know which DE they're in--why should they (particularly if they're coming from a Windows environment)? In other words it takes time and many posts to explain what to click, where, and when. The new user is often impatient to fix the problem, and just wants a solution. CLI is quick, easy, and to the point.

Bingo.

GUIs change. They are anything but universal. More importantly, writing things out in GUI instruction form takes much MUCH more effort on the part of the writer and time, as well as being MORE convoluted to the reader. Why **** around to find out what I need to know to help someone--instead of telling them to post the Terminal output of



lspci


??? It wastes my time, and the readers time-and the beginner to Linux does not learn to get their hands dirty and use CLI. CLI/Bash is a vital skill to learn for someone learning how to help themselves on Linux. Sooner or later someone will download Package.tar.gz and need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of Bash. Sooner or later we all had to learn CLI for something. Sooner is better, IMHO.

[abyssius]

*I* wouldn't have known what DE I was running when I first installed Ubuntu, and I've read many posts from new users not knowing this info either.

Please, if someone wants to post GUI directions in answer to someone else's post, do so. Participation is what makes these fora what they are.

Please accept my apology if you think I was insulting. That was not my intention. One of the motivations for starting this thread was because I'm a little uncomfortable with beginner posters always prefacing their questions with apologies for the fact that they are 'noobs' or 'newbies', etc. I believe they only do this because they assume responders think they don't know what they are doing, or stupid, and so on...

You say you didn't know what DE you were running when you first installed Ubuntu. If you simply downloaded Ubuntu, even though you weren't conscious of it, weren't you in fact using Gnome??? In my case, I heard about Ubuntu - downloaded the live CD. I was using gnome even though I didn't know it initially. Virtually, every independent (non-Linux site) review of Ubuntu I've seen is based on the Gnome version. So, IMHO it isn't such a stretch to assume Gnome, if someone doesn't specifically know what DE they're using.

[Alexander Barnes]

I've been using Ubuntu for about 6 months. I've used the GUI interfaces a lot and found it provides much of what I need. Since I've been reading articles and books on Linux for a few months, I'm not afraid of the command line, but to be honest, I usually look for something in the program menus first (old Windows habits still strong).

I can say in regard to promoting Linux to others (friends, family, and coworkers), it really has to work with the GUI or its just not going to be accepted. I'd never get out of the starting gate if I had to show someone how to mount a storage device with the command line - they'd just walk away. And yet I know Linux would be super choice for some of these friends. So I'm hopeful with Ubuntu that I have something I can really offer to them.

For myself, I hope to become adept at the CLI. I'm not sure of how the future will be but one thing that makes Linux strong is that it lets you be in charge - you can have the computer you want, not just the one you buy. Nevertheless, the reason I started with Ubuntu and Gnome was primarily because I knew I could get it up and running without difficulty. In fact, it worked straight "out of the box" for me, and was a pleasant experience for a Windows user. Thanks Ubuntu for this successful start with my *nix experience.

[stderr]

I agree with moreorless everything that everyone's said before.

Ultimately, it depends on the circumstances. There's a lot you can (attempt to) infer from someone's post about their computing proficiency in general, and their exposure/comfort level with the CLI. Answers are tailored based on that.

When there's a reasonable GUI solution and the DE has already been specified/can be inferred, it would probably be a good idea to post that. I tend to like posting a CLI solution too, if it's simple, with an explanation. Migrating users towards CLI involvement is surely positive :)

And, of course, purely GUI solutions are not always optimal. E.g. adding a line to /etc/modules manually by Alt+F2 gksudo'ing gedit/nedit/... and navigating through directories is not ideal... sudo sh -c "echo whatever | cat >> /etc/modules" is easier ;)

And when the DE is unknown, it's often quicker to just post a CLI option with an explanation, than to give options for each DE, or request more info from the OP.

The CLI will always be important in Linux, and invaluable in debugging. It won't be going away :) Hence why learning the CLI is important (although Ubuntu does make it 'optional'). It's one of the reasons I love Linux. Under Winblows, someone can use it for decades and still not be able to do much with the system. Conversely, someone using Linux for decades, even if not a big CLI fan, will probably have picked up quite a bit over that time, and be able to do some powerful stuff very quickly and easily.

But I agree with your point. When we know the DE, and there is a simple graphical solution, it should ideally be posted. If a simpler CLI alternative exists, it would be nice to post that too, with an explanation. That way, it's the OP's choice :)

[abyssius]

Bingo.

GUIs change. They are anything but universal. More importantly, writing things out in GUI instruction form takes much MUCH more effort on the part of the writer and time, as well as being MORE convoluted to the reader. Why **** around to find out what I need to know to help someone--instead of telling them to post the Terminal output of



lspci


??? It wastes my time, and the readers time-and the beginner to Linux does not learn to get their hands dirty and use CLI. CLI/Bash is a vital skill to learn for someone learning how to help themselves on Linux. Sooner or later someone will download Package.tar.gz and need to have at least a rudimentary understanding of Bash. Sooner or later we all had to learn CLI for something. Sooner is better, IMHO.

I guess this debate comes down to how one perceives Ubuntu users, and if one is interested in the growth of the Ubuntu user-base or not. Like it or not, CLI means geek-dom. CLI is just not the usage experience of the vast majority of computer users nowadays. If you want Ubuntu to remain an elitist geeky OS then the reduction of CLI usage won't be a concern to you. In my case, I want to see Ubuntu take its place as a viable alternative to Windows or OS-X. I just don't see my Grandmother, who has been using Windows for years and never having a clue that a command line ever existed switching to Ubuntu until Ubuntu can provide an equivalent user experience. It is obvious the main developers of the various Linux distributions recognize this fact, or they would not be so busy developing a Linux GUI desktop with GUI configuration tools to compete with Windows. Without arguing the merits or deficiencies of Windows vs. Linux, Windows is currently the dominating PC desktop environment. And, while most users buy their PC's pre-configured with Windows, many users also update, upgrade and otherwise modify their Windows machines comprehensively without needing any CLI manipulation (although it is available, if needed). I am a proponent of Ubuntu achieving the same configuration usability as Windows.

[50words]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think the CLI is necessary or helpful when it comes to new users. (Although it can be necessary and extremely helpful to more experienced users.)

Remember that girl who thought she got screwed because she bought a Dell with Ubuntu instead of Windows? If she had posted in this forum for help, how helpful do you think a CLI command would be to her?

[jrusso2]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think the CLI is necessary or helpful when it comes to new users. (Although it can be necessary and extremely helpful to more experienced users.)

Remember that girl who thought she got screwed because she bought a Dell with Ubuntu instead of Windows? If she had posted in this forum for help, how helpful do you think a CLI command would be to her?

I don't think anything we could do would have helped her. She was not wanting to buy Ubuntu in the first place.

[Riffer]

When I first switched over (a long time Windows user) it was the CLI that made me appreciate Linux the most. Troubleshooting and fixes became quick, easy and straight forward, no longer did I (and the poster helping me) have to endure long winded instructions on how to navigate to the proper program let alone navigating through said program. 99% of the time it was just cut n paste into the terminal and tada, what I wanted or needed was done.

Point well taken with a brief explanation on what commands do would have been just that much more helpful. I would rather see an encouragement for new users to use the CLI rather then discourage. My meager knowledge how commands has saved me on more then on occasion.

[y@w]

Whenever I can't get a Windows application or installer to launch I run it from the command line. Why? Because I get much better error reporting and can usually solve the problem a lot faster. I understand your point of keeping users where they are comfortable but sometimes it has to be done that way. That's the point those who are "opposed" to the OP are trying to say. Keeping the solution as simple and user-friendly as possible is important for a new user, but in a lot of cases it's just not feasible.

Just my two cents... ;)

[cariboo]

I personally try to give solutions the gui way, but sometimes it just helps the user solve their problem quicker by giving them a command line solution to their problem.

The one thing I think would help, is if the code tags are renamed to command. The code tag just reinforces the idea that you have to be a programmer to run Linux successfully. Code tags are used for everything from directory listing to shell scripts, there is rarely any code of any type enclosed in the tags.

JIm

[jimmy the saint]

I think it is also important to understand that there are different kinds of people who use Ubuntu. While it sounds like many of those who have contributed to this thread are experienced users who know how to administer their OS, many Ubuntu users (more and more every day) really want to be able to use their computer for a purpose. People come to linux for many reasons, and not everyone comes to become a linux guru. In the beginner forum especially, I think it is important to realize that sometimes people just want to get something done in a way they feel comfortable, not be forced to use the CLI because people who know what they are doing feel it is more efficient. It may be, but for a lot of people, it is not comfortable or appropriate for their needs.

If these are to be support forums it is vital to undertand the support needs of those who ask for help. While some poeple are going to want lessons in the command line, others are going to compute in their comfort zone. Ubuntu is one of the best distros out there for newbies, not because of the command line, but because of its robust set of graphical tools. I say again that if you are going to support a distro that stresses graphical solutions, don't treat those graphical solutions as refuse. They are one of Ubunutu's greatest strengths. They are why Ubuntu has brought so much new blood into the world of linux. I think acting as if they are irrelevant, or second class is missing the point.

[jrusso2]

Don't forget the people who help in the forums are volunteers. They can choose they way they want to help.

If they chose to use CLI as most do then, you going to put them down for helping in a way you don't feel is proper.

It really is best for new Linux users to get over their fear of commands as really it is still the best way to do somethings in Linux. And there is no reason to be afraid of learning a bit. They don't have to become guru's to do a few commands.

[aysiu]

For me, it depends on the situation.

Generally speaking, for HowTos I go with the GUI. For troubleshooting, I go with the CLI.

[saulgoode]

My point is if Ubuntu is going to remain a cli Operating System, then it will never be able to challenge Windows or MAC in terms of a user base. This may not be important to you, but it is very important to me.

You should live your life in a manner consistent with what's important to you, and I'll live mine the way I feel's important.

I typically provide help to about half a dozen different people each day. I don't WANT to take the time to play Q&A over the course of several days to solve a single problem -- needing to revisit threads regularly to see if the questions have been responded to and to ask the next of Twenty Questions. The sooner I can steer one person towards a solution, the sooner I can move on to helping someone else.

I consider efficiency to be important. During the time period of a single hand-holding session with one person who would demand answers "their way", I can generally help a dozen or more people by providing help "my way" -- terse questions, brief instructions, and minimal explanations. Actually my explanations can end up being rather long-winded and I will often provide custom-written tutorials, but the choice of how I help people is mine to make.

And for what it's worth, in all of my thousands of "helpful" posts on the Internet over the years, on only a couple of occasions have I received complaints on my method of helping. That is a ratio I can live with.

[Liviu-Theodor]

I would like to see the Ubuntu advisors on this forum show a little more sensitivity toward the "Windows" mindset, when providing advice to brand new Ubuntu users. Windows users are of the GUI mindset. A GUI environment creates a psychological comfort level when someone takes on the sometimes daunting task of configuring their system. A GUI environment presents them with a clear set of options, guides them through procedures in logical steps, and delivers the feedback (e.g. a Finish button or Success message) that lets them know that what they did was successful.
I think you should read the following threads (of course, also the new Ubuntu users you are talking about):
New to Ubuntu? Start here... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=801404)
All my favorite Linux desktop readiness threads... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=219243)
Ubuntu Security (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812)
The last one describes also the differneces between Ubuntu and Windows mindsets.


There is no doubt that command line techniques often "cut to the chase" when solving problems, but my question is - does advising someone to "cut and paste" an often obscure set of textual commands really educate and encourage a new user to adopt Ubuntu? I think that very often it actually discourages potential users. I'm old enough to remember the DOS command line days, so when I first ventured into the Linux desktop world, command-line syntax and its usage wasn't so daunting to me. However, I also recognize that nowadays the vast majority of Windows users never had to edit config.sys of autoexec.bat or system.ini, etc. To them, the command line seems primitive, unintuitive and sometimes frightening.
Of course, you remember the help command. Here it is caled man (probably short for manual).


I think that two things might serve the Ubuntu Forum community better.
(1) If there is a GUI method provided to solve a problem, then suggest that method first, even if you know that a textual command would accomplish the task more efficiently. Windows users are fully trained on manipulating convoluted GUI windows and menus. I suspect they would trade a few extra mouse clicks for the psychological comfort level the GUI technique provides.

(2) If you post a line of code, sometimes take the time to provide a brief explanation of what your recommended command and its options actually mean. This would serve to "educate" the new user and lower the intimidation level.
I would like to know how it is possible in Windows, using the GUI, not the CLI, to know if some internet server responds (the ping command) or the internet route to it (the tracert command). In ubuntu I have seen this command: System->Administration->Network Tools.


After one year of usage, I consider myself a fully-committed Ubuntu advocate. But, I recognize the fact that the growth of Linux as a viable desktop environment will be in direct proportion to its comparison to the Windows OS work flow that over 90% of computer users now know. IMHO, this translates to how effective the Ubuntu GUI environment is at solving the everyday configuration problems that will be encountered. Ubuntu has come a long way since I began using it, and I hope that the 'advisors' on this forum make an effort to encourage the use of the GUI environment to solve problems whenever possible, even if they find the method 'distasteful'.
I don't think the same as you, because Ubuntu is just one of the many Linux flavours that exist nowadays. But I also hope that Linux overall will be thought more and more as a viable OS, and not anymore ignored by some hardware manufacturers and/or software companies.

[Andreas1]

(2) If you post a line of code, sometimes take the time to provide a brief explanation of what your recommended command and its options actually mean. This would serve to "educate" the new user and lower the intimidation level.

+1

and also: listen more carefully!

i saw a lot of "efficient-problem-solvers" give answers that where in some way (i guess those people work on a "keywords" basis rather than on a semantic level when they post really fast) related to the problem, but not what was asked for.
human interaction takes time and attentiveness.

[saulgoode]

i saw a lot of "efficient-problem-solvers" give answers that where in some way (i guess those people work on a "keywords" basis rather than on a semantic level when they post really fast) related to the problem, but not what was asked for.
human interaction takes time and attentiveness.
How you choose to spend your time and attention is up to you. As for me, I have no interest in embarking on a lifelong Internet courtship with somebody just because they need some assistance in getting their mouse wheel recognized.

It is not a matter of "posting really fast" (in fact it often takes more time to compose one's advice so that it succinctly addresses the appropriate issues); it is a matter of resolving a problem as painlessly as possible. If someone wishes to pursue things further... to gain a better understanding of the underlying principles of the solution, then the best time to discuss that is after the problem has been resolved -- this eliminates time and attentiveness being wasted in those cases where the whys and wherefores are not of concern, or the solution provided was enough of a nudge in the right direction that further research can be performed on one's own.

[oldos2er]

The one thing I think would help, is if the code tags are renamed to command. The code tag just reinforces the idea that you have to be a programmer to run Linux successfully. Code tags are used for everything from directory listing to shell scripts, there is rarely any code of any type enclosed in the tags.

JIm

+1 for this idea. Not sure how the word "code" came to mean "command" (it must've been after my time), but I think it does make things needlessly confusing.

[Andreas1]

How you choose to spend your time and attention is up to you. As for me, I have no interest in embarking on a lifelong Internet courtship with somebody just because they need some assistance in getting their mouse wheel recognized.

It is not a matter of "posting really fast" (in fact it often takes more time to compose one's advice so that it succinctly addresses the appropriate issues); it is a matter of resolving a problem as painlessly as possible. If someone wishes to pursue things further... to gain a better understanding of the underlying principles of the solution, then the best time to discuss that is after the problem has been resolved -- this eliminates time and attentiveness being wasted in those cases where the whys and wherefores are not of concern, or the solution provided was enough of a nudge in the right direction that further research can be performed on one's own.

i didn't mean they are not diligent enough, i mean something like:

Q: how can i enable the trash on ntfs drive?
A: tutorial on how to bypass trash and delete files immediately

[abyssius]

+1

and also: listen more carefully!

i saw a lot of "efficient-problem-solvers" give answers that where in some way (i guess those people work on a "keywords" basis rather than on a semantic level when they post really fast) related to the problem, but not what was asked for.
human interaction takes time and attentiveness.

In full agreement. That's why I'm not impressed by the responders who indicated that they "don't want their time wasted" or some similar sentiment. I wouldn't want help from someone with an attitude like that. If their time is so precious, then they can simply not participate in the forum. Imagine a teacher trying to educate a young child with an attitude like that?

[Skripka]

I guess this debate comes down to how one perceives Ubuntu users, and if one is interested in the growth of the Ubuntu user-base or not. Like it or not, CLI means geek-dom. CLI is just not the usage experience of the vast majority of computer users nowadays. If you want Ubuntu to remain an elitist geeky OS then the reduction of CLI usage won't be a concern to you.

No.

The question is, do we want to help Linux Youngins learn to help themselves and troubleshoot themselves---or do we want Linux to end up like Windows or Mac----where say 90% of users don't have a clue how to fix something when something goes wrong?

On another forum I frequent, an older man just switched over his box to Ubuntu, lifelong Win user (knew some DOS commands etc)--the 1st 2 days I got about 20 PMs back and forth on how to do and set things. He tried to move over a few months ago on his own and swore in frustration, and gave up and stayed on Windows....I told him what to type, where, how, and why--and I didn't hear from him for a week----turns out he learned to help himself, and in the interim-he learned how to manage-and was quite proud of himself...he only PM'd me again when he was in over his head trying to get a USB scanner to work.

CLI is a vital tool--it doesn't matter what the stereotype is--it is a tool. ANYONE who uses Linux is deemed a "geek" anyway. Most folks only know of Linux in the early 90s stereotype as a command prompt anyway.

Ignoring CLI as "scary" or "frightening" or "complicated" or "geeky" is a mistake. Especially when Bash is nearly universal across distros and desktop environments. Ubuntu may be a Gnome distro-but a large population on UF are Arch users-and they know their CLI-and offer a great deal of help as such. Lots of users from many distros come here for help-and get it-as a result of the nature of Bash/CLI-and Ubuntuforums is better for it.

[abyssius]

You should live your life in a manner consistent with what's important to you, and I'll live mine the way I feel's important.

I typically provide help to about half a dozen different people each day. I don't WANT to take the time to play Q&A over the course of several days to solve a single problem -- needing to revisit threads regularly to see if the questions have been responded to and to ask the next of Twenty Questions. The sooner I can steer one person towards a solution, the sooner I can move on to helping someone else.

I consider efficiency to be important. During the time period of a single hand-holding session with one person who would demand answers "their way", I can generally help a dozen or more people by providing help "my way" -- terse questions, brief instructions, and minimal explanations. Actually my explanations can end up being rather long-winded and I will often provide custom-written tutorials, but the choice of how I help people is mine to make.

And for what it's worth, in all of my thousands of "helpful" posts on the Internet over the years, on only a couple of occasions have I received complaints on my method of helping. That is a ratio I can live with.

Not everyone that requests help can express themselves in a terse, succinct manner. There is also no such thing as a uniform comprehension level. I suppose the number of people you help in a given period is the most important thing to you. I can't help wondering if for you to achieve those impressive numbers, you could also be dismissing many others that you could have helped with a little more patience. In my experience the most effective teachers place their students above themselves and don't mind the extra effort it takes to push their 'slower' students along.

[73ckn797]

I am less than 6 months using Ubuntu. I am not afraid of CLI but also understand others are. I have made it a point in many threads to give a more graphical way of solving some problems for people. At the same time I also realize that some fixes have to use CLI. In those cases I will try to explain where to go and what to do and provide as much info to make their first or second venture into terminal an easier task than throwing out a bunch of CLI and leaving things at that.

There are many people who are lazy and do not want to take time to do some reading up in the sticky posts or looking through the Community Documentation to find answers or have any introduction to what is at their hand. When I perceive that may be the case I give the link to a specific document page and leave it up to them to figure it out. Typically, my self included, some people only want to deal with solving a problem that is in front of them then move merrily along using the OS. The "Silver Bullet" is all they want.

I really appreciated in the first couple of months that people would direct me to sources of info that I was unaware of and did it in a fashion that was not an overload of new procedures or information. New procedures and information is a given when changing to a different computer OS.

[abyssius]

No.

The question is, do we want to help Linux Youngins learn to help themselves and troubleshoot themselves---or do we want Linux to end up like Windows or Mac----where say 90% of users don't have a clue how to fix something when something goes wrong?

On another forum I frequent, an older man just switched over his box to Ubuntu, lifelong Win user (knew some DOS commands etc)--the 1st 2 days I got about 20 PMs back and forth on how to do and set things. He tried to move over a few months ago on his own and swore in frustration, and gave up and stayed on Windows....I told him what to type, where, how, and why--and I didn't hear from him for a week----turns out he learned to help himself, and in the interim-he learned how to manage-and was quite proud of himself...he only PM'd me again when he was in over his head trying to get a USB scanner to work.

CLI is a vital tool--it doesn't matter what the stereotype is--it is a tool. ANYONE who uses Linux is deemed a "geek" anyway. Most folks only know of Linux in the early 90s stereotype as a command prompt anyway.

Ignoring CLI as "scary" or "frightening" or "complicated" or "geeky" is a mistake. Especially when Bash is nearly universal across distros and desktop environments. Ubuntu may be a Gnome distro-but a large population on UF are Arch users-and they know their CLI-and offer a great deal of help as such. Lots of users from many distros come here for help-and get it-as a result of the nature of Bash/CLI-and Ubuntuforums is better for it.

I think if you read the thread starter you'll realize that this isn't an anti-CLI thread. What I said was if there is a GUI solution, why not encourage new users to fix their machine that way? However, if CLI is the selected solution, try to add a few lines of explanation. I honestly didn't realize that this would be perceived as such an unreasonable request.

I've personally introduced many people to Linux (Ubuntu, specifically) that can't be accused of being geeks. An example that I can site is several members of a local church, where I demonstrated Ubuntu (Christian edition) in a technology ministry. The participants wanted to surf the Internet (mostly to the church's website), use email, study the bible online, etc. As a result of this ministry, I was able to provide pre-configured computers to those who wanted them for less that $300.00 each. These are not rich people who can afford Microsoft office or Adobe Photoshop, or will pay enough attention to keep up with anti-virus and spyware. They certainly aren't having horrific problems. So far, requests for tech-support has been practically non-existent. This is why I believe that Ubuntu can be a mainstream OS, just as Windows is.

[igknighted]

I guess this debate comes down to how one perceives Ubuntu users, and if one is interested in the growth of the Ubuntu user-base or not. Like it or not, CLI means geek-dom. CLI is just not the usage experience of the vast majority of computer users nowadays. If you want Ubuntu to remain an elitist geeky OS then the reduction of CLI usage won't be a concern to you. In my case, I want to see Ubuntu take its place as a viable alternative to Windows or OS-X. I just don't see my Grandmother, who has been using Windows for years and never having a clue that a command line ever existed switching to Ubuntu until Ubuntu can provide an equivalent user experience. It is obvious the main developers of the various Linux distributions recognize this fact, or they would not be so busy developing a Linux GUI desktop with GUI configuration tools to compete with Windows. Without arguing the merits or deficiencies of Windows vs. Linux, Windows is currently the dominating PC desktop environment. And, while most users buy their PC's pre-configured with Windows, many users also update, upgrade and otherwise modify their Windows machines comprehensively without needing any CLI manipulation (although it is available, if needed). I am a proponent of Ubuntu achieving the same configuration usability as Windows.

It's a really great idea, and I like where your head is at, but there are some problems with the practicality. Windows can very easily give you (the average home user, however you define that) a GUI for everything. But there are only so many options that can be changed in windows. In linux, on the other hand, the configurations are (almost) limitless. Can you imagine a GUI to configure xorg.conf? It would be almost unmanageable, and a nightmare to code in a usable manner. And this is just one of many config files that exist.

Also, why do you assume that "everyone" will be using Gnome? If you add up the interest on Distrowatch (in terms of page hits), the "other" versions get about half as much as the Gnome version. I don't consider a 70-30 (roughly) split to be a good enough assumption. Even if the original poster did use gnome, the information wouldn't be helpful to the next person who is using Xfce.

You might want to check out the control panel in Mandriva. It has a (roughly) uniform interface for the gnome and kde versions, and can configure most things that need configuration. Suse's YaST does this as well, but will over write custom changes more than Mandriva's. I'd say the message here is that perhaps an Ubuntu control panel, that has a gtk and qt interface to fit into both environments, could provide the consistency and GUI-friendliness that would work for what you suggest, but as long as completely separate tools exist for each distro, then there is simply no good way to resolve this.

[4E.Kipper]

i'm a self-confessed linux newbie.

i have to say i prefer solutions to be posted using the CLI. it speeds things up. ALOT!.

i mean if yout just using the gui to solve problems, isnt that just like *******?
using the cli speeds things up, makes it easier. rather than click>click>click>click>click just hit F12 (term shortcut for me) and type whatever needed in about 5-10seconds and bam, done.

IMHO the newbies NEED to be taught how to use the cli, its what (for me) linux is about, more powerfull commands, quicker, alot more choice. etc.

however for a complete newb maybe showing the gui is better to start with, but they should be slowly weeend off it.

[cardinals_fan]

(1) If there is a GUI method provided to solve a problem, then suggest that method first, even if you know that a textual command would accomplish the task more efficiently. Windows users are fully trained on manipulating convoluted GUI windows and menus. I suspect they would trade a few extra mouse clicks for the psychological comfort level the GUI technique provides.
The problem isn't that they might be running a different window manager. The fact is that I use Slackware and Ratpoison and most of the people I'm helping use Ubuntu and GNOME or Xfce. I can't tell people how to change their resolution graphically in GNOME because I don't know. I haven't used GNOME in over a year. I just have no idea how to do things graphically with it.


(2) If you post a line of code, sometimes take the time to provide a brief explanation of what your recommended command and its options actually mean. This would serve to "educate" the new user and lower the intimidation level.
I absolutely agree with this, and resolve to practice it more often.

Very condescending indeed. If they didn't know what GUI they were using with Ubuntu, it would probably be Gnome. This attitude only disrespects and discourages new users, which is not my motivation for participating in this forum.
Assuming that new users a) use GNOME and b) deserve to be talked down to is what I call condescending. I'm not going to treat them like lesser mortals just because they are new to Linux.

I guess this debate comes down to how one perceives Ubuntu users, and if one is interested in the growth of the Ubuntu user-base or not. Like it or not, CLI means geek-dom. CLI is just not the usage experience of the vast majority of computer users nowadays. If you want Ubuntu to remain an elitist geeky OS then the reduction of CLI usage won't be a concern to you. In my case, I want to see Ubuntu take its place as a viable alternative to Windows or OS-X. I just don't see my Grandmother, who has been using Windows for years and never having a clue that a command line ever existed switching to Ubuntu until Ubuntu can provide an equivalent user experience. It is obvious the main developers of the various Linux distributions recognize this fact, or they would not be so busy developing a Linux GUI desktop with GUI configuration tools to compete with Windows. Without arguing the merits or deficiencies of Windows vs. Linux, Windows is currently the dominating PC desktop environment. And, while most users buy their PC's pre-configured with Windows, many users also update, upgrade and otherwise modify their Windows machines comprehensively without needing any CLI manipulation (although it is available, if needed). I am a proponent of Ubuntu achieving the same configuration usability as Windows.
I don't help people on this forum because I'm "interested in the growth of the Ubuntu user-base". I do it because I want to give back to this community that introduced me to Linux and a whole new way of looking at my computer. I want to help people solve their problems because I respect their decision to make up their own mind and want to help them use Ubuntu effectively.

In full agreement. That's why I'm not impressed by the responders who indicated that they "don't want their time wasted" or some similar sentiment. I wouldn't want help from someone with an attitude like that. If their time is so precious, then they can simply not participate in the forum. Imagine a teacher trying to educate a young child with an attitude like that?
If I were on an IRC channel, I would understand this attitude, even if I don't agree. However, the fact is that a forum post may go unanswered for hours while one participant is offline. I go to school for seven hours a day, ride my bike for one, sleep for eight, and do other stuff for most of the rest. I can't just post a GUI response, wait a day, and find out that the app "didn't open". If there might be error messages, I need to know what they are soon. Leaving people hanging there waiting for help simply to spare them the experience of typing a few commands isn't helping them.

I have never been told that the command line response was confusing or that they would prefer a graphical method by anyone I've helped. They are always grateful for a solution to their problem. Those who want to learn more about their system usually respond with eager questions about how to solve their own problems with the CLI.

You seem to genuinely care about making the transition smoother for new users. That's great! However, you do them a disservice by automatically putting them in a different category and suggesting that we treat them condescendingly because they "are of the GUI mindset". I will not relegate new users to the kindergarten simply because they are new. I will not treat them differently from someone else simply because I don't think they have the technical skills. I will not discriminate against them based on their current ability. And I will not hold a blindfold over their eyes when looking at their system out of fear that they can't handle it. I give them more credit then that, and I suggest that you do the same.

[I-75]

Some suggestions for those advising new users...


How about telling new users that a kernel upgrade could cause the loss of wireless on a laptop. It happened to me ...twice!

[saulgoode]

Not everyone that requests help can express themselves in a terse, succinct manner. There is also no such thing as a uniform comprehension level. I suppose the number of people you help in a given period is the most important thing to you. I can't help wondering if for you to achieve those impressive numbers, you could also be dismissing many others that you could have helped with a little more patience. In my experience the most effective teachers place their students above themselves and don't mind the extra effort it takes to push their 'slower' students along.

I'm not talking about teaching, I am responding to your proposal that GUI methods should be used for solving problems:


"1) If there is a GUI method provided to solve a problem, then suggest that method first, ..."

Your suggestion makes the presumption that the person who posted the problem is interested in learning (and the GUI method at that). My experience has been that people interested in learning about a topic typically express that by saying something such as "I am interested in learning about..."

When someone seeks help in solving a problem, I presume that they are interested in solving their problem (imagine that!). Unless it helps them to solve their problem, any teaching I might offer is likely to be a waste of both their time and mine.


I wouldn't want help from someone with an attitude like that.
Your prejudice is duly noted. It has been my experience that most people who receive assistance aren't nearly so demanding about the methodology of the help (some are even grateful).


If their time is so precious, then they can simply not participate in the forum.
Yes, indeed! Prohibit anyone who may actually know how to solve problems from participating in your forums. We don't want their kind here!


Imagine a teacher trying to educate a young child with an attitude like that?
So everyone who uses GNU/Linux should be treated as a child? Now who's being condescending?

[3rdalbum]

I do try to do this. The exception is if the user is on an old version of Ubuntu and I know or think the GUI for the thing has changed.

[abyssius]

The problem isn't that they might be running a different window manager. The fact is that I use Slackware and Ratpoison and most of the people I'm helping use Ubuntu and GNOME or Xfce. I can't tell people how to change their resolution graphically in GNOME because I don't know. I haven't used GNOME in over a year. I just have no idea how to do things graphically with it.

I absolutely agree with this, and resolve to practice it more often.

Assuming that new users a) use GNOME and b) deserve to be talked down to is what I call condescending. I'm not going to treat them like lesser mortals just because they are new to Linux.

I don't help people on this forum because I'm "interested in the growth of the Ubuntu user-base". I do it because I want to give back to this community that introduced me to Linux and a whole new way of looking at my computer. I want to help people solve their problems because I respect their decision to make up their own mind and want to help them use Ubuntu effectively.

If I were on an IRC channel, I would understand this attitude, even if I don't agree. However, the fact is that a forum post may go unanswered for hours while one participant is offline. I go to school for seven hours a day, ride my bike for one, sleep for eight, and do other stuff for most of the rest. I can't just post a GUI response, wait a day, and find out that the app "didn't open". If there might be error messages, I need to know what they are soon. Leaving people hanging there waiting for help simply to spare them the experience of typing a few commands isn't helping them.

I have never been told that the command line response was confusing or that they would prefer a graphical method by anyone I've helped. They are always grateful for a solution to their problem. Those who want to learn more about their system usually respond with eager questions about how to solve their own problems with the CLI.

You seem to genuinely care about making the transition smoother for new users. That's great! However, you do them a disservice by automatically putting them in a different category and suggesting that we treat them condescendingly because they "are of the GUI mindset". I will not relegate new users to the kindergarten simply because they are new. I will not treat them differently from someone else simply because I don't think they have the technical skills. I will not discriminate against them based on their current ability. And I will not hold a blindfold over their eyes when looking at their system out of fear that they can't handle it. I give them more credit then that, and I suggest that you do the same.

You make great points. However, I will take issue with your inferences that I associate "GUI mindset" with anything demeaning. You are misunderstanding my point. Some of the most amazing software has been created by brilliant people using GUI solutions like Visual Basic or C++. I have never said that GUI translates to "a lesser computer user". No matter what your computer skill level is, when you encounter something new, there is a learning curve. It is not condescending to "hand-hold" someone when they first encounter something they are not used to. That is all I have been suggesting.

I also don't believe that CLI advocates are automatically superior to those who would prefer to use GUI methods to fix a problem. It is the case that currently CLI techniques are more expedient that GUI in Linux, but that's not the case in Windows - where the vast majority of new Ubuntu users migrate from. Also, it is obvious to me that as Ubuntu/Linux progresses, CLI is being replaced by GUI as the default method to configure the system. I don't believe that the developers are doing this because they think "less" of people that prefer using a GUI. I think they "smell the coffee" ;)

I think this thread has invoked some responses that I personally find fascinating, and also important. Apparently, the motivations for people who participate in this forum both as the requesters and the providers of help are extremely diverse and often inspirational.

[abyssius]

I'm not talking about teaching, I am responding to your proposal that GUI methods should be used for solving problems:

When you provide instructions to someone as to how to fix their system themselves. That is teaching. It is not as if you were taking their computer from them, fixing it, then returning it to them. There are such users. They bring their computer to the local store and pay the technician to fix it. I believe that people making the effort to install new OS on their computers are looking for a learning experience. I never said it was compulsory to use GUI. I said, use it if it's available, and if you don't add a little explanation of the CLI command, so people get an idea of what they are doing. What's so terrible about that?


Your suggestion makes the presumption that the person who posted the problem is interested in learning (and the GUI method at that). My experience has been that people interested in learning about a topic typically express that by saying something such as "I am interested in learning about..."

When someone seeks help in solving a problem, I presume that they are interested in solving their problem (imagine that!). Unless it helps them to solve their problem, any teaching I might offer is likely to be a waste of both their time and mine.

Obviously, they want to solve their problem, but I give the people requesting help on this forum more credit than apparently you do. I believe they ARE interesting in learning, or they wouldn't take on the task of installing Linux in the first place. If they simply wanted to use a computer and not learn anything about it, wouldn't they most likely stick with Windows, and pay technicians when they had problems?



Your prejudice is duly noted. It has been my experience that most people who receive assistance aren't nearly so demanding about the methodology of the help (some are even grateful).

This seems a little myopic and somewhat prejudicial on your part. I've requested help often, was extremely interested in learning "how the fix worked", but never thought I had to actually mention that fact. I always assumed that this was implied - because I took the trouble to ask how to do it in the first place. When you consider the efforts some posters put in to get their problem resolved, it's amazing to conclude that they wouldn't be interested in the methodology.


Yes, indeed! Prohibit anyone who may actually know how to solve problems from participating in your forums. We don't want their kind here!

I don't believe you can fairly imply this by anything I've said. However, I will say that if providing help to a particular user invokes impatience, then maybe it would be a better idea to leave that particular problem to a more patient helper. There are many examples of extreme patience on this forum, and I for one appreciate these efforts and applaud them greatly.


So everyone who uses GNU/Linux should be treated as a child? Now who's being condescending?

This is an amazing reach that I don't quite know how to respond to. For the record, IMHO anyone that elects to use GNU/Linux is demonstrating deep insight, and I applaud them, regardless of how old or young they are.

[abyssius]

The problem isn't that they might be running a different window manager. The fact is that I use Slackware and Ratpoison and most of the people I'm helping use Ubuntu and GNOME or Xfce. I can't tell people how to change their resolution graphically in GNOME because I don't know. I haven't used GNOME in over a year. I just have no idea how to do things graphically with it.

I absolutely agree with this, and resolve to practice it more often.

Assuming that new users a) use GNOME and b) deserve to be talked down to is what I call condescending. I'm not going to treat them like lesser mortals just because they are new to Linux.

I don't help people on this forum because I'm "interested in the growth of the Ubuntu user-base". I do it because I want to give back to this community that introduced me to Linux and a whole new way of looking at my computer. I want to help people solve their problems because I respect their decision to make up their own mind and want to help them use Ubuntu effectively.

If I were on an IRC channel, I would understand this attitude, even if I don't agree. However, the fact is that a forum post may go unanswered for hours while one participant is offline. I go to school for seven hours a day, ride my bike for one, sleep for eight, and do other stuff for most of the rest. I can't just post a GUI response, wait a day, and find out that the app "didn't open". If there might be error messages, I need to know what they are soon. Leaving people hanging there waiting for help simply to spare them the experience of typing a few commands isn't helping them.

I have never been told that the command line response was confusing or that they would prefer a graphical method by anyone I've helped. They are always grateful for a solution to their problem. Those who want to learn more about their system usually respond with eager questions about how to solve their own problems with the CLI.

You seem to genuinely care about making the transition smoother for new users. That's great! However, you do them a disservice by automatically putting them in a different category and suggesting that we treat them condescendingly because they "are of the GUI mindset". I will not relegate new users to the kindergarten simply because they are new. I will not treat them differently from someone else simply because I don't think they have the technical skills. I will not discriminate against them based on their current ability. And I will not hold a blindfold over their eyes when looking at their system out of fear that they can't handle it. I give them more credit then that, and I suggest that you do the same.

Excellent post with great points. I don't have a condescending attitude toward the "GUI mindset". This is a misunderstanding of my position that I'd like to address. I've built, upgraded, modified, installed every flavor of Windows on literally hundreds of computers - I've added video cards, sound cards, wireless adapters, new motherboards, hard drives, DVD/CD drives, memory upgrades, etc. etc. etc. without having to resort to CLI even once since the DOS/Win3.1 days.

Let me state I am a GUI advocate! I know brilliant Computer Scientists who use GUI solutions to create the most amazing software that we all use at one time or the other. I'd venture to contend that it is in fact the CLI advocates who somehow demean GUI users as "lesser beings".

I thought my position was simply understood. If there is a GUI solution, why not use it? It is obvious to me that as Linux grows toward the Desktop environment, the reliance on CLI configuration shrinks. This will attract the "average" user that might not be so interested in the "inner workings" of their machine.

I've already stated that I am personally interested in spreading the use of Linux as an alternative to the proprietary MAC and Windows platforms. I know that Linux comes in many flavors/GUI's, but for various reasons, Ubuntu has surged to the forefront of the Linux desktop market.

Linux will always be considered a geeky or hobby-based OS, as long as computer users consider it not to be "user-friendly". In the real world, "user-friendly" translates to GUI. Observe the MAC marketing over the years. They touted their GUI capabilities not their CLI possibilities. They used to ridicule the DOS prompt! The MAC marketing dept. would cringe if an ad suggested that a MAC user open a terminal to configure their system.

[abyssius]

i'm a self-confessed linux newbie.

i have to say i prefer solutions to be posted using the CLI. it speeds things up. ALOT!.

i mean if yout just using the gui to solve problems, isnt that just like *******?
using the cli speeds things up, makes it easier. rather than click>click>click>click>click just hit F12 (term shortcut for me) and type whatever needed in about 5-10seconds and bam, done.

IMHO the newbies NEED to be taught how to use the cli, its what (for me) linux is about, more powerfull commands, quicker, alot more choice. etc.

however for a complete newb maybe showing the gui is better to start with, but they should be slowly weeend off it.

You're absolutely right that CLI techniques are the most efficient method to configure/repair a system. If this was an absolute rule, why do you think that Ubuntu developers keep adding GUI configuration options, with every new release?

[billgoldberg]

(1) If there is a GUI method provided to solve a problem, then suggest that method first, even if you know that a textual command would accomplish the task more efficiently. Windows users are fully trained on manipulating convoluted GUI windows and menus. I suspect they would trade a few extra mouse clicks for the psychological comfort level the GUI technique provides.

(2) If you post a line of code, sometimes take the time to provide a brief explanation of what your recommended command and its options actually mean. This would serve to "educate" the new user and lower the intimidation level.


1) I used to do so, but frankly I can't be bother typing the same thing over and over and over again.

I now sometimes just post the command, nothing else.

If you are using linux, you must have heard about the cli and you should be able to figure it out.

Also most people should learn to google, instead of asking for help first.

2) Again, more work and most likely the user won't care.

If he/she asks what the commands does or says he/she find the command confusing, then I'll explain.

[saulgoode]

Obviously, they want to solve their problem, but I give the people requesting help on this forum more credit than apparently you do.
Apparently not. You don't give people requesting help credit for actually meaning what they say. You would make assumptions about what they want, what their abilities are, and whether they are capable of expressing themselves. Further, you presume that they are incapable of deciding for themselves if they will benefit from proffered assistance; rather dictating that others should refrain from responding because it doesn't satisfy your presumptions of the "proper" way to help someone.


When you consider the efforts some posters put in to get their problem resolved, it's amazing to conclude that they wouldn't be interested in the methodology.
I find it amazing that you consider people incapable of expressing what it is they are interested in. If they are interested in the methodology then they can certainly ask such -- they can even do so after they're satisfied with the resolution of their problem.

[SomeGuyDude]

Aim for the best solution. If something's going to require 20 clicks in the GUI versus a quick command, then go with the command. Really, a newbie isn't going to "understand" what happened in a GUI much more than they would the CLI (I say this in a "I remember those days" way, not a condescending way), so why not start getting them acclimated to the terminal?

The biggest, the BIGGEST, hump to get over in the Windows/Linux transition is not fearing the CLI, realizing it's powerful, sure, but it's not like opening the box means you're immediately editing and altering crucial system files. When I first got Ubuntu, I thought that anything I did from the command-line was some mega-powerful something or other that would make my system explode if I made a typo. Getting over that is easily the most important thing.

Now, if we're talking thirty commands in sequence and reading the output of half of them when a GUI solution is just as time-consuming, go GUI. But c'mon, don't tell people to avoid suggesting commands entirely just because Windows users aren't used to it.

[cardinals_fan]

Excellent post with great points. I don't have a condescending attitude toward the "GUI mindset". This is a misunderstanding of my position that I'd like to address. I've built, upgraded, modified, installed every flavor of Windows on literally hundreds of computers - I've added video cards, sound cards, wireless adapters, new motherboards, hard drives, DVD/CD drives, memory upgrades, etc. etc. etc. without having to resort to CLI even once since the DOS/Win3.1 days.

Let me state I am a GUI advocate! I know brilliant Computer Scientists who use GUI solutions to create the most amazing software that we all use at one time or the other. I'd venture to contend that it is in fact the CLI advocates who somehow demean GUI users as "lesser beings".

I thought my position was simply understood. If there is a GUI solution, why not use it? It is obvious to me that as Linux grows toward the Desktop environment, the reliance on CLI configuration shrinks. This will attract the "average" user that might not be so interested in the "inner workings" of their machine.

I've already stated that I am personally interested in spreading the use of Linux as an alternative to the proprietary MAC and Windows platforms. I know that Linux comes in many flavors/GUI's, but for various reasons, Ubuntu has surged to the forefront of the Linux desktop market.

Linux will always be considered a geeky or hobby-based OS, as long as computer users consider it not to be "user-friendly". In the real world, "user-friendly" translates to GUI. Observe the MAC marketing over the years. They touted their GUI capabilities not their CLI possibilities. They used to ridicule the DOS prompt! The MAC marketing dept. would cringe if an ad suggested that a MAC user open a terminal to configure their system.
The very fact that these people need help shows the failing of the tools that they are comfortable using. If they could easily solve their problem with the graphical tools they are supposedly comfortable with, they would. They are asking for help, it means that they are in a situation that they do not understand. It's nice to think that the GUI solution is easier for them to understand, but I don't think so. Clicking a number of different buttons in different windows is little different from typing obscure commands. Either way, they are doing something that they don't really understand to solve a problem.

As for your basic question (why not use the GUI solution available?), I have several reasons. I'll (re)state them succinctly here:

1. I likely don't know the graphical way of solving a problem on an Ubuntu system with GNOME.

2. The graphical solution may consume dramatically more time and effort for both the user in question and myself.

3. The CLI offers far more intelligent error messages. Since most problems on this forum involve troubleshooting, it stands to reason that I should want as much detail as possible about the issue.

This is a support forum. Its primary purpose is to help solve technical issues for those who have them. My only goal in responding to a support thread is to solve that person's issue with the method that is fastest and easiest for both of us. I'm not playing a part in an advertisement for Ubuntu. I don't flash a shiny grin after solving someone's problem and say "All of you prospective users reading this obscure thread now know that Ubuntu offers tons of graphical tools!" I'm a volunteer here, but I have a contract of sorts with myself. When I click the New Reply button on a support thread, my sole obligation is to help that person solve their issue. If using the CLI is the best way I know of to solve it, that's what I'll use.

[abyssius]

Apparently not. You don't give people requesting help credit for actually meaning what they say. You would make assumptions about what they want, what their abilities are, and whether they are capable of expressing themselves. Further, you presume that they are incapable of deciding for themselves if they will benefit from proffered assistance; rather dictating that others should refrain from responding because it doesn't satisfy your presumptions of the "proper" way to help someone.


I find it amazing that you consider people incapable of expressing what it is they are interested in. If they are interested in the methodology then they can certainly ask such -- they can even do so after they're satisfied with the resolution of their problem.

It appears that your are making a whole host of erroneous assumptions about what I'm trying to say, by accusing me of inappropriately assuming what others think or believe. I suppose in your parallel universe, there is no such thing as inference, implication or innuendo.

For example, if someone doesn't explicitly say "By the way, I'm also interested in the methodology" how does this indicate to you that they're not interested in knowing the methodology? Maybe, they're not, maybe they are. This is where inference and innuendo comes in. If you choose not do this, Okay. As you've pointed out it is your time and you can participate in anyway you want to. I guess I'm appealing to those who don't mind taking a slight extra step in the spirit of teaching so-called "newbies" a little more about the OS they chose to pursue. I don't know why this seems so objectionable. If they're not interested, they'll ignore it. No harm done.

I do know that written language is not an absolute communication medium. For example, I'm keenly interested in learning more about the solutions posted in response to problems. In my case, I'm very interested in how the poster arrived at the decision to post the advice. However, I never thought that this had to be specifically stated. IMO, your assumption that if they don't specifically say it, all they want is the fix, is actually giving posters less credit that you are accusing me of giving them.

Finally, I'm not trying to dictate how anyone should respond to requests for help on this forum. A suggestion is not dictatorial it is a simple request - nothing more. Hopefully, some will respond to my suggestions. I fully expect that others will ignore them and do what they do. That's alright. It's not a judgment or condemnation on my part. As a new Linux user, I'm not placing myself as any authority. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to include a simple explanation once in a while. I know I'd benefit from this, and I'm sure others would too.

[abyssius]

The very fact that these people need help shows the failing of the tools that they are comfortable using. If they could easily solve their problem with the graphical tools they are supposedly comfortable with, they would. They are asking for help, it means that they are in a situation that they do not understand. It's nice to think that the GUI solution is easier for them to understand, but I don't think so. Clicking a number of different buttons in different windows is little different from typing obscure commands. Either way, they are doing something that they don't really understand to solve a problem.

As for your basic question (why not use the GUI solution available?), I have several reasons. I'll (re)state them succinctly here:

1. I likely don't know the graphical way of solving a problem on an Ubuntu system with GNOME.

2. The graphical solution may consume dramatically more time and effort for both the user in question and myself.

3. The CLI offers far more intelligent error messages. Since most problems on this forum involve troubleshooting, it stands to reason that I should want as much detail as possible about the issue.

This is a support forum. Its primary purpose is to help solve technical issues for those who have them. My only goal in responding to a support thread is to solve that person's issue with the method that is fastest and easiest for both of us. I'm not playing a part in an advertisement for Ubuntu. I don't flash a shiny grin after solving someone's problem and say "All of you prospective users reading this obscure thread now know that Ubuntu offers tons of graphical tools!" I'm a volunteer here, but I have a contract of sorts with myself. When I click the New Reply button on a support thread, my sole obligation is to help that person solve their issue. If using the CLI is the best way I know of to solve it, that's what I'll use.

I'm sorry. When I look at the categories included in this forum, I assumed it was more than a "support" forum you might find on a hardware manufacturer's site. I assumed it was a "community" forum, where participants interact with each other initially based on a common interest (in this case - Ubuntu), but were not limited in the scope of their interactions. For my edification, what exactly is the support classification for Community Cafe? I don't seem to have that installed on my computer ;) Just kidding. I've seen many of your posts, and they've certainly helped me in gaining a better understanding of Ubuntu.

Is there a Ubuntu advocate forum dedicated to those interested in furthering the use of this awesome Linux Distribution by attracting and sustaining more users? That was a prime motivation for me when starting this thread.

[cardinals_fan]

I'm sorry. When I look at the categories included in this forum, I assumed it was more than a "support" forum you might find on a hardware manufacturer's site. I assumed it was a "community" forum, where participants interact with each other initially based on a common interest (in this case - Ubuntu), but were not limited in the scope of their interactions. For my edification, what exactly is the support classification for Community Cafe? I don't seem to have that installed on my computer ;) Just kidding. I've seen many of your posts, and they've certainly helped me in gaining a better understanding of Ubuntu.

Is there a Ubuntu advocate forum dedicated to those interested in furthering the use of this awesome Linux Distribution by attracting and sustaining more users? That was a prime motivation for me when starting this thread.
I thought about adding a disclaimer about the discussion that the forum admins are kind enought to permit, but didn't. Anyway, my point (which I think you got) is that providing quality support and marketing Ubuntu are not necessarily the same thing. I personally think that a large community of competent users willing to volunteer and help solve problems is a pretty nice feature, but it isn't necessarily what you'd put on a billboard.

As for spreading Ubuntu, I've already said that I'm not particularly interested. With that said, I do have some advice: focus on improving the system, not evangelizing. Helping people on this forum (with the GUI or CLI), filing bug reports, testing new releases, and coding (if you have the knowledge) are all helpful to any open source project. As for marketing, I would only recommend advertising preinstalled systems. Even then, prospective users need to take some initiative in order to use a system that is not considered mainstream. Linux has both pros and cons that are distinct for everyone. Only they can ultimately make the decision. Some resources:

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=865750
http://hehe2.net/advocacy/help-spread-linux-without-preaching-it/

[t0p]

I think that two things might serve the Ubuntu Forum community better.

(1) If there is a GUI method provided to solve a problem, then suggest that method first, even if you know that a textual command would accomplish the task more efficiently. Windows users are fully trained on manipulating convoluted GUI windows and menus. I suspect they would trade a few extra mouse clicks for the psychological comfort level the GUI technique provides.

When I'm looking for help in the forums, I like it when folk supply me with GUI and command line instructions. Then I can have both the simple approach when I'm in a hurry and the actual commands so I can properly understand what's going on. So, there's no reason not to post command line instructions - someone else will post the point and click directions soon enough.



(2) If you post a line of code, sometimes take the time to provide a brief explanation of what your recommended command and its options actually mean. This would serve to "educate" the new user and lower the intimidation level.

I'm with you on this one.



After one year of usage, I consider myself a fully-committed Ubuntu advocate. But, I recognize the fact that the growth of Linux as a viable desktop environment will be in direct proportion to its comparison to the Windows OS work flow that over 90% of computer users now know. IMHO, this translates to how effective the Ubuntu GUI environment is at solving the everyday configuration problems that will be encountered. Ubuntu has come a long way since I began using it, and I hope that the 'advisors' on this forum make an effort to encourage the use of the GUI environment to solve problems whenever possible, even if they find the method 'distasteful'.

The Windows way is not the Linux way. The OSes are fundamentally different. Learning to solve problems the Linux way will further understanding of the OS, rather than just sticking to point and click.

[saulgoode]

It appears that your are making a whole host of erroneous assumptions about what I'm trying to say, by accusing me of inappropriately assuming what others think or believe. I suppose in your parallel universe, there is no such thing as inference, implication or innuendo.
Nowhere have I disparaged your making of assumptions as inappropriate. Everyone makes assumptions and, to the extent that those assumptions can be erroneous, it leads to miscommunication, wasted time & effort, and entirely too often, unwarranted animosity. For these reasons, I generally prefer to minimize the number and impact of assumptions I make.


For example, if someone doesn't explicitly say "By the way, I'm also interested in the methodology" how does this indicate to you that they're not interested in knowing the methodology? Maybe, they're not, maybe they are. This is where inference and innuendo comes in.
I would argue that is not inference, but speculation. However, even to the extent it may be considered inference, I feel it is more productive for posters not to rely upon expectations that respondents will make the correct assumptions about things unexpressed.


If you choose not do this, Okay. As you've pointed out it is your time and you can participate in anyway you want to.
A fair enough attitude -- one which I have previously voiced. I have not ever suggested in this discussion how others should participate in these forums.


I guess I'm appealing to those who don't mind taking a slight extra step in the spirit of teaching so-called "newbies" a little more about the OS they chose to pursue. I don't know why this seems so objectionable. If they're not interested, they'll ignore it. No harm done.
My only objection has been to your entreaty that, "If their time is so precious, then they can simply not participate in the forum."

Other than that, my posts have merely sought to explain and defend my own opinions on the matter. Is this so objectionable to you?


As a new Linux user, I'm not placing myself as any authority. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to include a simple explanation once in a while. I know I'd benefit from this, and I'm sure others would too.
Perhaps then my posts here could be considered in such a vein; i.e., an explanation of potential benefits to the alternative of your "suggestions for those advising new users".

[saulgoode]

The one thing I think would help, is if the code tags are renamed to command. The code tag just reinforces the idea that you have to be a programmer to run Linux successfully. Code tags are used for everything from directory listing to shell scripts, there is rarely any code of any type enclosed in the tags.
"Code" tags are intended to disable the interpretation of BBCode in a section of a post (although the Vbulletin software which powers ubuntuforums doesn't seem to honor this convention). My guess is that they derive from HTML <code> tags (http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/_CODE.html) (which permit you to include HTML code on a page without it being interpreted as HTML).

On forums which employ BBCode, it is common to use code tags for source code or command output in order to retain the format of the original (e.g., to avoid removal of indentation, tabs, spaces, and newlines).

Despite this borrowing of the tags for other than their originally intended purpose, the term 'code' does not designate anything specific to Linux or to programming.

[richg]

I advise them to keep a Windows PC nearby as Linux has issues that require a working PC to trouble shoot. Maybe after a year or so, the Windows PC will probably not be needed.
A good alternative is to buy a Linux PC.

Five years ago, I spent quite a few hours searching Linux forums before installing Linux and saw many horror stories. I then bought a Linux configured PC.

Rich

[abyssius]

I thought about adding a disclaimer about the discussion that the forum admins are kind enought to permit, but didn't. Anyway, my point (which I think you got) is that providing quality support and marketing Ubuntu are not necessarily the same thing. I personally think that a large community of competent users willing to volunteer and help solve problems is a pretty nice feature, but it isn't necessarily what you'd put on a billboard.

As for spreading Ubuntu, I've already said that I'm not particularly interested. With that said, I do have some advice: focus on improving the system, not evangelizing. Helping people on this forum (with the GUI or CLI), filing bug reports, testing new releases, and coding (if you have the knowledge) are all helpful to any open source project. As for marketing, I would only recommend advertising preinstalled systems. Even then, prospective users need to take some initiative in order to use a system that is not considered mainstream. Linux has both pros and cons that are distinct for everyone. Only they can ultimately make the decision. Some resources:

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=865750
http://hehe2.net/advocacy/help-spread-linux-without-preaching-it/

Pre-configured Linux PC's actively marketed by mainstream vendors is a personal dream of mine. In my area, both Sears and Walmart tried this for a while, but the hardware platforms they offered was crappy/cheap. This I think sent the message that Linux was second-rate. I'm not even sure they offer these systems anymore.

You are absolutely correct when you point out the difference between "supporting" and "marketing" not only Linux, but any technology product. During my professional career, I've often encountered engineering/tech support and sales/marketing departments being at odds with each other. However, I've always supported the philosophy that technical arms take on a little marketing and sales arms take on a little technical expertise.

I realize some of the support volunteers on this forum expand their Linux usage and expertise beyond Ubuntu/Debian and are therefore not necessarily interested in "evangelizing" for Ubuntu in particular. However, I think the "end-users" that request help on this forum are focused on Ubuntu, because they made the choice to install this distribution. I don't think there's any harm in promoting this particular distro a little bit. I honestly don't understand why anyone on this forum, technical or otherwise, would be indifferent to contributing to the spread of Ubuntu. I've tried other distros, but settled on Ubuntu specifically because it is reported to be the most widely used Linux distro.

It is obvious that Mr. Shuttleworth is keenly interested in increasing the usage of Ubuntu. It is also obvious that its development team are focusing on developing a comprehensive GUI infrastructure. I appreciate the fact that I am able to use this software freely and in return I am willing to advocate its use. In the Windows world, support for the OS is measured in dollars spent on the OS and its applications. In the Ubuntu world, where we are privileged to use this software at virtually no cost, I feel obligated to help Mr. Shuttleworth achieve his goals in whatever small way I am able to.

[abyssius]

I advise them to keep a Windows PC nearby as Linux has issues that require a working PC to trouble shoot. Maybe after a year or so, the Windows PC will probably not be needed.
A good alternative is to buy a Linux PC.

Five years ago, I spent quite a few hours searching Linux forums before installing Linux and saw many horror stories. I then bought a Linux configured PC.

Rich

I'm actually beginning to resent having to keep "a Windows PC nearby". Yesterday, I bought a new Linksys wireless router and the package came with no printed manual or PDF version on the CD-ROM. All it provided was a Windows based set-up "Wizard" on the CD-ROM. I reluctantly connected my Windows PC to the router and ran the "Wizard". It appeared to run fine until the very last step, when the "wizard" insisted that my PC wasn't connected to the router, even though I knew it was, the router knew it was based on its indicator lights, heck, even my cable modem knew it was. I re-tried the "wizard" several times but it refused to complete the installation. I reluctantly called tech support and asked if I could use Linux to set up the router, since their Windows "wizard" wasn't cooperating. The service rep told me that Linux was beyond the scope of her tech support and insisted she could only help me if I used Windows. I told her all I wanted to know is the default IP address and password for the router since Linksys elected not to provide a user manual with this router. She advised me to please follow her instructions... CLICK!

I disconnected my Windows machine, plugged in my Linux machine, guessed the IP address and password, and had the router working in minutes. My point is if I did not know how to do this, I would have had to rely on an obnoxious service rep, who could have taken hours to fix the problem through Windows. (Yes I tried to access the router directly in Windows, but both IE and Firefox could not find the router). As soon as I connected it to my Ubuntu machine, it was connected as soon as I typed the IP address.

My point is Windows isn't always the panacea it appears to be. We should be able at some point to escape Windows entirely. That is one reason why I choose to be a Ubuntu advocate.

[Skripka]

I'm actually beginning to resent having to keep "a Windows PC nearby". Yesterday, I bought a new Linksys wireless router and the package came with no printed manual or PDF version on the CD-ROM. All it provided was a Windows based set-up "Wizard" on the CD-ROM.

Welcome to 1995. No matter what you want-we'll never get our paper documentation back.

[abyssius]

Welcome to 1995. No matter what you want-we'll never get our paper documentation back.

I can understand not wasting paper. But, actually they spent the money to include a glossy brochure touting all the new Linksys products, and a printed version of what would appear on the Wizard screens. They could have at least provided a user guide/specifications on the CD-ROM. Instead, they provide a childish "wizard" that attempts to install the router without telling you a single thing. It even included a detailed procedure on how to plug the adapter into a wall socket.

This is just an example of Linksys propagating the Windows assumption that their end-users don't want to know anything about what they are doing. They just want to get it working, or fixed. The Linksys support person was not interested in dialogue, assumed I didn't know anything, and just demanded that her instructions be followed.

My hope with this thread is that Ubuntu tech support gives help seekers a little more credit for intelligence once in a while. After all, they were smart enough to want to use Ubuntu in the first place! ;)

[Skripka]

This is just an example of Linksys propagating the Windows assumption that their end-users don't want to know anything about what they are doing. They just want to get it working, or fixed.

Remember, that "assumption" is accurate 95 times out of 100...it really is not even a "Windows" assumption, as it is an attitude shared by both Win and Mac. Most users in fact do not know, and in fact do not want to know-and call their geek friend to install the damn thing anyway.

Most users running Linux, fall into that other 5 times out of 100.


Besides, anything that involves getting two or more computers to talk to one another is a recipe for a long pounding headache anyway. ;)

[abyssius]

Remember, that "assumption" is accurate 95 times out of 100...it really is not even a "Windows" assumption, as it is an attitude shared by both Win and Mac. Most users in fact do not know, and in fact do not want to know-and call their geek friend to install the damn thing anyway.

Most users running Linux, fall into that other 5 times out of 100.


Besides, anything that involves getting two or more computers to talk to one another is a recipe for a long pounding headache anyway. ;)

Ha!


Most users running Linux, fall into that other 5 times out of 100.

I agree. However, this kind of assumption got me into trouble on this thread.

The bigger point is that if Linux moves more towards the mainstream (by building a user base that can't be ignored), maybe the hardware vendors will do a little more toward supporting Linux with drivers and meaningful tech support. I spent more money than I wanted to - to buy that piece of hardware from my local PC Richards. Even if they don't acknowledge Linux, at least they could include basic information so we can fend for ourselves. I would imagine that identifying the default IP address and password isn't too much to ask.

As far as connecting to other computers, when I first tried Ubuntu, as soon as I booted the live CD I was on the internet. Try that with Windows. Of course, when I decided to go wireless, well..... that's where this forum comes in.

[cmay]

i run many different desktops. and distributions . i have openbox ,lxde gnome and xfce. mostly. i also run crunchbang jaunty jaclkalope ubuntu studio and debian etch and lenny. i can not remeber how to help someone by explaining a gui way of doing something. but i think its important that we are freindly at all times. and explain things at the best we can. one more thing is that we could try to make a bunch of tutorials based on screenshots. it will however load some more pages with pictures and all in all i think the commandline is sometimes the ubuntu way. but i would be happy to make screenshot tutorials and other than that i do post screenshots of the simple things like where is the restricted codecs package in the add /remove menu and i did so more than once.

[abyssius]

i run many different desktops. and distributions . i have openbox ,lxde gnome and xfce. mostly. i also run crunchbang jaunty jaclkalope ubuntu studio and debian etch and lenny. i can not remeber how to help someone by explaining a gui way of doing something. but i think its important that we are freindly at all times. and explain things at the best we can. one more thing is that we could try to make a bunch of tutorials based on screenshots. it will however load some more pages with pictures and all in all i think the commandline is sometimes the ubuntu way. but i would be happy to make screenshot tutorials and other than that i do post screenshots of the simple things like where is the restricted codecs package in the add /remove menu and i did so more than once.

That's the spirit. Such tutorials would go a long way to guide "newbies" on how to help themselves. No-one can argue the fact that command line is the secret weapon of Linux. No-one can argue that a repair can be effected easier and quicker by resorting to the command line. But, if this is the case, then the question I have is why is there such a massive effort by every major developer to grow a Linux GUI interface?"

I saw a recent post where, a new 8.10 user was trying to configure their wireless device using the Windows Wireless Drivers interface for ndiswrapper. His question was, I loaded the windows driver, the hardware showed present, but when I clicked on the [Configure Network] tab, it issued the error message 'Could not find a Network Configuration Tool'. Every responder immediately disparaged using the ndiswrapper graphic tool and dove into ndiswrapper command line instructions. NO ONE ANSWERED HIS QUESTION, I'll repeat it: "Why do I get the message, 'Could not find a Network Configuration Tool'. They immediately assumed that all he was interested in was getting his wireless adapter working and ignored the fact that there may be something wrong with ndisgtk and 8.10, regardless of whether the wireless adapter could be alternately enabled by command line code.

I mention this particular example because I enncountered exactly the same problem when I upgraded to 8.10. I never had a problem using ndisgtk in 7.10 or 8.04. I should point out that I know exactly how to use the command-line to set-up ndiswrapper. But when I first tried ndisgtk, I acknowledged that it was a MUCH easier and faster solution. It doesn't look good when any Ubuntu Menu issues an error message. There is probably an easy fix for this, or maybe it's a bug. I don't know - because when I tried to find out the reason of a fix for the error message, the 'experts' immediately disparage ndisgtk and immediately plunge into the command-line solution. Experts - let's have some balance here. Command line is better, but if there is a way to fix something broken in the GUI, don't disparage it - address it. You'll be doing the Ubuntu Community a great service.

[adamlau]

Sorry, I would never recommend a GUI resolution before a CLI one. I would offer both alternatives, but push the CLI fix first.

[cardinals_fan]

The bigger point is that if Linux moves more towards the mainstream (by building a user base that can't be ignored), maybe the hardware vendors will do a little more toward supporting Linux with drivers and meaningful tech support. I spent more money than I wanted to - to buy that piece of hardware from my local PC Richards. Even if they don't acknowledge Linux, at least they could include basic information so we can fend for ourselves. I would imagine that identifying the default IP address and password isn't too much to ask.

Linux will build a user base that can't be ignored when it is commonly preinstalled. That will also resolve the vast majority of hardware issues simply because the system will be preconfigured.


I saw a recent post where, a new 8.10 user was trying to configure their wireless device using the Windows Wireless Drivers interface for ndiswrapper. His question was, I loaded the windows driver, the hardware showed present, but when I clicked on the [Configure Network] tab, it issued the error message 'Could not find a Network Configuration Tool'. Every responder immediately disparaged using the ndiswrapper graphic tool and dove into ndiswrapper command line instructions. NO ONE ANSWERED HIS QUESTION, I'll repeat it: "Why do I get the message, 'Could not find a Network Configuration Tool'. They immediately assumed that all he was interested in was getting his wireless adapter working and ignored the fact that there may be something wrong with ndisgtk and 8.10, regardless of whether the wireless adapter could be alternately enabled by command line code.

I mention this particular example because I enncountered exactly the same problem when I upgraded to 8.10. I never had a problem using ndisgtk in 7.10 or 8.04. I should point out that I know exactly how to use the command-line to set-up ndiswrapper. But when I first tried ndisgtk, I acknowledged that it was a MUCH easier and faster solution. It doesn't look good when any Ubuntu Menu issues an error message. There is probably an easy fix for this, or maybe it's a bug. I don't know - because when I tried to find out the reason of a fix for the error message, the 'experts' immediately disparage ndisgtk and immediately plunge into the command-line solution. Experts - let's have some balance here. Command line is better, but if there is a way to fix something broken in the GUI, don't disparage it - address it. You'll be doing the Ubuntu Community a great service.
This case illustrates two important concepts:

1. This is a prime example of a graphical interface that tries to hide the inner system and how such a tool can go awry. "Could not find a Network Configuration Tool" is a singularly unhelpful error message. It doesn't tell me anything useful. You say that I should "address it", but I can't. If it just printed out the actual command line output of the failed operation, there would be no problem. I'm not against graphical tools. I think they are a great resource. However, simplicity and transparency are key when designing a graphical frontend. Many of the tools included with SliTaz (a newish micro-distro) are good role models. They offer a graphical interface with simple buttons, removing the need for command line knowledge. However, clicking one of these buttons then opens up a terminal window to complete the task. The user doesn't need to understand the CLI, but they are exposed to it and problems are more obvious and easy to solve.

2. You assume that a) this problem is easy to fix and b) the people in that thread are capable of fixing it. Everyone has their own array of knowledge, and just because they are very capable with Linux system administration doesn't make them capable of magically solving problems with a project they've likely never seen before. Programming isn't a mystical or magical art, it's a precise science. I can write you a Perl script for many things, but I know nothing about graphical programming with Glade. Even if I did, the unhelpful error message mentioned above would make it very hard to diagnose the problem.

[Paqman]

I couldn't agree more with the OP. Far too often I see people posting a line of terminal input as an answer in Absolute Beginners. Usually no attempt is made to explain the actual command. Teaching someone to blindly enter terminal commands they don't understand is extremely bad practice, and annoys me. If you can't be bothered to explain your solution, don't post in the beginner's forums.

Likewise for the "many DE's" argument. If you aren't familiar with the DE they are using, well you don't have to post. There are plenty of people using their DE who can help them.

Also, people posting in the beginner's forums should (IMO) familiarise themselves with the GUI tools useful for resolving common problems. Installing and having a play with the likes of ntfs-config, startupmanger, grsync, gufw, etc costs you nothing and will make you a better teacher.

[cardinals_fan]

Likewise for the "many DE's" argument. If you aren't familiar with the DE they are using, well you don't have to post. There are plenty of people using their DE who can help them.

I'm sure everyone who has to wait an extra 20 hours to get their wireless adapter working really appreciates the fact that they were helped by people who could graphically solve their problem.

[Paqman]

I'm sure everyone who has to wait an extra 20 hours to get their wireless adapter working really appreciates the fact that they were helped by people who could graphically solve their problem.

In my experience, the vast majority of problems which are going to be hampered by the person using a different DE from you are related to the GUI itself (eg: "how do I install themes?")

[cardinals_fan]

In my experience, the vast majority of problems which are going to be hampered by the person using a different DE from you are related to the GUI itself (eg: "how do I install themes?")
...which is why I don't respond to threads about topics which I don't know about ;)

[abyssius]

Sorry, I would never recommend a GUI resolution before a CLI one. I would offer both alternatives, but push the CLI fix first.

Why is it an absolute rule that would you push the CLI solution first? Is it not possible that a particular GUI solution would be faster and easier to implement, especially for a new user?

I already mentioned ndisgtk. Another example is the viewing of the system logs (I assume this is a primary troubleshooting tool). Using the Administration Menu method allows you to switch from one log to another with a single mouse click. I wouldn't know how to display all those logs and switch between them instantly in terminal.

[Paqman]

Is it not possible that a particular GUI solution would be faster and easier to implement


It sure is. I've seen newbies ask "How do I extract an archive?" and seen people post CLI answers, when "right click, extract here" would be both quicker to post and easier for the user to remember.

Many of the GUI tools are faster, easier and less dangerous to use than the CLI. Why walk someone through the exact changes to /boot/grub/menu.lst needed to change Grub behaviour when they can just install startupmanager and figure it out for themselves in about 10 seconds? Why have them editing a dangerous file like /etc/fstab when ntfs-config can mount their NTFS partition safely?

[mikeize]

I've been using Ubuntu for about 2 years now, done several installs/reinstalls, lots of tweaking/configuring... I still hate the cli. I just can't remember all those different commands. Oh, I've used it a ton, and for certain things I use it every time (apt-get update). I think that if you learn the gui method to doing something just one time... you will remember how to do it next time--since it is in plain language, and logically ordered steps.

Using cli to do things is like learning foreign language phrases. It's only quicker if you know the phrase for the situation... otherwise, you have to flip around in your phrasebook/cheatsheet/forum to find the answer... while you could have just spoken English and been done with it.

How many times have I copied/pasted or typed out commands for tar, make, dpkg, etc? Hundreds each by now, I'm sure. I will never remember the options, what they mean, what syntax etc. I get tired of looking up the same commands over and over again. I just want to right click on a file and select "make"/"extract", etc.

I do think part of it is not knowing what the command is doing. Understanding something helps in memorization... and that is precisely why a gui is--on balance--more efficient.

[abyssius]

CF

I totally agree that the answer is pre-configured Linux systems. Do you envision Ubuntu as the premiere distribution for pre-configured systems? Apparently, mega-vendor Dell does. Should we be pushing Ubuntu above all other distributions? I think this would make the MAC vs. Windows wars pale in comparison. I'm willing to bet that the winner would be achieved through marketing rather than technical prowess. that was certainly the case with MAC and Windows.

[abyssius]

I've been using Ubuntu for about 2 years now, done several installs/reinstalls, lots of tweaking/configuring... I still hate the cli. I just can't remember all those different commands. Oh, I've used it a ton, and for certain things I use it every time (apt-get update). I think that if you learn the gui method to doing something just one time... you will remember how to do it next time--since it is in plain language, and logically ordered steps.

Using cli to do things is like learning foreign language phrases. It's only quicker if you know the phrase for the situation... otherwise, you have to flip around in your phrasebook/cheatsheet/forum to find the answer... while you could have just spoken English and been done with it.

How many times have I copied/pasted or typed out commands for tar, make, dpkg, etc? Hundreds each by now, I'm sure. I will never remember the options, what they mean, what syntax etc. I get tired of looking up the same commands over and over again. I just want to right click on a file and select "make"/"extract", etc.

I do think part of it is not knowing what the command is doing. Understanding something helps in memorization... and that is precisely why a gui is--on balance--more efficient.

I'm beginning to believe that CLI vs. GUI has religious implications. This is a fascinating sociological study :)

Seriously, it may be that the more experienced users began using Linux when CLI was the only option. One thing I know that resides in people is an inherent resistance to change. It's ironic that users who take the leap to Linux seek comfort in the GUI methods they were used to in Windows and it seems like some experienced Linux users take an ideological stand against GUI's. Is this because they relate GUI to Windows?

For even more irony, when I visit numerous forums for Linux Users or I watch you tube postings for Linux, the biggest brag I encounter is about the "eye candy", 3-D effects, making their screen adopt a MAC look and feel, spinning cubes, etc. etc. Is this the new face of a Linux user? I never see any of them bragging, "My terminal is bigger than yours."

Perhaps the compromise is only install cairo-dock via the terminal so you won't feel so guilty using its GUI to configure it. This seemed to work for me.

[abyssius]

It sure is. I've seen newbies ask "How do I extract an archive?" and seen people post CLI answers, when "right click, extract here" would be both quicker to post and easier for the user to remember.

Many of the GUI tools are faster, easier and less dangerous to use than the CLI. Why walk someone through the exact changes to /boot/grub/menu.lst needed to change Grub behaviour when they can just install startupmanager and figure it out for themselves in about 10 seconds? Why have them editing a dangerous file like /etc/fstab when ntfs-config can mount their NTFS partition safely?

You make a great point. I can't see how this can be argued with.

[mfarquhar]

I'm beginning to believe that CLI vs. GUI has religious implications. This is a fascinating sociological study :)

Seriously, it may be that the more experienced users began using Linux when CLI was the only option. One thing I know that resides in people is an inherent resistance to change. It's ironic that users who take the leap to Linux seek comfort in the GUI methods they were used to in Windows and it seems like some experienced Linux users take an ideological stand against GUI's. Is this because they relate GUI to Windows?

I started using Linux about 5 years ago, was in a computer technician class, we tried all the major distros of the time, including the original Warty Warthog version of Ubuntu.

for some of these distros, the GUI was capable of doing a lot, SuSe I remember being the least CLI leaning for what I had to do. Debian was the most command line intensive. With Ubuntu falling somewhere in the middle.

At the time, due to years of experience using windows, and the command line only showing up when prepping a system for a fresh install, using command like fdisk and format, I associated it with doomsday commands where one wrong keystroke could wipe years of data (learned this the hard way, several time, still haven't been able to force myself to do regular backups lol ;))

but with help I was able to overcome this fear somewhat with the help of our resident Linux Guru, and before long I was tweaking files, and playing with Vi, and giving myself sudo access, etc.

Now knowledge atrophies without use, and after using windows again for so long and mainly becoming comfy with GUI again, I forgot most of the commands I used to use, had to learn 'em all over again.

recently, due to a dual-booting mishap where I was playing with my windows files through linux, and ended up deleting the critical ones and most of my data on there, I became for the time being, stuck on a linux only machine. kind of a mixed blessing. I can use Ubuntu for just about everything I use my other windows machines for (except gaming), and I've become a lot more familiar with the Xubuntu GUI (xfce).

Nowadays the only time I need to delve into the CLI is when (of course) there is a problem (or I need to make a change to the system). Killing a process is the most common reason, and moving files my user doesn't have permission to move was one I had to learn to do last night via command line.

The Linux Guru I mentioned earlier was a big proponent of CLI-everything, so some of that "Command Line = Power" mentality has rubbed off on me, but I also enjoy using a GUI when I'm just web surfing and listening to music, etc. So perhaps I'm somewhat in the middle of the UI holy war, being comfortable using both, and using whichever one is easier/more efficient for a given task.

[Paqman]

So perhaps I'm somewhat in the middle of the UI holy war, being comfortable using both, and using whichever one is easier/more efficient for a given task.

I would imagine most reasonably experienced users would put themselves in the same boat.

[abyssius]

I would imagine most reasonably experienced users would put themselves in the same boat.

I agree. What I'd like to see happen in terms of support, is that new users aren't bombarded with CLI to the point where they are convinced that the ONLY way to configure Ubuntu is via CLI. I may be wrong, but as Ubuntu grows it seems to me that the development of new configuration options lean toward GUI methods.

I honestly don't know if new CLI commands are also being implemented at the same time. If this is the case, then I hope someone points this out. If this isn't the case, then in the spirit of moving Ubuntu forward, maybe it is not so terrible to incude GUI in the arsenal of troubleshooting methods presented on this forum.

[cardinals_fan]

CF

I totally agree that the answer is pre-configured Linux systems. Do you envision Ubuntu as the premiere distribution for pre-configured systems? Apparently, mega-vendor Dell does. Should we be pushing Ubuntu above all other distributions? I think this would make the MAC vs. Windows wars pale in comparison. I'm willing to bet that the winner would be achieved through marketing rather than technical prowess. that was certainly the case with MAC and Windows.
Ubuntu will likely be at the forefront. I could also see SLED making some headway.

[SomeGuyDude]

I've been using Ubuntu for about 2 years now, done several installs/reinstalls, lots of tweaking/configuring... I still hate the cli. I just can't remember all those different commands. Oh, I've used it a ton, and for certain things I use it every time (apt-get update). I think that if you learn the gui method to doing something just one time... you will remember how to do it next time--since it is in plain language, and logically ordered steps.

Using cli to do things is like learning foreign language phrases. It's only quicker if you know the phrase for the situation... otherwise, you have to flip around in your phrasebook/cheatsheet/forum to find the answer... while you could have just spoken English and been done with it.

How many times have I copied/pasted or typed out commands for tar, make, dpkg, etc? Hundreds each by now, I'm sure. I will never remember the options, what they mean, what syntax etc. I get tired of looking up the same commands over and over again. I just want to right click on a file and select "make"/"extract", etc.

I do think part of it is not knowing what the command is doing. Understanding something helps in memorization... and that is precisely why a gui is--on balance--more efficient.

I only "know" the following commands:

1) "pacman -Syu"
2) "yaourt -S [package]" or "pacman -S [package]"
3) "fc-cache -f -v" (I got tired of Googling "refresh fonts")
4) ./configure -> make -> install
5) "nano [whatever file]"

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there's some more, but I can't do all that "dpkg" crap or the various un-compress commands or 99% of the rest. I don't know jack.

But if it's FASTER for me to put in a command, I'd rather I learn how to do that, or at least be aware that it's there. I can then bookmark stuff and come back to it later if need be. Besides, is it easier to learn how to navigate some complicated GUI system? Not usually.

The "GUI is better" argument only applies if there is a single application with a very, very basic interface to do what you want. And that requires a separate GUI for every single configuration or task you need, which means you'd have to have dozens upon dozens of applications handy for these things. That ceases to be "easy" when you're now struggling to remember what tool it was that edited this-or-that.

[abyssius]

The "GUI is better" argument only applies if there is a single application with a very, very basic interface to do what you want. And that requires a separate GUI for every single configuration or task you need, which means you'd have to have dozens upon dozens of applications handy for these things. That ceases to be "easy" when you're now struggling to remember what tool it was that edited this-or-that.

This is not an accurate description of GUI. Usually GUI methods incorporate multiple CLI commands into a single mouse click. The purpose of GUI is to shorten rather than lengthen, plus simplify common tasks. Remember that both MAC and Windows systems can be configured almost entirely via GUI. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that they are so much more difficult to configure than a Ubuntu system. Consider the example posted earlier with a comparison of uncompressing a file by CLI vs. GUI. GUI = right click + where do you want to uncompress it. Now think about doing this via CLI. Just typing the file names accurately at the command prompt are a royal pain in the you know where. With GUI, it would be uncompressed by the time you finished typing the name.

[aysiu]

The purpose of GUI is to shorten rather than lengthen, plus simplify common tasks. The purpose of the GUI is to make things discoverable and require less memorization. Oftentimes that translates into being less efficient.
Consider the example posted earlier with a comparison of uncompressing a file by CLI vs. GUI. GUI = right click + where do you want to uncompress it. Now think about doing this via CLI. Just typing the file names accurately at the command prompt are a royal pain in the you know where. With GUI, it would be uncompressed by the time you finished typing the name. Have you tried tab completion?

[abyssius]

Ubuntu will likely be at the forefront. I could also see SLED making some headway.

I'm for Ubuntu. Isn't there some serious collaboration going on between Novell and Microsoft? Anyway, the latest DistroWatch stats show OpenSUSE downloads dropping off and Ubuntu surging, Yeah!

[cardinals_fan]

Just typing the file names accurately at the command prompt are a royal pain in the you know where.
...tab completion...

[adamlau]

Why is it an absolute rule that would you push the CLI solution first?
Merely to get them accustomed to terminal entries. And yes, there are cases where GUI admin is more efficient, but starting with the CLI helps to introduce them to the power and flexibility of the certain commands.

[cardinals_fan]

I'm for Ubuntu. Isn't there some serious collaboration going on between Novell and Microsoft? Anyway, the latest DistroWatch stats show OpenSUSE downloads dropping off and Ubuntu surging, Yeah!
1. You can certainly be a conspiracy theorist about Novell if you like, but I personally see that as a very narrow attitude. They do have an agreement with Microsoft, which has helped them spread into establishments that otherwise wouldn't have used Linux at all. In any case, I recommend dropping Linux if you don't like Novell, since they are a major contributor.

2. Distrowatch is meaningless. It measures nothing more than the number of hits a given distro received per day, on average, over a certain time period.

[abyssius]

The purpose of the GUI is to make things discoverable and require less memorization. Oftentimes that translates into being less efficient. Have you tried tab completion?

Valid explanation of GUI. I find making things discoverable an admirable characteristic. "Requiring less memorization" is an interesting concept. I personally would rather comprehend a command than simply to memorize it. GUI often makes what you are accomplishing more obvious. It's true that GUI can often be less efficient. Isn't it also true that oftentimes it is more efficient? Finally, I don't know what tab completion is. This might be something the CLI advocates might want to share with us newbies. I've never seen it suggested in thousands of posts I've looked through.

[cardinals_fan]

Valid explanation of GUI. I find making things discoverable an admirable characteristic. "Requiring less memorization" is an interesting concept. I personally would rather comprehend a command than simply to memorize it. GUI often makes what you are accomplishing more obvious. It's true that GUI can often be less efficient. Isn't it also true that oftentimes it is more efficient? Finally, I don't know what tab completion is. This might be something the CLI advocates might want to share with us newbies. I've never seen it suggested in thousands of posts I've looked through.
1. The GUI does not necessarily make what you're doing more obvious. It might make a simplified and inaccurate representation of what you're doing obvious...

2. I find that the GUI is only more efficient when performing tasks that are inherently graphical, such as editing images or video. Editing text (which is all any system configuration is) is easier with the CLI.

3. Tab completion is very simple. Start typing a command or filename and hit Tab to complete it. If there are multiple possible completions, hitting Tab twice will list them. Zsh has more advanced tab completion than BASH.

[mikeize]

Wow! Tab completion IS really helpful. I too have never heard of it until today. So tedious (and error-prone) typing out long directory locations. Still a gui-guy, but that will certainly come in useful for those times I'm forced to use cli for some reason.

[mikeize]

1. The GUI does not necessarily make what you're doing more obvious. It might make a simplified and inaccurate representation of what you're doing obvious...

2. I find that the GUI is only more efficient when performing tasks that are inherently graphical, such as editing images or video. Editing text (which is all any system configuration is) is easier with the CLI.


:P ya I want a "simplified" version of what I'm doing--and if it gets done... I don't give a damn if it's "inaccurate" (whatever that means), as long as it does what I need it to.

personally, I'm uncomfortable using cli text editors. it took me a long time just to figure out how to "save" in nano. Why can't you save without exiting? I couldn't find any "beginner" info about nano by googling, and at any rate, opening the file with gedit is hardly "harder", and costs you maybe a half a second difference.

[aysiu]

Control-O saves in Nano without exiting.

[abyssius]

1. You can certainly be a conspiracy theorist about Novell if you like, but I personally see that as a very narrow attitude. They do have an agreement with Microsoft, which has helped them spread into establishments that otherwise wouldn't have used Linux at all. In any case, I recommend dropping Linux if you don't like Novell, since they are a major contributor.

2. Distrowatch is meaningless. It measures nothing more than the number of hits a given distro received per day, on average, over a certain time period.

From what I understand, what you call a collaboration was actually a recognition by MS that their enterprise customers wanted Linux Servers as well as Windows servers. MS servers had to be able to "talk" to Linux servers to maintain their market share. Anyway, that's how a friend of mine that sells MS solutions to enterprise put it to me. It cost MS $100 million I believe to purchase Novell licensing fees. That's not collaboration in my book - that's a sale.

Actually I don't dislike Novell or Microsoft - I don't really care one way or the other about either of them. However isn't it a "narrow attitude" on your part to suggest that if I didn't like Novell that necessitates me "dropping" Linux? I like Canonical. Will this earn me a reprieve ;).

Actually, I believe in the concept of free, open-source software, That was my prime motivation for attempting to leave the Windows world, and also for embracing Ubuntu. Until OpenSUSE, I'm not sure Novell shared that philosophy. I could be wrong.

As for distowatch, I wouldn't say it is entirely meaningless. It's simply another of many indicators that Ubuntu has a clear lead over all the other distros. Since, as stated previously, I advocate Ubuntu. I consider it a reason for celebration.

[abyssius]

Wow! Tab completion IS really helpful. I too have never heard of it until today. So tedious (and error-prone) typing out long directory locations. Still a gui-guy, but that will certainly come in useful for those times I'm forced to use cli for some reason.

Ha! Here is a good example of the reason I started this thread. TEACH US - EVEN IF IT SEEMS SIMPLE OR OBVIOUS. Your post delights me!!!

[mikeize]

Ha! Here is a good example of the reason I started this thread. TEACH US - EVEN IF IT SEEMS SIMPLE OR OBVIOUS. Your post delights me!!!

I think it's tough for people who know all this stuff to remember what it's like to start from the beginning. Some things are so ingrained in their minds by now, that they simply overlook them... they are TOO obvious. Maybe we should just encourage new users to ask for gui solutions specifically.

[abyssius]

:P ya I want a "simplified" version of what I'm doing--and if it gets done... I don't give a damn if it's "inaccurate" (whatever that means), as long as it does what I need it to.

personally, I'm uncomfortable using cli text editors. it took me a long time just to figure out how to "save" in nano. Why can't you save without exiting? I couldn't find any "beginner" info about nano by googling, and at any rate, opening the file with gedit is hardly "harder", and costs you maybe a half a second difference.

I always dreaded using nano - especially when X was running and I could use gedit or kedit and accomplish the same thing. A pure command prompt is still terrifying to me. Vi or Vim or nano? I once had to edit xorg.conf from a pure command prompt (without gedit) and it was impossible for me to figure out how to use these editors and save my edits. The crudeness of these programs can't be justified. Efficient? I don't get it. I read once that programmers love these programs. OMG ;)

[cardinals_fan]

I think it's tough for people who know all this stuff to remember what it's like to start from the beginning. Some things are so ingrained in their minds by now, that they simply overlook them... they are TOO obvious. Maybe we should just encourage new users to ask for gui solutions specifically.
I remember all too well. Spending three hours configuring my wireless adapter... them was the days ;)

I always dreaded using nano - especially when X was running and I could use gedit or kedit and accomplish the same thing. A pure command prompt is still terrifying to me. Vi or Vim or nano? I once had to edit xorg.conf from a pure command prompt (without gedit) and it was impossible for me to figure out how to use these editors and save my edits. The crudeness of these programs can't be justified. Efficient? I don't get it. I read once that programmers love these programs. OMG ;)
I adore vim. The keybindings are bizarre at first, but the handy vimtutor guide got me started. I love being able to do everything with the keyboard.

[jrusso2]

I think it's tough for people who know all this stuff to remember what it's like to start from the beginning. Some things are so ingrained in their minds by now, that they simply overlook them... they are TOO obvious. Maybe we should just encourage new users to ask for gui solutions specifically.

I would like to see that. Try that with the next issue you have.

[abyssius]

I think it's tough for people who know all this stuff to remember what it's like to start from the beginning. Some things are so ingrained in their minds by now, that they simply overlook them... they are TOO obvious. Maybe we should just encourage new users to ask for gui solutions specifically.

I tried to express this early in this thread, and I was accused of being condescending toward new users. Hell, I was talking about myself. CLI for Dummies. Is there such a book? I'm there.

[igknighted]

:P ya I want a "simplified" version of what I'm doing--and if it gets done... I don't give a damn if it's "inaccurate" (whatever that means), as long as it does what I need it to.

personally, I'm uncomfortable using cli text editors. it took me a long time just to figure out how to "save" in nano. Why can't you save without exiting? I couldn't find any "beginner" info about nano by googling, and at any rate, opening the file with gedit is hardly "harder", and costs you maybe a half a second difference.

It says right on the bottom of the screen in nano that ctrl+o saves...

Remember, familiar != simple, and Ubuntu != Windows. In fact, part of the very core of Ubuntu is that many things in windows are fundamentally flawed. Therefore, to keep things "familiar" often keeps those fundamental flaws. Not that Ubuntu always gets it right, but you really need to differentiate between "familiar" and "easy", because otherwise you just get a cheap windows knockoff.

[cardinals_fan]

I tried to express this early in this thread, and I was accused of being condescending toward new users. Hell, I was talking about myself. CLI for Dummies. Is there such a book? I'm there.
..


Some good websites:

http://linux.die.net/Bash-Beginners-Guide/
http://linux.die.net/Linux-CLI/
http://www.tuxfiles.org/linuxhelp/cli.html

Also, remember that the "man" command offers documentation for any other command you might need. Man pages tend to be very technical and can be a bit intimidating, but they are a great educational opportunity. Just enter "man commandname" or visit an online listing such as this (http://linux.die.net/man/).

[mikeize]

It says right on the bottom of the screen in nano that ctrl+o saves...

Remember, familiar != simple, and Ubuntu != Windows. In fact, part of the very core of Ubuntu is that many things in windows are fundamentally flawed. Therefore, to keep things "familiar" often keeps those fundamental flaws. Not that Ubuntu always gets it right, but you really need to differentiate between "familiar" and "easy", because otherwise you just get a cheap windows knockoff.

Um no. Maybe "write out"="save without exit"... but why should I be able to guess that? Also, why should I be able to guess that "^"=ctrl? I figured that one out through trial and error, but this is the point I made earlier--you "just know" that "write out"="save", because you are that familiar with nano... I'm not, and I couldn't just "figure it out" without someone telling me what that means.

I don't understand why some people use Ubuntu, when they loathe gui so much. I'm glad cli is there, but I'm also glad that Ubuntu makes it so I hardly ever have to use it.

[cardinals_fan]

I don't understand why some people use Ubuntu, when they loathe gui so much. I'm glad cli is there, but I'm also glad that Ubuntu makes it so I hardly ever have to use it.
I don't "loathe" the GUI, but I do use an OS where I choose when and where it is installed.

[abyssius]

I remember all too well. Spending three hours configuring my wireless adapter... them was the days ;)

I adore vim. The keybindings are bizarre at first, but the handy vimtutor guide got me started. I love being able to do everything with the keyboard.

I understand. I've worked with programmers that wouldn't consider booting to a GUI under any circumstances, yet the GUI they created was absolutely astounding. It must be a different mindset. I'm into Video Editing, Desktop Publishing, Graphic Design, Web design, etc. - I can't imagine staring at a command prompt and computer ROM generated text - and adoring it. But, I do appreciate those who can. BTW, I like your blog.

[cardinals_fan]

I understand. I've worked with programmers that wouldn't consider booting to a GUI under any circumstances, yet the GUI they created was absolutely astounding. It must be a different mindset. I'm into Video Editing, Desktop Publishing, Graphic Design, Web design, etc. - I can't imagine staring at a command prompt and computer ROM generated text - and adoring it. But, I do appreciate those who can. BTW, I like your blog.
Thank you :)

[Paqman]

The purpose of the GUI is to make things discoverable and require less memorization.

Absolutely, and I don't think it can be overstated just how important that is. GUIs have become the standard way to interact with a computer because people do find them easier to use. The vast majority just aren't interested in reading a man page and memorising the commands therein. That's why Linux has traditionally only been strong with people used to interacting with computers through text (ie: programmers).

I also think a lot of it comes down to how your brain works. Some people find a visual interface easier to understand, some people find text easier. I suspect the former outnumber the latter by a hefty margin, but luckily Linux does a pretty good job of accommodating both.

[Sorivenul]

I didn't read all eleven pages. However, the Education Focus Group exists for the purpose of educating. :D Check out their Resources (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BeginnersTeam/FocusGroups/Education/Resources), still in progress.

[abyssius]

Absolutely, and I don't think it can be overstated just how important that is. GUIs have become the standard way to interact with a computer because people do find them easier to use. The vast majority just aren't interested in reading a man page and memorising the commands therein. That's why Linux has traditionally only been strong with people used to interacting with computers through text (ie: programmers).

I also think a lot of it comes down to how your brain works. Some people find a visual interface easier to understand, some people find text easier. I suspect the former outnumber the latter by a hefty margin, but luckily Linux does a pretty good job of accommodating both.

It not a matter of easy or hard. I can't see how anyone can seriously support the contention that a GUI is somehow inferior or less efficient than a command prompt and fixed spacing computer text. CLI has its uses - but it is extremely limited, while the possibilities of what can be done with a GUI are boundless. For Linux to become a viable mainstream OS, it MUST develop into a GUI environment on a par with MAC or Windows (it's almost there). GUI configuration techniques shouldn't be resisted or disparaged, they should be embraced and enhanced.

[cmay]

from reading about unix i have found out these things that i would like to post as what i think is a good argument to learn about the command line. unix was a commandline system and it is still as far as i can tell. but being portable and simple build up where the user has a bunch of standard unix programs that can be combined in an endless number of ways the unix system become popular. once you learn one system you can easy move to another
the simplicity of these unix programs is whereas many programs with a gui has endless number of buttons and options a program like wc can do one thing but it does it well. as oppsed to a full featured program with gui that has more features than one needs and more bugs since it is missing the ability to work togheter with other program and serve its own one primary purpose like the way a unix program like wc can.
i hardly use the terminal more than sudo apt-get install supertux or gcc ./hello.c -o hello and i use nano to edit stuff like apt sources. i use the man pages and i printed something out once that i use as reference when i work with the terminal. i have been a minix3 user(no gui at all) for a short while(read the book and used the system while reading)and a FreedDos user (old old old pc i was bringing back to live) so i am far from afraid of the terminal. i also often use the terminal for some program that are ment to be run in a terminal but i have still the gui way of doing things as a nice little extra luxury that has been build on top of this unix like system linux is. and i want to enjoy that also. in a couple of ore years i can maybe remember all terminal commands and programs by hart but things that are worht learning also takes time. i am in no rush at anything as i am just a casual computer user. i am not under somekind of unix certified educational program so i just enjoy doing things the way i do it now. both gui and terminal as what comes to be the most easy way to do the job.

[SomeGuyDude]

It not a matter of easy or hard. I can't see how anyone can seriously support the contention that a GUI is somehow inferior or less efficient than a command prompt and fixed spacing computer text. CLI has its uses - but it is extremely limited, while the possibilities of what can be done with a GUI are boundless. For Linux to become a viable mainstream OS, it MUST develop into a GUI environment on a par with MAC or Windows (it's almost there). GUI configuration techniques shouldn't be resisted or disparaged, they should be embraced and enhanced.

You aren't actually discussing this, I notice. You have your standpoint and refuse to even consider anything anyone tells you.

Ask yourself this: do you think the people who support the CLI do it just to be contrary? To be "bona fide Linux users"? Or could it possibly, POSSIBLY be that they prefer to work with the CLI and find it a better tool?

Besides, calling the CLI "limited" but GUI "boundless" smacks of so much ignorance I just got a nosebleed. A GUI by definition translates actions into commands which get passed to the machine. When I use LXAppearance to change my theme, all it's doing is changing my .gtkrc-2.0 file. XArchiver visually runs "tar" commands. Synaptic is a visual front-end to typing out "sudo apt-get install [whatever]". It passes the same command to the system.

I'm sorry the CLI is too hard for you, but it's not "bad". Use whatever distro YOU want that eliminates it, fine. But don't act like Linux "must" do something just because it's what YOU want. Linux: choice. Deal with it.

[SomeGuyDude]

I'd also like to point out that the GUI debate goes beyond CLI, since it encompasses configuration files. Whether your prefer nano/vi or Gedit/leafpad (I use leafpad just so I can easily copy/paste/search/replace, nano when I just need to type/erase), you're still manually editing a file.

Try and come up with a GUI that, say, configures X or makes a conkyrc. Think about how complex that would be. Try and come up with a useful GUI that lets you edit a GTK theme completely, not just the five or six things GNOME's theme manager lets you do.

If you're working in a text file to change something, it ain't a GUI. I don't care if you're using a GUI text edit, what you're doing is not "via the GUI", you're just doing the same thing without it being in the terminal.

Also, if nano is too difficult to use you've got problems. All of the friggin' commands are laid out at the bottom of the window.

[BLTicklemonster]

And never say, "open the terminal". Might as well ask them to levitate! Tell them the steps after using the normal lingo:

Open terminal by going to Applications, then Accessories, and clicking on Terminal.

Etc.

New folks to linux will be turned off by

open terminal, upgrade, install using sudo, levitate.

And so on and so forth as the situation requires.

Great thread!!!

[SomeGuyDude]

^^^ that. Just put it in normal language and it'll be fine. People act like using the CLI is so many steps, but I can do that same trick with the GUI too, look.

Click on your menu, go into administration, find Synaptic, click the "refresh" button to make sure it's all updated, scroll down until you find "levitate", click the checkbox, click "apply", type in your password, hit "okay", then close the window. Now go into your applications menu, find "other", and click "Levitate".

Simple!

[BLTicklemonster]

lmao, see? Nothing to it!

[cardinals_fan]

It not a matter of easy or hard. I can't see how anyone can seriously support the contention that a GUI is somehow inferior or less efficient than a command prompt and fixed spacing computer text. CLI has its uses - but it is extremely limited, while the possibilities of what can be done with a GUI are boundless. For Linux to become a viable mainstream OS, it MUST develop into a GUI environment on a par with MAC or Windows (it's almost there). GUI configuration techniques shouldn't be resisted or disparaged, they should be embraced and enhanced.
Let me know when that GUI for compiling my custom kernel is done.

[igknighted]

Let me know when that GUI for compiling my custom kernel is done.

Kernel-check and make xconfig aren't GUI enough?

[toupeiro]

I obligingly show people how to access the CLI through a GUI, and .. the CLI is far quicker at contextual execution than fumbling around through a GUI with a mouse.

sudo apt-<tab> install adro<tab> (<tab> completes your text entries by instantly searching all possible answers based on the input you've already given)

And, as mentioned several times in this thread, the CLI will work regardless of what GUI you are running. Therefore, learning how to do something at the CLI is far more valuable than showing how to do it in one GUI.

I am still sensitive though to those intimidated by the CLI at first, but I have 0% compassion for those who voluntarily choose something other than windows and expect the entire world to make it look and feel like windows to them, and get frustrated and put down linux because its not the OS they obviously have at least a curiosity of leaving, or at most a loathing for. Linux is NOT windows. In my opinion, its far superior, but that doesn't mean its look and feel won't be different. If you want Linux, and complain about it not being windows, then you don't want linux, you want what you know and are comfortable with, and in that case you should stick with it. If you want to learn linux, then you will need to learn to be open minded about new ways of doing things. If you can do that, you will be able to make it look, feel, and do any thing you want. Therein lies the value of this OS over the other.

[SomeGuyDude]

People also need to remember that Windows and OSX, for all their mastery of the GUI, are so labyrinthine that I often find myself wishing I had an easier way to just pop commands in. Good gravy.

[cardinals_fan]

Kernel-check and make xconfig aren't GUI enough?
Kernel-check is Debian only.

<sarcasm>
Make-xconfig is too confusing for a new user. Just look at that ugly screenshot! </sarcasm>

People also need to remember that Windows and OSX, for all their mastery of the GUI, are so labyrinthine that I often find myself wishing I had an easier way to just pop commands in. Good gravy.
+1

[igknighted]

<sarcasm>
Make-xconfig is too confusing for a new user. Just look at that ugly screenshot! </sarcasm>

I understand the sarcasm tags, but I think you highlight a great point. Look how ugly and complicated those options are... this is what many GUIs of config files would have to look like. All those who want GUIs for everything might be begging otherwise if they all looked like that...

[cmay]

i think a regular desktop user should have the benefit of the well known gui. but all powerusers or advanced users should use the terminal . the difference is that one is able to handle one self in both windows and linux/UNIX if the shell is a well know object. so the more the linux newbies learns about the terminal the closer to linux they comes. some things that a casual computer user need not to know is how to compile a c program or execute a pel script. but i cant imagine how it would be to find a gui to chmod 755./scriptname.sh and run it by the same gui. it would be more complicated. there is sometimes a ordinary user that wants a program they have to compile for themselve to make work. not that they think its very cool to compile stuff but becouse the program is distributed source only or just not in the respotories yet. such times a bit of knowledge about the terminal is sure handy. anohter thing is that linux is a commandline system just like unix and its "father" minix is. so i think honest that we linux users have the most cool desktop solution in the world in my opinion but the knowledge or even just ability to read some man pages and go from there when a problem that calls for a terminal based solution just simply illutrates the users ability to handle ones own problems. that is what the gui sometimes fail at amd that is why some people cant do much by themself and have others do it for them at sometimes higher price than is really needed . one example i have is one that could not get the sound working in windows xp and she asked in a magazine what to do before she would take it to repair. it was a go to menu->nextmenuitem>click this button and click ok solution. it could have cost a lot to have someone take advantage of her in this case ignorance of the system she uses. learning about the terminal makes people at least a bit more aware. there is some very basic commands that i think all people could benefit from. one is open the terminal and type which [program] to check if the program they think they installed but some reason not show up in the menu is in fact installed or not. anohter is man program so when the gui does not tell its use within certain questions the user may have its a good command to know. the skills needed login to a system to repair the system is also very handy if one does not want to have others fix ones problems. they are always free to ask here instead and i think the question to gui or not to gui is up to the one that answers their prayers for help.

[cardinals_fan]

@cmay: There's this new writing style called "paragraphs". You should check it out ;)

[yabbadabbadont]

@cmay: There's this new writing style called "paragraphs". You should check it out ;)

Not to mention "Capitalization." :)

(at least they included punctuation...)

[Paqman]

Let me know when that GUI for compiling my custom kernel is done.

We're talking about new users, not you. This isn't a thread about whether the CLI is better than the GUI, it's about good practice for helping new users.

[mikeize]

Also, if nano is too difficult to use you've got problems. All of the friggin' commands are laid out at the bottom of the window.

Are those the commands? Because when I type "shift+6, shift+X", I get

^X
and it doesn't exit. Same with all the other commands. Ok, so I eventually figured that one out, but it took awhile. What I couldn't figure out, until this thread was how to save without closing. I thought there was something wrong with my eyes, I sextuple-checked, but no option for "save". wtf. O well, this program DOES seem rather minimalistic and idiosyncratic, I guess they figure you'll never have to save without exiting.

So yeah, there's something wrong with me: I prefer programs to have discoverable commands, that are not represented by obscure programming languages.

[abyssius]

i think a regular desktop user should have the benefit of the well known gui. but all powerusers or advanced users should use the terminal . the difference is that one is able to handle one self in both windows and linux/UNIX if the shell is a well know object. so the more the linux newbies learns about the terminal the closer to linux they comes. some things that a casual computer user need not to know is how to compile a c program or execute a pel script. but i cant imagine how it would be to find a gui to chmod 755./scriptname.sh and run it by the same gui. it would be more complicated. there is sometimes a ordinary user that wants a program they have to compile for themselve to make work. not that they think its very cool to compile stuff but becouse the program is distributed source only or just not in the respotories yet. such times a bit of knowledge about the terminal is sure handy. anohter thing is that linux is a commandline system just like unix and its "father" minix is. so i think honest that we linux users have the most cool desktop solution in the world in my opinion but the knowledge or even just ability to read some man pages and go from there when a problem that calls for a terminal based solution just simply illutrates the users ability to handle ones own problems. that is what the gui sometimes fail at amd that is why some people cant do much by themself and have others do it for them at sometimes higher price than is really needed . one example i have is one that could not get the sound working in windows xp and she asked in a magazine what to do before she would take it to repair. it was a go to menu->nextmenuitem>click this button and click ok solution. it could have cost a lot to have someone take advantage of her in this case ignorance of the system she uses. learning about the terminal makes people at least a bit more aware. there is some very basic commands that i think all people could benefit from. one is open the terminal and type which [program] to check if the program they think they installed but some reason not show up in the menu is in fact installed or not. anohter is man program so when the gui does not tell its use within certain questions the user may have its a good command to know. the skills needed login to a system to repair the system is also very handy if one does not want to have others fix ones problems. they are always free to ask here instead and i think the question to gui or not to gui is up to the one that answers their prayers for help.

I guess by the way you posted this, you must be staring at a black screen with ROM-generated, evenly spaced large-pixel text. However, this doesn't translate well to a GUI environment. There is a lot of substance in your post, so why diminish it by making it impossible to decipher?

[mips]

I guess by the way you posted this, you must be staring at a black screen with ROM-generated, evenly spaced large-pixel text. However, this doesn't translate well to a GUI environment. There is a lot of substance in your post, so why diminish it by making it impossible to decipher?

Leave him be, some people are just lazy. Most people will not even consider trying to read that.

[abyssius]

Kernel-check is Debian only.

<sarcasm>
Make-xconfig is too confusing for a new user. Just look at that ugly screenshot! </sarcasm>

+1

That screen shot could inspire a KDE vs. Gnome debate. Anyway, no-one said every GUI implementation is done correctly. I have my X-server working just the way I want it, and I've never had to visit that particular Menu. Wow! I must have been lucky.

[abyssius]

Leave him be, some people are just lazy. Most people will not even consider trying to read that.

Seems like a lot of typing for laziness :)

[mips]

Seems like a lot of typing for laziness :)

lol :)

[kk0sse54]

I have my X-server working just the way I want it, and I've never had to visit that particular Menu. Wow! I must have been lucky.

Do you even know what make-xconfig is?


Seems like a lot of typing for laziness :)
It might not be laziness, since not everyone has as good of a command over English

[cmay]

I guess by the way you posted this, you must be staring at a black screen with ROM-generated, evenly spaced large-pixel text. However, this doesn't translate well to a GUI environment. There is a lot of substance in your post, so why diminish it by making it impossible to decipher?

two reasons.


1
i did try to format the text but it did not work. just comes out in one big joined piece.
i even use firefox just as all others do. w3m is a nightmare to use sometimes :)

2
i cant read that well and i cant see that well as i am operated in my eyes.
i will fix it soon when i have time if i can. (the text above that is)


btw.
i do not use the terminal more than so many others i just think its an important thing to be able to do. and its actually more easy sometimes even that i cant see a thing.

i just make a small shell-script written in geany or gedit where i ccan have large fonts if i need to do more than one command at the terminal in a session.

[cardinals_fan]

We're talking about new users, not you. This isn't a thread about whether the CLI is better than the GUI, it's about good practice for helping new users.
My post was in response to a semi-offtopic post from the OP claiming that "possibilities of what can be done with a GUI are boundless".

[toupeiro]

i think a regular desktop user should have the benefit of the well known gui. but all powerusers or advanced users should use the terminal . the difference is that one is able to handle one self in both windows and linux/UNIX if the shell is a well know object. so the more the linux newbies learns about the terminal the closer to linux they comes. some things that a casual computer user need not to know is how to compile a c program or execute a pel script. but i cant imagine how it would be to find a gui to chmod 755./scriptname.sh and run it by the same gui. it would be more complicated. there is sometimes a ordinary user that wants a program they have to compile for themselve to make work. not that they think its very cool to compile stuff but becouse the program is distributed source only or just not in the respotories yet. such times a bit of knowledge about the terminal is sure handy. anohter thing is that linux is a commandline system just like unix and its "father" minix is. so i think honest that we linux users have the most cool desktop solution in the world in my opinion but the knowledge or even just ability to read some man pages and go from there when a problem that calls for a terminal based solution just simply illutrates the users ability to handle ones own problems. that is what the gui sometimes fail at amd that is why some people cant do much by themself and have others do it for them at sometimes higher price than is really needed . one example i have is one that could not get the sound working in windows xp and she asked in a magazine what to do before she would take it to repair. it was a go to menu->nextmenuitem>click this button and click ok solution. it could have cost a lot to have someone take advantage of her in this case ignorance of the system she uses. learning about the terminal makes people at least a bit more aware. there is some very basic commands that i think all people could benefit from. one is open the terminal and type which [program] to check if the program they think they installed but some reason not show up in the menu is in fact installed or not. anohter is man program so when the gui does not tell its use within certain questions the user may have its a good command to know. the skills needed login to a system to repair the system is also very handy if one does not want to have others fix ones problems. they are always free to ask here instead and i think the question to gui or not to gui is up to the one that answers their prayers for help.

ok.. a few things here..

1) peoples toolsets shouldn't be classify them as power users or "advanced" users. Using a keyboard more frequently than a mouse to complete tasks != power user.

2) I could have mistaken your wording, but Minix is NOT the father of UNIX.. you might want to research that a bit more.

3) Of all the cross functional difficulties between the GUI and the CLI, file permissions are something I thought to be the most straightforward in both realms...

4) the amount of people who depend solely on man pages are very slim. They are a great reference, but also completely duplicated and extended on the world wide web.

Other than that, you've made some fair points...

Don't treat the CLI as something so advanced and uber. You're making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. All that attitude will do is intimidate people .. and its really not that ominous... its just not mouse centric.

[adamlau]

What makes for an advanced user is an understanding of the underlying OS, a dose of healthy respect for alternative systems and their approach towards troubleshooting and conflict resolution. GUI, CLI, as long as the job gets done and done well.

[mikeize]

Don't treat the CLI as something so advanced and uber. You're making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. All that attitude will do is intimidate people .. and its really not that ominous... its just not mouse centric.

It kind of IS "uber" though... I mean, there's nothing advanced about copy/pasting commands in the terminal, but knowing what commands/options for each program, and when to use them takes a certain amount of experience with using the terminal.

Of course, you can always google the commands, or ask for help on the forums... but I for one get tired of having to look up the same things over and over again, and ask questions about things that I feel should just be obvious within the gui itself. And be honest; it IS a bit ominous. Just look at every 4th person's signature, warning about a 5-character command that will wipe your system!

[cmay]

ok.. a few things here..

1) peoples toolsets shouldn't be classify them as power users or "advanced" users. Using a keyboard more frequently than a mouse to complete tasks != power user.

2) I could have mistaken your wording, but Minix is NOT the father of UNIX.. you might want to research that a bit more.

3) Of all the cross functional difficulties between the GUI and the CLI, file permissions are something I thought to be the most straightforward in both realms...

4) the amount of people who depend solely on man pages are very slim. They are a great reference, but also completely duplicated and extended on the world wide web.

Other than that, you've made some fair points...

Don't treat the CLI as something so advanced and uber. You're making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. All that attitude will do is intimidate people .. and its really not that ominous... its just not mouse centric.

thanks for your comments.
i added this as reply.
1
i really dont see a poweruser can not be using a gui if he/she knows what the gui is offering as a tool. but i am thinking that one should be able to use the terminal as well.
a gui can be a great tool. i would not choose terminal to configure my internet since i hate configure intenet. but the commandline is still a very handy allround tool that can solve many task of each different character from time to time but a gui is locked to one job. if the gui solution is more simple i would go for that one first. for the service the gui can offer.


2
minix is indeed the father of linux if that came out as minix the father of unix its my bad.
minix is a unix like system and linus torvalds wrote the linux kernel on minix first as a shell that evovled into a kernel over time. so the file system at first was minix file system and the very first versions of linux could not be compiled unless one ran minix.


3
actually yes . its pretty simple using the file permissions in ubuntu both ways.
i use both ways also .


4
there is good reason to at least know that the man pages can be found on the system. if the network is down (which mine too often is) having the man command is nice .
but of course not many will read the man pages from the terminal and search the information on the internet somewhere. that i think could be true as well.

[yabbadabbadont]

Of course the main issue is that, unless you are actually paying someone for support, you have to take what you get. As long as it works, don't whine about it, or the free support may dry up... ;)

[abyssius]

Do you even know what make-xconfig is?

Nope. That's why I'm suggesting that experts take the time to educate us.

It might not be laziness, since not everyone has as good of a command over English

It's clearly not laziness. The post is comprehensive and really contains a lot of legitimate points. I do believe that foreign languages capitalize and use paragraphs, though.

[cardinals_fan]

It kind of IS "uber" though... I mean, there's nothing advanced about copy/pasting commands in the terminal, but knowing what commands/options for each program, and when to use them takes a certain amount of experience with using the terminal.

Of course, you can always google the commands, or ask for help on the forums... but I for one get tired of having to look up the same things over and over again, and ask questions about things that I feel should just be obvious within the gui itself. And be honest; it IS a bit ominous. Just look at every 4th person's signature, warning about a 5-character command that will wipe your system!
Opening a graphical file manager, selecting every folder, and hitting the delete key will also wipe your system ;)

[abyssius]

Of course the main issue is that, unless you are actually paying someone for support, you have to take what you get. As long as it works, don't whine about it, or the free support may dry up... ;)

Why do you interpret it as whining? It was simply some suggestions that may be legitimate or not. Personally, I think the diverse responses on this thread are both fascinating and educational. Too bad it seems to be way below you...

FYI, free doesn't always translate to inferior. Ubuntu is a testimony to that. As for your ...free support may dry up... implied threat. I doubt that very much. There are too many reasonable, generous and patient people on this forum willing to participate in the true spirit of Ubuntu. Maybe, you should review the meaning...

[abyssius]

Opening a graphical file manager, selecting every folder, and hitting the delete key will also wipe your system ;)

Don't you have to have root privileges, first? :)

[cardinals_fan]

Don't you have to have root privileges, first? :)
Exactly as you would with the CLI.

[cmay]

as a personal experience i can confirm this to be true .
in crunch bang there is a menu item for thunar filemanager and one for thunar filemanager as root. so when you cant see that well (if you like me have your eyes operated) you can delete files that are important to you ,like autostart.sh and all your letters and the stuff you wrote last night by mistake :oops:

[kk0sse54]

It's clearly not laziness. The post is comprehensive and really contains a lot of legitimate points. I do believe that foreign languages capitalize and use paragraphs, though.

Last time I checked the word "I" wasn't capitalized in Danish nor in most European languages. ;)

[abyssius]

as a personal experience i can confirm this to be true .
in crunch bang there is a menu item for thunar filemanager and one for thunar filemanager as root. so when you cant see that well (if you like me have your eyes operated) you can delete files that are important to you ,like autostart.sh and all your letters and the stuff you wrote last night by mistake :oops:

Maybe an a equivalent to the "Are you sure you want to send xxxxx to the Recycle Bin?" Windows message is needed. It always drove me crazy, but maybe there was some method in that madness...:)