Do GUIs take away from the "Linux experience"?

[Starks]

Just wondering.

[23meg]

No.

[Peyton]

Can we get more of an explanation?

[forrestcupp]

If the Linux experience can't include GUI, then I'll go back to Windows.

[Erunno]

No and no.

[prizrak]

No, GUI's are good. The problem only arises when there is no way to do something other than the GUI. Human readable text files are an important administration interface especially when you don't need a GUI such as a server.

[avik]

The "Linux experience," at least to me, is about the freedom and the openness upon which this platform is built. Some people like CLIs and some people like GUIs, and there are some people who want to use whatever suits the task at hand. The point is that each of them has the freedom to choose what they want. That is the "Linux experience."

[justin whitaker]

Yes.






(devils advoate). ;)

[tbroderick]

Yes.

[Eggnog]

The "Linux experience," at least to me, is about the freedom and the openness upon which this platform is built. Some people like CLIs and some people like GUIs, and there are some people who want to use whatever suits the task at hand. The point is that each of them has the freedom to choose what they want. That is the "Linux experience."

For the win.

[loserboy]

I think that there is just 2 different "linux experiences" - 1 CLI and 1 GUI

both of them make me happy

[Drifter]

No gui's are our friends

[notwen]

As long as the GUI runs over the CLI, then I say no. Once the CLI is run under the GUI(as in WinXP) then it's bad business.

[andrewsomething]

As long as the GUI runs over the CLI, then I say no. Once the CLI is run under the GUI(as in WinXP) then it's bad business.

That was the beginning of the end for me and Windows...

[smoker]

why do people get worked up about a cli v gui, give me both:-)

[23meg]

why do people get worked up about a cli v gui

To have something to argue about.

[Papi-KB7VGW]

I agree with Smoker. Give me both cause I don't want to go back to windows....:p

[init1]

Just wondering.
Depends. As long as you have the command line, GUI is fine. If not yes.

[Sunflower1970]

I like having the option for both. There are some things I prefer to do with a GUI, and other things I like to use the CLI.

[jrusso2]

When I started using Linux it was much more necessary to use the command line and hand editing of files to get anything configured.

Now with the desktop environments such as KDE and GNOME and their continued development it has made possible the use of Linux for a much larger group of less technical users.

Anyone who does not want to use a GUI does not have to, but I think its interesting that even Linus uses a desktop environment although I am sure he is at home using the CLI when its needed or better.

[starcraft.man]

No (in response to OP), the linux experience is more than just GUI vs CLI. If thats all you think it is your mistaken.

[bchaffin72]

How many of us have actually run any Linux distro purely from the command line, including internet through a text based browser? I have, just for the learning experience, and it made me appreciate the option of GUI. As long as the GUI is an option and not a built in requirement, I am fine with it. Both modes have their uses. Of course, when I first took computer classes, there was no such thing as GUI for the average user.

[Quillz]

Linux is about freedom and choice, so forcing anyone into strictly a CLI or GUI would go against the Linux principles.

[hellmet]

No, GUI's are good. The problem only arises when there is no way to do something other than the GUI. Human readable text files are an important administration interface especially when you don't need a GUI such as a server.
Exactly.

[Extreme Coder]

No, it'd be like taking BSoDs out of Windows :D

[phrostbyte]

I have to admin a Linux server without X installed on it. It's definately a different experience. But whats so good about Linux is how much can be done without the GUI. You can configure pretty much the entire system, connect to SMB shares, make and resize partitions, manipulate hardware, browse the Internet and check mail, etc. As far as I am aware that is not possible on Windows, even with the server editions.

[jrusso2]

I have to admin a Linux server without X installed on it. It's definately a different experience. But whats so good about Linux is how much can be done without the GUI. You can configure pretty much the entire system, connect to SMB shares, make and resize partitions, manipulate hardware, browse the Internet and check mail, etc. As far as I am aware that is not possible on Windows, even with the server editions.

I heard this is coming in the next microsoft server version you will be able to run in a text mode and and use their new shell.

[Circus-Killer]

the reason why i use linux is because of choice. the linux experience is to experience choice. as such, i feel that having desktop environments such as gnome or kde are vital parts of the choice experience. i like the fact that i can choose what gui i want, and how its set up. i like the fact that i can jump to a terminal if i need to do something that is beyond the gui or that is just easier to perform in the terminal.

basically, if there was no gui, i would ditch linux. if there was no terminal, i would ditch linux.

[phrostbyte]

I heard this is coming in the next microsoft server version you will be able to run in a text mode and and use their new shell.

Yes and no.. in text mode it's shell is CMD.EXE which is a poor substitute for bash, also in text mode .NET (ASP, etc.) code can't run .. which is prob one of the few reasons you'd opt for a Windows server in the first place. So yes you can run in text mode, but you lose major functionality over GUI mode. Basically what I am saying is the text mode Windows is pretty useless, because MSFT really underestimated how difficult it would be to separate their GUI from the rest of the OS. They wanted it to be useful but they couldn't make it very useful in time for release.

[jrusso2]

Yes and no.. in text mode it's shell is CMD.EXE which is a poor substitute for bash, also in text mode .NET (ASP, etc.) code can't run .. which is prob one of the few reasons you'd opt for a Windows server in the first place. So yes you can run in text mode, but you lose major functionality over GUI mode. Basically what I am saying is the text mode Windows is pretty useless, because MSFT really underestimated how difficult it would be to separate their GUI from the rest of the OS. They wanted it to be useful but they couldn't make it very useful in time for release.

No they have a new shell called power shell that works a lot like bash

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx

[phrostbyte]

No they have a new shell called power shell that works a lot like bash

Powershell is written in .NET, which means it can not run in "core" (text-based) Windows. You can read about that here: http://www.betanews.com/article/Why_Cant_PowerShell_Be_the_Windows_Command_Prompt/1179385810

The only shell you can use is good old CMD.EXE, which doesn't hold a candle to bash in terms of functionality.

[Atomic Dog]

How many of us have actually run any Linux distro purely from the command line, including internet through a text based browser? I have, just for the learning experience, and it made me appreciate the option of GUI. As long as the GUI is an option and not a built in requirement, I am fine with it. Both modes have their uses. Of course, when I first took computer classes, there was no such thing as GUI for the average user.

I would seriously lose my mind if I had to last a day with a command line only. Sure I suppose I could listen to music, but have you seen google in a test only browser? Not pretty I assure you.

Gnome & KDE make linux pleasing for me.

[bchaffin72]

I would seriously lose my mind if I had to last a day with a command line only. Sure I suppose I could listen to music, but have you seen google in a test only browser? Not pretty I assure you.

That is my point. I can do just about anything GNU/Linux can do from the command line, but some tasks are more pleasing from the GUI. What I really appreciate is having the choice of using whichever tool suits my needs best at the time.

[orb9220]

Well I just don't get this GUI in linux thing.

When I get to the desktop is that the Gui thing cuz I looked and I can't find the "start" button
anywhere. So how do I launch programs?

I mean I try running msconfig so I can add things to startup and it Doesn't Run.
So I try and create a startup folder and put shortcuts there. And they still don't run.

So I then try to browse to the system/32 folder to find the gui.dll or the ubuntu.dll
and guess what they aren't there because there is no system/ or /drivers folders anywhere.

How can I have a Gui without those jeez.

So I decide to take a look at my linux partitions from winxp side cuz I have double boot grub partition.
And when I run Disk management guess what windows says they are "Unknown" so what is ubuntu hiding?

So I open a windows term and try to mount them nada nothing.

I mean if winXP a true gui/OS can't see the gui in linux does it really have one?

All kidding aside I still don't get the resistance and loathing of the linux developers
to anything Gui. And Like the earlier post if it didn't have both I would probably not be here.

And to all the command line junkies please understand that some of us do not have the time
or memory to recall the cryptic worlds of commands and flags. Even the man pages try to make them
even more cryptic and difficult. And if I don't use the commands on a regular basis I sure in
hell ain't going to remember them when I need them.

I am not a youngster with snap memory recall like the young individuals. I tried creating a
text file on the desktop to paste regular type commands I may use but the time to open the
file find it and paste in term negates the benefits of fast use compared to a gui equivalent.

I am just glad the gui tools are getting better and the power under the hood term will always be there.

Now if I can just get regedit to run I can really tweak my Ubuntu!

[init1]

How many of us have actually run any Linux distro purely from the command line, including internet through a text based browser? I have, just for the learning experience, and it made me appreciate the option of GUI. As long as the GUI is an option and not a built in requirement, I am fine with it. Both modes have their uses. Of course, when I first took computer classes, there was no such thing as GUI for the average user.
I have. I used Slax Frodo for a while. Not because I had to, but because it was fun. In fact before I got the links module, I used wget and less. Wget to get an HTML, less to read the HTML (raw, not rendered), and then wget again to get another page.

[Ralob]

If Linux had no GUI's I would definitely have to go elsewhere. I like the command line and all, but I love GUI's even more. Linux is enhanced by GUI's, not ruined IMHO.

[Alex Fernandez]

Depends -

Do we want fancy GUI's for say GIMP? - YES!

Do we need a GUI to burn DVDs? - Well, maybe but I prefer command line

Do we need a GUI for config stuff? - Hell no, I prefer to edit a file.

[cobrn1]

I like being able to use both. They're suited to different things (the point I think Alex was trying to make). The 'linux experience' TM would be very different (and vastly inferior) without it. However, on a server there's really no need. Like everybody else has said, it's all about choice. Would you like the linux experience without a GUI availiable for when you need? I wouldn't. I like my GUI for almost everything, but I also love the CLI for other things (it's very effiecient). horses for courses

[Naralas]

Bwahahahahaha

Without a graphical user interface, the Linux Experience you speak of would be "experienced" by very few.

I would throw it down and stomp on it.

I hate Aqua, I hate Aero, I hate <whatever the 9x and XP DE's were called> but I would use them.

[init1]

Bwahahahahaha

Without a graphical user interface, the Linux Experience you speak of would be "experienced" by very few.

I would throw it down and stomp on it.

I hate Aqua, I hate Aero, I hate <whatever the 9x and XP DE's were called> but I would use them.
explorer.exe

[cobrn1]

Bwahahahahaha

Without a graphical user interface, the Linux Experience you speak of would be "experienced" by very few.

I would throw it down and stomp on it.

I hate Aqua, I hate Aero, I hate <whatever the 9x and XP DE's were called> but I would use them.

I would agree with your first point - without a gui linux would be useless for general desktop use.

However, I actually like the look of aero (so do lots of people too, secretly maybe, but why are there so many vista themes if they were so hated?). I really dislike aqua tho - macs irritate me in general, but that's a whole other (and very involving) issue...

[n0dl]

no. i used xterminal a great deal even in the gui

[Sunforge]

The command line has the power

The GUI has the baubles

You've got to have both for your desktop.

I mean browsing the web with Lynx? You can do it but it's pretty horrible.