Command-line vs. graphical user interface

[diogenes2]

Hi tech people!
Many, many years ago I had many an altercation on early Linux BBS with "real" users who were against making the use of Linux easy. The problem is still here today, I see.

There has been so much brilliant work by so many people on this ONLY ALTERNATIVE that it is a shame to see that support is still very much "black screen" O S level.

Especially coupled with how easy it is to total a Linux system from the cmd line, it would be a great idea to focus more on simple-as-possible = graphics help.

In my case, I have only ever in 10 years got two installs of Linux to work:
Suse 9.2 and when I upgraded to Suse 10 - it totalled the system.
Ubuntu 7.04 on one out of three systems - a 4 y.o. Sony portable.

By "work" I mean including sound, decent graphics, Internet. Surprisingly, it is usually internet connections that fail me - and this is the primary purpose of my using it!

So, my question really is: does anyone (non-techhead) ever really get it to go on in one go, without a lot of tech knowhow?

I know millions of people download it like me and never get it to go, otherwise it would rule the world by now. What is the problem, still?
:confused::confused::confused:

[jordanmthomas]

I believe a lot of people get everything running with no problems. It's sort of a hardware crap-shoot in some situations.

Anyway, if you're expecting the command line to go away any time soon I wouldn't hold your breath. The command line is the bread and butter of Linux. It's the MAIN reason I use Linux. There's plenty of "graphic help" -- just search the web and you'll find page after page of howto's on every subject you can imagine.

If you're really against it, there are GUI tools for configuring things like networks. I know for a fact that Fedora has GUI tools to configure most everything. In the end, the GUIs are just wrappers on top of the configuration file you'd be editing in a terminal anyway.

[th1bill]

Hi tech people!
Many, many years ago I had many an altercation on early Linux BBS with "real" users who were against making the use of Linux easy. The problem is still here today, I see.

There has been so much brilliant work by so many people on this ONLY ALTERNATIVE that it is a shame to see that support is still very much "black screen" O S level.

Especially coupled with how easy it is to total a Linux system from the cmd line, it would be a great idea to focus more on simple-as-possible = graphics help.

In my case, I have only ever in 10 years got two installs of Linux to work:
Suse 9.2 and when I upgraded to Suse 10 - it totalled the system.
Ubuntu 7.04 on one out of three systems - a 4 y.o. Sony portable.

By "work" I mean including sound, decent graphics, Internet. Surprisingly, it is usually internet connections that fail me - and this is the primary purpose of my using it!

So, my question really is: does anyone (non-techhead) ever really get it to go on in one go, without a lot of tech knowhow?

I know millions of people download it like me and never get it to go, otherwise it would rule the world by now. What is the problem, still?
:confused::confused::confused:

By the CMD line I'm going to assume that you want to open the Terminal and that is found in Applications>Accessories and click Terminal. Believe me that is what you are looking for qnd the first command line you will need is, at the promt, sudo adept_manager and from there you will be able to get the software you will need to work on your unit.

Now, as for getting it up and running, I have asked a total of five questions here so I am a cherry in every respect. Yes, I have had great success and in fact I will not pay Microsoft for another OS for myself ever again. My machine loaded and set itself up completely on Ubuntu 7.04 and I have upgraded to 7.10 and still have not had any problems that did not involve my own ignorance and each time someone here has given me the answer without any cute remarks.

Now, attitude., Right off the bat you will dislike me. When you learn not to talk down to folks you'll find that there is a world full of helpful people in the Linux world. Now, short of an attitude adjustment, you are free to go purchase the latest, better than 200 dollar, version of Windows and cuss it because your hardware will not operate with it.

[diogenes2]

Hi Th1Bil & Jordan,

To clarify what I mean a little further:
1. I have already been amazed at how far the GUI (read: easy-2-use) install procedure has come since Ubuntu arrived.

No, I NEVER want to use the cmd line again! (See the warning about swines posting destructive "help" codes here. http://ubuntuforums.org/announcement.php?f=73

It is soooo easy to total a system with a small error in obtuse (non-human analysable) coding, by simple human error.

My question related to the completely unnecessary fixation people have with the CMD line "Black Screen Of Death so often". I certainly didn't infer anything negative about the users and help here, merely that most of the real world does not want to know anything about the "engine" - they - like me - merely want to drive. http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif
:)

A classic example is here below. A great and in-depth work that is worth a pay-for book. BUT designed from the erroneous idea that MOST users want to be able to pull the engine apart and rebuild the gearbox themselves.
We don't.
That doesn't detract at all from this good work - it is just that it is not relevant to the other 90% of potential escapees from THAT other one.

Hope that makes it clearer, fellows.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=500020

[jordanmthomas]

It is soooo easy to total a system with a small error in obtuse (non-human analysable) coding, by simple human error.
I understand your concern, but this is true whether you're dealing with a GUI or a command line. I can't count the times I've clicked a wrong button.

I think you're able to "drive" most of the time except when your "engine" breaks down. When the engine breaks down, you have to take it apart and fix it.

[tiachopvutru]

Now for my personal experience. While I have only started to use Ubuntu for only a month, after using the command line for some time, I'm loving it more and more. I guess I'm just one of those people that like a good mix of command line interface and GUI, but honestly, I find using command isn't that bad. ;) Plus, you'll learn something more using it. After a while, you'll actually find yourself not actually knowing what you were fearing about... although trusting my words or not is your choice, taken into consideration that everyone experiences different things.

Usually, the only times I find myself having a need to use terminal is to configure something for hardware, which isn't Ubuntu's fault for not being supported by those. I also use the terminal to install softwares, which you can use Synaptic Package Manager instead.

[avik]

Imagine telling someone to fire up this app, click this button, switch to this tab, enter the following in the third text box from the top in the first section, and finally click the green button at the bottom that says okay.

Or you tell them, copy and paste this into the terminal and enter your password.

I understand that's an extreme example, but that's one reason the command line is used when helping someone out. It's just easier to tell them to copy and paste something.

Besides, many of the commands give outputs that help us diagnose the problem. Going with your car analogy, it's like the mechanic asking you what types of sounds you hear coming from the engine, or if you could give him the full text from page 37 of the manual. You don't have to know about the engine; you just have to follow a couple of instructions to help the mechanic understand and fix the real problem.

Along these lines, would you rather copy and paste the output of one command, say lspci, or consolidate the output of various lines of text spread out over the course of a list, as in the Hardware Information tool?

[aysiu]

So, my question really is: does anyone (non-techhead) ever really get it to go on in one go, without a lot of tech knowhow? No, of course not. Non-techheads don't want to install and configure an operating system. They'll just use whatever came on the computer they bought.

[HermanAB]

Well, if you don't wish to use the command line, then Ubuntu is not for you. You should use Mandriva instead. That is the only Linux distribution that really has wizards for everything.

Otherwise, if you are just complaining because you like to vent some frustration, then maybe you should switch to Slackware or OpenBSD - then you'll *really* have reason to vent...

Cheers,

H.

[Boomy]

What are you trying to do with your system? Ubuntu is pretty easy to set up and use without command line ime. I think the last time I installed it, I didn't have to use the terminal for anything, and I was quite amazed at how well everything just worked out of the box. If you want to install software, you can find most things in Synaptic. But I usually use Apt if I know what I want to install, it's often faster and easier than gui.

What is going on with your internet connection? Are you on DHCP? Never had a problem getting on the net, just open the browser and it works. What kind of connection do you have?

[inversekinetix]

this thread made it to 3 posts before a windows bash, excellent.



Imagine telling someone to fire up this app, click this button, switch to this tab, enter the following in the third text box from the top in the first section, and finally click the green button at the bottom that says okay.

Or you tell them, copy and paste this into the terminal and enter your password.


you are absolutely right, it is easier to do that, however, for a user like me there is nothing worse than getting a bunch of commands and being told to c v them into the console. Im grateful for the help of course, but it really gets on my nerves being told all these things I dont understand yet, while to a seasoned user the commands are second nature, to a novice they are not, its another language. I think this is something that people forget. Theres nothing wrong with the cli its just very hard to understand without explanation. If i spoke japanese to someone for a month they might start recognising some sounds/words/grammar patterns, doesnt mean it makes any sense to them at all. If i explain what Im saying they will learn fast. A gui environment gives a visual reference to abstract things and makes things easier to absorb, a text only environment is very difficult to master.

I guess its like giving a man a fish or teaching him to fish.

give him a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime, teach him about fish and he will breed them, sell them, etc etc etc.

[CasperRed]

"Knowledge Replaces Fear". These words were on a certificate I got for a First Aid class I took back in Junior High, more years ago than I care to consider.

While you may not "fear" the Command Line, I do suggest you get to know it better. Even in Windows systems, there are things that are just easier to do from the CL. I'm frequently using "ipconfig" on Windows boxes. Do you know of a GUI on that system that will give me the same information as quickly?

There are many books out there to help you. I recommend "Linux Pocket Guide" (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/linuxpg/) from O'Reilly Press. I keep a copy on my desk for reference, but there are many others.

The CL is not rocket science. In fact, it's a lot like learning a different language. You can learn enough to speak like a native, or you can learn just what you need to get around. All you need to do is make the effort.

[K.Mandla]

Especially coupled with how easy it is to total a Linux system from the cmd line, it would be a great idea to focus more on simple-as-possible = graphics help.
I was just thinking that it's probably easier to total a Linux system from a GUI. Maybe if someone packaged up one of those malicious scripts, and put it in a file named "Double-click me!" we'd have a lot more support threads to answer.

[ticopelp]

Hi Th1Bil & Jordan,
No, I NEVER want to use the cmd line again! (See the warning about swines posting destructive "help" codes here. http://ubuntuforums.org/announcement.php?f=73

It is soooo easy to total a system with a small error in obtuse (non-human analysable) coding, by simple human error.


That's a much bigger problem than simply the command line; malicious users could just as easily say "hey, go to this web site, download this executable" or "run this javascript" and accomplish the same thing on another operating system, if the person receiving the information doesn't want to think or use his head. The only way to avoid this human error is to learn, which is why I don't think refusing to learn the command line is a sound way to go about things.

Installing a new operating system requires more under-the-hood experience than just using whatever OS came with your computer, period. It requires learning new things, especially if you are coming from another OS paradigm.

These arguments never get resolved -- as previously posted, there is always Mandriva if you are dead-set against learning anything, but when learning to use a new OS, especially one that affords as much flexibility and freedom as Ubuntu, I think it's going to have more of a payoff in the long run to just learn how things work, instead of complaining that you shouldn't have to.

And as for the "I just want to drive" analogy; I believe automobile owners should take the time to learn about their cars, too. Not to sound harsh, but I think there's far too much willful ignorance in the world.

The command line is simply not that scary.

[inversekinetix]

And as for the "I just want to drive" analogy; I believe automobile owners should take the time to learn about their cars, too. Not to sound harsh, but I think there's far too much willful ignorance in the world.

The command line is simply not that scary.


I doubt many drivers can change their oil themselves let alone a gasket, maybe a timing belt.





as previously posted, there is always Mandriva if you are dead-set against learning anything



I don't think that people are "dead set against learning anything"

I think another way of looking at it might be, I bought this tool(PC) to do things, i don't want to have to study a bunch of other things about the tool before I can use it do what I bought it for.

Can you imagine if you had to mess around on forums and flash hardware just to get your set top DVD player to play surround sound? If you had to recompile the software on your cellphone for it to display flash animation?

It's all good and well that linux is so powerful/customizable etc etc, but is that what the average USER is needing?

If the ubuntu PCs that Dell are selling had to be configuired manually I doubt they would sell very well.

[osx424242]

This is all devil's advocate, I'm _very_ happy with my new Ubuntu laptop and I occasionally try (with very modest success) to convert my friends to free OSs.


Installing a new operating system requires more under-the-hood experience than just using whatever OS came with your computer, period. It requires learning new things, especially if you are coming from another OS paradigm.

Ubuntu [I can't speak for any other distros as I haven't tried them] just doesn't compare with Windows or OS X as far as ease of use. 8 years ago I built a Windows box and _installed_ Win98SE and didn't have any problems [note: 'no problems' means 'no visible problems', people who say 'Windows just works" are probably unaware of invisible issues like worms or spyware, kind of like you might not notice that your car leaks oil or steering fluid if you park in a different spot every day]; 2 years ago I got a Mac Mini and was _blown_away_ by how everything "just worked" even though I had never used a Mac before; 3 months ago I bought a System 76 laptop -- pre-installed Ubuntu so I did _not_ have to install the OS -- and have had no end of problems (not Sys76's fault!!! all the hardware works with Ubuntu, I've just had lots of software (often dependency) issues) despite the fact that I've used (as a _user_ not an _admin_) hp-ux and/or solaris daily at work for the last 6.5 years.


And as for the "I just want to drive" analogy; I believe automobile owners should take the time to learn about their cars, too. Not to sound harsh, but I think there's far too much willful ignorance in the world.

Yeah, of course there's a lot of that. One of the ideals of engineering is to make really difficult or complex things seem invisible to the users. There is a whole lot of work behind the sewer system, but all you see is a faucet and a drain in your sink and a flush button on your toilet. Do you really expect everyone to know how their wastes are broken down by biological entities and reabsorbed into their water system [if you have a septic tank and a well you need to know these things; if you live an apartment in the city you really don't need to care] like you expect them to understand even a moderate car problem like a low engine oil level?

It's _good_ to understand more (I learned a little bit about the internals of my engine by observing when a mechanic replaced a power steering belt that broke 30 minutes into a 4 hour drive but I still wouldn't try to replace that belt, the most accessible of 3 in my engine, simply because I don't have the experience to understand potential side effects... just like a new user doesn't know what _might_ be accidentally lost by
rm -f `find ~ -name "*~"` (even though _you_ know it just deletes temporary files)).

As the OP tried to point out, as long as Linux users think that you _must_ be able to use the CL to accomplish a task then Linux is neither "ready for the Desktop" nor in a position to become a dominant OS. Until Linux distros work out of the box [yes you can partially blame device manufacturers for this] _and_ have "easy" (read: I can go to jiffy lube or les schwab or ubuntuforums.org and someone there can fix the "bumpity-bump" sound I hear when I drive on the freeway) fixes, it will not become mainstream.

[chronographer]

If you want to NOT use the comand line, use OSX. It is very efficient to use the command line, once you know how, its a bit harder to learn, or to find out how, but thats what the internet and this forum are for. How much easier is it to install via "apt-get install a-program" than to have to google for a-program, check it is a valid company, check it is good software, finally download it and double click it to find its a pile of #^$%.

I am new to Linux, but I have no trouble installing a driver for my belkin USB by compiling from source, in fact I thought it was better than belkins windows installer, which installs a stupid little 'network manager' app which is useless, and theres no way to just install the drivers!

Obviously it suits a certain person, but if you are going to complain about command line, perhaps Linux isn't for you.

[SunnyRabbiera]

well by far linux has improved greatly on not using the terminal, it just depends on what you need to do these days...
I am still on the party of "there should be a gui for every terminal app" thing, however those who feel the terminal is better then gui have their place as well.

[Nano Geek]

To the OP:

I have installed Ubuntu on a laptop, a couple of desktops, and a few servers and everything worked perfectly.

But to your question:
No, Linux cannot take the command-line out. It's the backed to everything including your GUI.

[ticopelp]

I doubt many drivers can change their oil themselves let alone a gasket, maybe a timing belt.

Well, we can pick nits about whether learning to type sudo install apt-get constitutes something as complex as changing a timing belt (I don't think it is), but my point is this: I can change my tires and my oil. It's not a complicated thing to learn. If your tire goes flat, do you stand by the side of the road complaining that your car was obviously not ready for the highway?

Most things in Ubuntu (including installing packages) can be done without the command line. But I used to do Windows tech support, and quite often, getting under the hood to get people's Internet to work involved -- guess what! -- firing up start > run > command and opening a terminal window, usually to run ping or what have you.

Troubleshooting and installing a new OS is going to require a bit more learning than sitting down in front of a pre-installed system -- I just don't see how there's any way around that. While you're down there, you might as well learn a bit about why things work the way they do. I think this is equally as true of Windows or any other OS as it is of Linux.

If your time is at too much of a premium to learn new things, especially something as relatively complicated as a computer OS, you shouldn't be installing a new OS. You should be sticking with the OS that you know how to use, and which doesn't require you to learn anything new. I don't say that to be elitist (I don't consider learning an ability restricted to a select few), but I do think that people should be realistic about how they use their time. Ubuntu doesn't work flawlessly on all hardware yet, much as I (or any number of users who have unfortunately had trouble) wish that it did.



I don't think that people are "dead set against learning anything"

I certainly don't think everyone is -- but I think some are.



It's all good and well that linux is so powerful/customizable etc etc, but is that what the average USER is needing?

The average user needs a pre-installed system. Again, I would rarely anticipate having to use the command line on a pre-installed machine where everything is running fine -- that said, I still think it's a good idea to know how to change your tires. :)



If the ubuntu PCs that Dell are selling had to be configuired manually I doubt they would sell very well.

I totally agree. Good thing that's not the case.



Ubuntu [I can't speak for any other distros as I haven't tried them] just doesn't compare with Windows or OS X as far as ease of use. 8 years ago I built a Windows box and _installed_ Win98SE and didn't have any problems [note: 'no problems' means 'no visible problems', people who say 'Windows just works" are probably unaware of invisible issues like worms or spyware, kind of like you might not notice that your car leaks oil or steering fluid if you park in a different spot every day]; 2 years ago I got a Mac Mini and was _blown_away_ by how everything "just worked" even though I had never used a Mac before; 3 months ago I bought a System 76 laptop -- pre-installed Ubuntu so I did _not_ have to install the OS -- and have had no end of problems (not Sys76's fault!!! all the hardware works with Ubuntu, I've just had lots of software (often dependency) issues) despite the fact that I've used (as a _user_ not an _admin_) hp-ux and/or solaris daily at work for the last 6.5 years.

Good post. I'm not an anti-MS zealot. I was a Windows user from 95 up until XP. I don't really have a problem with Windows from a usability standpoint -- I agree that it's a very easy OS for someone who's not interested in computers to sit down with and use, as long as everything is running fine. When it comes to getting under the hood, it's every bit as bewildering as linux, if not more so, to try to fix. Ever try to walk someone through editing their registry over the phone? It's no fun. The registry editor is every bit as complex, or more, as typing things into a terminal, but you still have to do it when something goes wrong, if you don't want to just take your computer to a shop for someone else to fix.

Windows has just as many infuriating quirks as any other OS (like 98's refusal to find drivers that are already installed) when one has to get into the guts of it. The difference between Windows / Mac and something like Ubuntu is that the hardware support often isn't as unified or well-supported, because Ubuntu isn't a giant commercial OS with support from vendors. I certainly wish things were different in that regard, and that Ubuntu worked "out of the box" for everyone. We're not there yet, certainly, but I hope that day will come at some point.

I'm not trying to be harsh on people who don't want to use the command line -- I stayed away from Linux myself for quite a while because I found the commands confusing and kind of arcane, so I definitely know how that feels. However, there also wasn't a community like this, full of helpful people who are willing to take time to help others learn. I think that with a positive attitude and a willingness to absorb information, there's a lot benefit and fun to be had getting your hands dirty and learning to use your tools.

I've worked with so many people over the years who think computers are magical, irrational devices that have a will of their own, and they're afraid to do anything except by rote. A little self-education goes a long way towards dispelling this fear -- no matter what OS you're using.

[diogenes2]

Hi there people,
Thank you to all for your comments.
I've just got back from the beach - a long walk in the cool of the evening ( I'm in Godzone, Queensland, Australia ).

After my last efforts at loading 7.10 again trashed the XP system, it was the only sane thing to do! :-)

To answer a few thoughts/comments at once:

1. The whole value of Lux is the extreme difficulty of assaulting it. That other one is sooo wide open. The only way to do much damage to Lux is if you let someone in (vis, my earlier post e.g.)

2. Many years ago, about 1984, I wrote the first simple access program for CP/M that the M.D. of the Osborne Corp said was the magic link that would open the microcomputer market to ordinary business users.
Somebody dubbed it a "menu". For the first time a user could simply enter a number to write a letter, or run a spreadsheet, or amazingly, connect to another computer across the world...... Nothing has changed. *I* and half a billion others just want to drive an automatic, not a manual shift with a hand-crank Starter.
It isn't scary, it is just plain unsmart to do things the hard way.

3. BTW: Most problems with installs mean you can't simply C n' P a string, because the Lux isn't running! The Newbies are usually looking for help using a windows machine that works.
AND a tiny slip or worse, a malicious code entry can trash everything.

4. Somebody kindly suggested Mandriva. But isn't Ubuntu now universally recognised as the one to beat - the "real people's Linux"............? :confused:

5. Back to work: :)
a: DHCP is enabled. Whatever that really is.
b: My old Notebook is networked with this one through a Netgear Router and running U7.04 with no trouble - even the instal was all on auto.
c: Maybe it is a 7.10 problem? Should I go back?
d: Is there anything specific I can check manually to see why Inet isn't working?
e: My BIG plan is to run Ubuntu and Linux-VMWare with XP safely locked up inside just to run my DragonDictate - the only program I haven't got a replacement for so far :-(
f: Is it true that there is a free Linux-VMWare version hidden out there?

Thanks for all the help and advice so far people, I really do appreciate it,

Dio II

[DJiNN]

I haven't yet read all of this thread, but i have to say that, in many ways i agree with the initial post of the whole CLI thing. I personally use the CLI at times, but only when there's no other way of achieving something.

Anyway, FWIW, for a "CLI Free" experience (Well, as much as you can get of one anyway) you could try either PCLOS, or Linux Mint. Both have worked wonderfully for me in the recent past, with only minimal CLI interaction.

[ticopelp]

Nothing has changed. *I* and half a billion others just want to drive an automatic, not a manual shift with a hand-crank Starter. It isn't scary, it is just plain unsmart to do things the hard way.

I see analogies like that a lot, and they never really make sense to me. The commands are the heart of Linux -- they aren't primitive or deprecated -- that's how the operating system works. The GUI is just an extra layer.

What we're talking about isn't the difference between a hand-crank starter and an automatic -- it's more like the difference between a written restaurant menu and those picture menus at McDonald's they make for illiterates. (Which is a bit inflammatory, yes, but no more so than the "hand crank" nonsense, IMHO.)



AND a tiny slip or worse, a malicious code entry can trash everything.

Again, true of Windows and OS X as well. All the more reason to know how things work -- again, just my opinion.



4. Somebody kindly suggested Mandriva. But isn't Ubuntu now universally recognised as the one to beat - the "real people's Linux"............? :confused:


Well, that's the beauty of Linux, is the freedom to pick a distro you like, and what works for you, and use it to your heart's content. Ubuntu has a great community, but I think there are distros out there with a more simplified user experience than Ubuntu -- Mandriva and Fedora among them. Someone mentioned Linux Mint, which I installed for a friend because it's very similar to XP in terms of the menus and such. (They eventually gave up and decided to install a pirated copy of XP on it instead, and got a virus afterward, but hey, I tried. :KS)

[Solver]

As it has been mentioned, you should consider Mandriva. If you like Ubuntu as it currently is, mostly, then you'll have to live with the need to use the terminal occasionally. Ubuntu does keep getting more GUI tools, but the terminal is still important. And indeed, there's no "one and true" distribution. There's a bunch of big, popular and widespread distros because people have different preferences.

Mandriva aims to provide GUI configuration tools everywhere. They have a good control center and many wizards. That's great for those who want to avoid the command line. One very good thing about Mandriva config tools is that, when you run them in text mode (say, you broke X), they still present a decent interface through ncurses so you don't have to resort to manually typing commands.

It's the first Linux distro I seriously used, and while I certainly prefer Ubuntu now, you should give Mandriva a try. It's thebest distro for those who want to avoid the command line.

[DrMega]

Imagine telling someone to fire up this app, click this button, switch to this tab, enter the following in the third text box from the top in the first section, and finally click the green button at the bottom that says okay.

Or you tell them, copy and paste this into the terminal and enter your password.

I've seen the driving analogy somewhere in this thread, so I'll stick with it.

Perhaps your GUI example is like taking the longer, but well sign posted route and the CLI is like taking the direct shortcut route that you only know because you've done it so many times. Maybe the first few times you took the shorter, direct, un-sign posted route you took a few wrong turns, found yourself in the wrong part of town with a one way system going against you and it ended up taking you five times as long to get home as it would if you'd just took the well sign posted route.

[aysiu]

I've seen the driving analogy somewhere in this thread, so I'll stick with it.

Perhaps your GUI example is like taking the longer, but well sign posted route and the CLI is like taking the direct shortcut route that you only know because you've done it so many times. Maybe the first few times you took the shorter, direct, un-sign posted route you took a few wrong turns, found yourself in the wrong part of town with a one way system going against you and it ended up taking you five times as long to get home as it would if you'd just took the well sign posted route.
That last part of your analogy is where it breaks down, though.

You're more likely to get lost and take wrong turns if you go the GUI route than if someone gives you the correct command to copy and paste.

In fact, the command will give you a more informative error message if it doesn't work than the GUI will.

[Depressed Man]

Not to mention I think this is true for most operating systems. Heck whenever there's something wrong with networking, if I have to do anything in Windows to fix it, it's usually through its command line interface. I just find it easier then going through their networking prompts, dialogs, and property boxes.

I don't think the problem is as much as you have to use the CLI. Like Windows and OSX, there are GUI ways to get things to work in Linux [specifically Ubuntu since I'm not familar with other versions]. But it's just easier to give command line instructions thus when people want helps from people who have more knowledge about the system at hand the experts are going use what they're comfortable with (the command line).

I guess some of us should learn both ways to help people (I'd be willing to do it when I have more time). But for now it's just easier for me to use the CLI. It's easier for me to type into the terminal to check and get updates by using "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" Then type in password and Y. then to go to system > administrator > update manager > type in password. Then click the buttons.

[inversekinetix]

In fact, the command will give you a more informative error message if it doesn't work than the GUI will.


For a person who can understand the error message I'm sure the cli wouldn't be a problem to start with.


I think for the beginner the cli is too much. Let me try a different analogy to the car one.

Take an electronic translation dictionary, I type in the word I'm looking for in English (call this cli) I hit enter and immediately the word is translated into Japanese and the job is done. Now I take a regular paper dictionary(gui), I start looking up the word, whilst I'm searching I come upon a bunch of other interesting words that I might want to use. In the process of doing one thing I come across other things that I didnt know, its great, that is how I see the gui.

After I know the gui inside out then I'll go and find out the extra things under the hood.

[init1]

I believe a lot of people get everything running with no problems. It's sort of a hardware crap-shoot in some situations.

Anyway, if you're expecting the command line to go away any time soon I wouldn't hold your breath. The command line is the bread and butter of Linux. It's the MAIN reason I use Linux. There's plenty of "graphic help" -- just search the web and you'll find page after page of howto's on every subject you can imagine.

If you're really against it, there are GUI tools for configuring things like networks. I know for a fact that Fedora has GUI tools to configure most everything. In the end, the GUIs are just wrappers on top of the configuration file you'd be editing in a terminal anyway.
Agreed

[aysiu]

For a person who can understand the error message I'm sure the cli wouldn't be a problem to start with.

I think for the beginner the cli is too much. I agree with you, but the beginner isn't alone, and neither is the person who can understand the error message.

Oftentimes, on these forums, the beginner is pasting in a code to solve or diagnose a problem. The code and the interpretation of the error message are done by the person who can understand the error message.

Beginner: I have this problem
Helper: Can you paste this command into the terminal and paste the output back here?
Beginner: Okay. Here it is
Helper: Ah, I see what the problem is. You need blah

So the beginner doesn't need to understand the error message right away, but the error message is certainly a lot more useful to the helper than "Whenever I start the application, it appears for a second and then crashes."

[zipperback]

Hi tech people!
Many, many years ago I had many an altercation on early Linux BBS with "real" users who were against making the use of Linux easy. The problem is still here today, I see.

That statement is nonsense and without merit.

Ubuntu Linux for example is one of the easiest Linux systems to use.
Insert a live cd and boot it up. It will give you a fully functional desktop system. When you get ready to install it, just click the install ICON on the desktop and install it. How much simpler do you need it?




There has been so much brilliant work by so many people on this ONLY ALTERNATIVE that it is a shame to see that support is still very much "black screen" O S level.

Especially coupled with how easy it is to total a Linux system from the cmd line, it would be a great idea to focus more on simple-as-possible = graphics help.



Your statement above supports your eagerness to complain about a system which you have clearly NOT bothered to install recently.

As previously stated. Boot a LIVECD and you get a fully functional desktop system.

As for how easy it is to total a linux system from the cmd line, would clearly tell me you know NOTHING about end level security and the user account permissions that are used on Linux systems. Standard, end user accounts do not have the ability to "TOTAL" a system. You would need to do something STUPID and assign root level access to a user level account. I'm NOT going to explain how to do this. Suffice it to say, that you don't know what the hell you are talking about at all. Get your facts straight.




In my case, I have only ever in 10 years got two installs of Linux to work:
Suse 9.2 and when I upgraded to Suse 10 - it totalled the system.
Ubuntu 7.04 on one out of three systems - a 4 y.o. Sony portable.

By "work" I mean including sound, decent graphics, Internet. Surprisingly, it is usually internet connections that fail me - and this is the primary purpose of my using it!



Ubuntu Linux for the most part works right out of the box. Sound, graphics, Internet.

As for your internet connections failing you, I would have to say that it is probably end user problems, which can be usually resolved by reading the documentation and consulting places like ubuntuforums.org




So, my question really is: does anyone (non-techhead) ever really get it to go on in one go, without a lot of tech knowhow?

I know millions of people download it like me and never get it to go, otherwise it would rule the world by now. What is the problem, still?
:confused::confused::confused:

I highly doubt YOU know MILLIONS of people who never get it to go.

I for one have over 25 years of experience with computers, and I can say without any hesitation that Ubuntu Linux is the easiest to use Linux distribution that I have ever used.

As for your question "does anyone (not-techhead) ever really get it to go in one go, without a lot of tech know how?"

Yes as a matter of fact they do. On a daily basis actually. That is why Ubuntu Linux is so popular. It's just THAT EASY to install and use!

- zipperback

[pjkoczan]

Anyone who's ever had to do bulk administration knows the power of the command-line. I believe the quote "How do I type "for i in *.dvi do xdvi i done" in a GUI?" applies here.

I've had to edit up a DHCP server entries through a GUI and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's far easier to fire up your favorite text-editor and find your entry. Trying to set up telnet or ssh sessions via a GUI is fun, especially since you can get the exact same thing in a lot less trouble and hassle by typing "ssh user@host" and log in.

Anyone who's ever programmed knows that trying to set up parameters and options when running through a GUI programming environment knows the pain of which I speak. You literally have to go to a new pop-up window, type in your new parameters, click OK/apply, and then do whatever you have to do to run your program. About the same time it would take for me to type and "myprogram 1 2 3 4" multiple times.

Now I know what you're thinking, "but the average user isn't an administrator or a programmer." True. But there are many instances in which the average user can benefit from the command line (beyond the common one of very specific help in online forums).

- Encoding audio/video: Most programs offer encoding services, when trying to rip from a disc. But suppose that you have a lot of media not on a disc, just as random files somewhere that you want to encode. Probably this same program will allow you to open file -> encode as mp3... -> select bitrate, etc. -> encode -> repeat until done or end of time. When instead you could probably say something like "mp3encode -b bitrate *.wav". One fell swoop, a lot less time, the same result. You could do the same thing for resizing lots of photos in a uniform manner.

- Moving lots of files: When I want to move lots of files in a GUI, I click multiple times to open the proper source directory, select the files/directories, "cut" them into a list, click more times to open the proper destination directory, "paste" them" into a new directory, making sure I don't accidentally have a directory selected or else I'd put those files into a directory I don't want them in, wait until done. Or I could open two file browsers, but beyond that it's mostly the same. In a CLI, I can type "cd src_directory; mv files new_directory; ls new_directory" and be done.

- Searching through files: Unless you have advanced htdig-like indexing enabled, a GUI search is going to be slow. One can accomplish the same thing using "find" or "grep" with faster results.

I understand that these must be learned, but the payoffs are wonderful. As Bruce Ediger said "The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned."

The simultaneous beauty and downfall of a GUI is that it's limited. It's designed to do one thing well, do one thing at a time, make one thing easy, and run ONE PROGRAM and do ONE TASK. The beauty and downfall of a CLI is that it's flexible, you can do almost anything you want, in multiple ways. You can run multiple programs, in parallel if you want. They're different interfaces, used for different purposes, can we please stop hating on one or the other because they can't do exactly what the other can. Instead of arguing which is better, why can't we discuss ways that we can use them together more thoroughly or how we can better teach the power and usage of the command-line.

One final note, I think that the whole GUI vs. CLI thing is a misnomer, and an apples-to-oranges comparison. A GUI is most often used to interface to one program, and a CLI is an interface to thousands of programs and an infrastructure connecting these programs. Saying that a GUI is superior to a CLI is like saying that Firefox is superior to the HTML standard, or that Thunderbird is superior to the sendmail protocol, or that your calculator is superior to trigonometry.

[osx424242]

AND a tiny slip or worse, a malicious code entry can trash everything.
Again, true of Windows and OS X as well. All the more reason to know how things work -- again, just my opinion.

This is _exactly_ the OP's point: a single bad CLI command can cause just as many problems in Windows or OS X as in Ubuntu... but you might never have to touch the CLI in the "just works" OSs, so you might never be exposed to those remove, recursively forced, home or root commands that so many people are warning users about with their signatures. (Or, just mistype a command as you're running back and forth between the room with your working-on-the-internet XP desktop and the room with your not-working-yet Ubuntu box.) To be "ready for the desktop," Ubuntu needs more or better GUI configuration options so users don't _have_ to touch the CLI (also, better support from device manufacturers will help :)).

As others have pointed out, having the power of the command line is one of Ubuntu's major strengths. But, and this is the part that's really tough to grasp once you get used to that power, the over-reliance on it is also a weakness.

And hey, diogenes2, (first of all I envy your location :)) yes there are still some of those "real" users around but luckily they are not in the majority here. Please just ignore their comments if they're not saying anything constructive, and let your experience be colored by the many helpful and knowledgeable users that want to aid you in getting things working.

[jordanmthomas]

This is _exactly_ the OP's point: a single bad CLI command can cause just as many problems in Windows or OS X as in Ubuntu... but you might never have to touch the CLI in the "just works" OSs, so you might never be exposed to those remove, recursively forced, home or root commands that so many people are warning users about with their signatures.
I think you're missing the fact that it's perhaps even easier to total your system in these "just works' OSs. A misclick could delete a folder you don't want to delete. I understand you can mess up easily in a command line as well, but saying that a GUI is more error-proof than a command-line application is not quite right I don't think.


But, and this is the part that's really tough to grasp once you get used to that power, the over-reliance on it is also a weakness.
Do you care to explain this to me? I don't see how relying on tried and tested programs is a weakness.

[diogenes2]

This is _exactly_ the OP's point: a single bad CLI command can cause just as many problems in Windows or OS X as in Ubuntu... but you might never have to touch the CLI in the "just works" OSs, so you might never be exposed to those remove, recursively forced, home or root commands that so many people are warning users about with their signatures. (Or, just mistype a command as you're running back and forth between the room with your working-on-the-internet XP desktop and the room with your not-working-yet Ubuntu box.) To be "ready for the desktop," Ubuntu needs more or better GUI configuration options so users don't _have_ to touch the CLI (also, better support from device manufacturers will help :)).

As others have pointed out, having the power of the command line is one of Ubuntu's major strengths. But, and this is the part that's really tough to grasp once you get used to that power, the over-reliance on it is also a weakness.

And hey, diogenes2, (first of all I envy your location :)) yes there are still some of those "real" users around but luckily they are not in the majority here. Please just ignore their comments if they're not saying anything constructive, and let your experience be colored by the many helpful and knowledgeable users that want to aid you in getting things working.
-----------------------------------------

Thanks for both the kind words AND the eloquent examples above :-)
I've been fighting the "BSOD" for 10 years on BBSs so am pretty well used to being attacked for wanting to see THE ONLY alternative develop for the real world.
But it is like pointing out to an Apple-eater that even Apple has gone to Unix and M$ is going to follow as soon as they work out how to do it for REAL money.
Just realised - "BSOD" started life as "Blue Screen Of Death" in ******* and I now use it for "Black Screen Of Difficulty".....

Overall the spirit here is pretty good, but if we are ever going to make Lux a force, it has to work outta the box. If it doesn't, support has to be "familiar".
Re User support: I saved a company an awful lot of money many years ago in P.C. Support in the Dial-up days. I stopped all the support by online text messaging. Got the Hi-Tech Support Management to look at how long it took a new user to even type in their own name correctly!
:-) REAL men don't type! (Well, not in them days...)

Thanks people, I'm going to get U7.04 and try it. Amongst others.....

[pete.dawgg]

"seeing and feeling is for babies -
knowing and spelling is for grown-ups."

read that somewhere comparing the use of guis and clis. i think that pretty much sums it up; not considering that there are at least as many concepts of "easyness" as there are computer-users.
pick what works for you and stop whining, if you can find it, code it or buy it. everything you need is out there.

in my experience (once teaching linux classes to "certified ******* professionals") the gui often acted as a wall between them and understanding os fundamentals, in fact it limited their thinking to filling out little boxes and forms made up by other ppl with unknow intentions.

[inversekinetix]

"seeing and feeling is for babies -
knowing and spelling is for grown-ups."

read that somewhere comparing the use of guis and clis. i think that pretty much sums it up; not considering that there are at least as many concepts of "easyness" as there are computer-users.
pick what works for you and stop whining, if you can find it, code it or buy it. everything you need is out there.

in my experience (once teaching linux classes to "certified ******* professionals") the gui often acted as a wall between them and understanding os fundamentals, in fact it limited their thinking to filling out little boxes and forms made up by other ppl with unknow intentions.


Based on your quotation, which camp does your spelling of windows as ******* put you in?

That aside, I very much doubt that MSCE's would find a gui environment a barrier to understanding an OS, that's just plain ridiculous.

I can't be bothered to think further .....

[aysiu]

While there is a certain truth to the lack of sophistication in graphical interfaces (pointing and clicking), gesturing need not be unsophisticated.

Look at language, for example. When you are a toddler (before you develop the capacity for speech) or when you are a tourist in a foreign country (if you don't know the language), you gesture and point in the hopes that people will understand your desires. It is inefficient and often frustrating.

When you finally develop the capacity for speech, you communicate directly by constructing sentences, following syntax, and acquiring and using vocabulary.

By this logic, the command-line is more sophisticated than pointing and clicking.

But there are those who never do learn to speak with words--deaf people who refuse (usually for political reasons) to learn to speak audibly. They gesture, but their gestures are not simple points and "clicks." The gestures of sign languages are as sophisticated as spoken languages and carry nuances the same way. They have their own syntax and vocabulary.

It would be interesting to look at developing graphical interfaces that are not designed for simpletons but are still graphical.

The only example that immediately springs to mind is the location bar in Firefox or Opera. You click into it and look at a drop-down menu of previously visited addresses. You can type an address directly. You can use Control-L to focus there or use a mouse to click there. If you don't know the precise address of what you're looking for, you can type a search in the location bar.

Mouse gestures could also be akin to sign language, even though it is a relatively simple one.

[mdsmedia]

Hi tech people!
Many, many years ago I had many an altercation on early Linux BBS with "real" users who were against making the use of Linux easy. The problem is still here today, I see.

There has been so much brilliant work by so many people on this ONLY ALTERNATIVE that it is a shame to see that support is still very much "black screen" O S level.

Especially coupled with how easy it is to total a Linux system from the cmd line, it would be a great idea to focus more on simple-as-possible = graphics help.

In my case, I have only ever in 10 years got two installs of Linux to work:
Suse 9.2 and when I upgraded to Suse 10 - it totalled the system.
Ubuntu 7.04 on one out of three systems - a 4 y.o. Sony portable.

By "work" I mean including sound, decent graphics, Internet. Surprisingly, it is usually internet connections that fail me - and this is the primary purpose of my using it!

So, my question really is: does anyone (non-techhead) ever really get it to go on in one go, without a lot of tech knowhow?

I know millions of people download it like me and never get it to go, otherwise it would rule the world by now. What is the problem, still?
:confused::confused::confused:Personally, speaking as a non-techhead, I've been using Ubuntu since Hoary (5.04) as my main day to day OS.

I did a little research before installing it alongside XP on my 6 month old notebook. I ran the LiveCD and played around with it a little before deciding I loved it and wanted it on my system.

I followed a set of instructions somebody volunteered on the web, to install, and it worked flawlessly, including wireless, sound, etc.

So, yes, I got it to work, "out of the box". And it's still running nicely after upgrading through Breezy to Dapper. The same on my desktop, which is now happily running Gutsy, having upgraded from Hoary, to Dapper, to Edgy, to Feisty (briefly) and then Gutsy.

I believe I did one clean install because the mute on my notebook suddenly wouldn't switch off. Even then, I had sound through my headset.

[osx424242]

Thanks everyone who's contributed, this has been a really great thread, both sides are consistently making good points!


I think you're missing the fact that it's perhaps even easier to total your system in these "just works' OSs. A misclick could delete a folder you don't want to delete. I understand you can mess up easily in a command line as well, but saying that a GUI is more error-proof than a command-line application is not quite right I don't think.

Well, I guess I assume that the GUI is going to be limited compared to the CLI :). I think of the GUI as having only the more important functionality available (although Windows and Windows applications often seem to be an exception). Also, I think GUIs tend to have a bit more protection in place ('system files are not shown, go to options to enable their display', 'are you sure you want to delete those files, windows may stop working'), or at least make it more difficult to get around that protection. A well-implemented Undo feature can also help a quick-witted user who does make that wrong click (that's probably not very relevant as we're talking about new-ish users who probably don't think 'Undo undo!' as soon as they make a mistake).




But, and this is the part that's really tough to grasp once you get used to that power, the over-reliance on it is also a weakness.
Do you care to explain this to me? I don't see how relying on tried and tested programs is a weakness.

It's a weakness as far as getting new users to switch. It's hard to recognize that as a weakness because once you realize how much _more_ you can do with the CLI, and how much faster you can do it, the GUI starts to seem backward and even a hindrance, and it's hard to think that other way: that the GUI is a big help for new users and the CLI is a scary, dangerous monster.

I'm not sure that was very clear, am I making sense?

[jordanmthomas]

Oh yes, I see what you are saying now. I guess I'm one of those "real" users the OP was talking about because I'm not too concerned in converting the masses. I'm not against making it easier like he says, but I don't want things I already use changed. If new users like how it works, great! If they don't, it's no skin off my nose if they use something else (and that includes GUIs). It doesn't do any harm to make GUIs for everything, I just won't use them if a command line is faster for me.

There's really nothing wrong with graphical stuff. I use it. I know it's always a pain when I don't have X and I want to browse the web...it's just not the same. The converse is true for configuring things...a GUI just doesn't feel right.

Also, point taken about undo, system files being hidden, etc. I guess that didn't cross my mind because I turn off all that kind of stuff so I can get work done. I see what you're saying, for sure.

[inversekinetix]

While there is a certain truth to the lack of sophistication in graphical interfaces (pointing and clicking), gesturing need not be unsophisticated.

Look at language, for example. When you are a toddler (before you develop the capacity for speech) or when you are a tourist in a foreign country (if you don't know the language), you gesture and point in the hopes that people will understand your desires. It is inefficient and often frustrating.

When you finally develop the capacity for speech, you communicate directly by constructing sentences, following syntax, and acquiring and using vocabulary.

By this logic, the command-line is more sophisticated than pointing and clicking.

But there are those who never do learn to speak with words--deaf people who refuse (usually for political reasons) to learn to speak audibly. They gesture, but their gestures are not simple points and "clicks." The gestures of sign languages are as sophisticated as spoken languages and carry nuances the same way. They have their own syntax and vocabulary.

It would be interesting to look at developing graphical interfaces that are not designed for simpletons but are still graphical.

The only example that immediately springs to mind is the location bar in Firefox or Opera. You click into it and look at a drop-down menu of previously visited addresses. You can type an address directly. You can use Control-L to focus there or use a mouse to click there. If you don't know the precise address of what you're looking for, you can type a search in the location bar.

Mouse gestures could also be akin to sign language, even though it is a relatively simple one.

Interesting.....

Firstly gestures. The meaning of gestures change greatly from culture to culture, a friendly gesture in one culture might get you killed in another, gestures are more than simply flailing your limbs around to express basic meanings. It's a really bad analogy.


The capacity for speech is not the same as the capicity for communication, communication relies on many many factors being processed at once, comparing a command line interface to speech is way off the mark, you could try and pick nits about it but I think the analogy is way off.

When you *develop* the capcity for speech you do not communicate directly with speech alone, there are other things involved: body language, social expectations, gesture, facial expressions etc etc. Its not simply opening your mouth a letting preset strings of words come out, it is an active process in real time on many levels.

I'll ignore your comments about deaf people and their reasons for not speaking, I've read your other posts and doubt you mean anything bad by it even if the wording is a little dodgy.

Your presumption that people who use GUIs are simpletons is not the kind of this I would expect to hear from a staffmember, it's not nice to call people simple, in fact it's very very rude. But, if you insist can you explain what makes me a simpleton when I use a gui to configure my bittorrent client or netowrk card etc etc?


When I get home I'll add some images of those simpleton guis.

[SomeGuyDude]

I'm going to say what I've always said.

I don't care what OTHER distros do. Another Linux distribution can be pure GUI or pure command line, for all I care. However, I love the way Ubuntu does things and I can't stand it when anyone complains about how they should change their balance in one direction or the other.

And yes, I am extremely annoyed by those who make the claim that Linux "should" be more/less graphical. That's the point! There's a version for everyone. It's all about choice. The "command line or die" elitists need to shut their yaps, as do the "if Linux expects to be taken seriously they need to be idiot-proof" jackholes.

[aysiu]

Interesting.....

Firstly gestures. The meaning of gestures change greatly from culture to culture, a friendly gesture in one culture might get you killed in another, gestures are more than simply flailing your limbs around to express basic meanings. It's a really bad analogy.


The capacity for speech is not the same as the capicity for communication, communication relies on many many factors being processed at once, comparing a command line interface to speech is way off the mark, you could try and pick nits about it but I think the analogy is way off.

When you *develop* the capcity for speech you do not communicate directly with speech alone, there are other things involved: body language, social expectations, gesture, facial expressions etc etc. Its not simply opening your mouth a letting preset strings of words come out, it is an active process in real time on many levels.

I'll ignore your comments about deaf people and their reasons for not speaking, I've read your other posts and doubt you mean anything bad by it even if the wording is a little dodgy.

Your presumption that people who use GUIs are simpletons is not the kind of this I would expect to hear from a staffmember, it's not nice to call people simple, in fact it's very very rude. But, if you insist can you explain what makes me a simpleton when I use a gui to configure my bittorrent client or netowrk card etc etc?


When I get home I'll add some images of those simpleton guis.
Please do not pretend you are responding to anything I said in my post.

You are refuting "arguments" I never made.

[SomeGuyDude]

Please do not pretend you are responding to anything I said in my post.

You are refuting "arguments" I never made.

Reading through, you definitely insinuated that GUI's are for "simpletons". Unless "It would be interesting to look at developing graphical interfaces that are not designed for simpletons but are still graphical" means something other than "the current GUI's are made for simpletons" and then, by extension, those who rely on them ARE simpletons.

The rest, though, you're right. Although your comment about deaf people who choose not to speak out loud for political reasons (what??) was pretty ignorant.

[inversekinetix]

Please do not pretend you are responding to anything I said in my post.

You are refuting "arguments" I never made.



Ok, I'll stop before I get an infraction or something. However please consider not referring to people as simpletons. Its not nice and against the CoC of this forum isnt it?

[aysiu]

Reading through, you definitely insinuated that GUI's are for "simpletons". Unless "It would be interesting to look at developing graphical interfaces that are not designed for simpletons but are still graphical" means something other than "the current GUI's are made for simpletons" and then, by extension, those who rely on them ARE simpletons. Every day at work I use GUIs designed for simpletons. That doesn't make me a simpleton any more than it makes you or someone else a simpleton. I use that GUI because it's the only access I have to certain functions in Windows. I have no other option, for example, to install most Windows programs except through a setup.exe installation "wizard." And most of the wizards are designed for simpletons. Most people who use those wizards are not simpletons, though. They "rely on" GUIs designed for simpletons because there are no alternative GUIs for the same tasks.


The rest, though, you're right. Although your comment about deaf people who choose not to speak out loud for political reasons (what??) was pretty ignorant. Please explain to me what was so ignorant about it. There is a huge debate in the deaf community about whether or not deaf children should learn to speak or not. Many choose not to learn to speak for political reasons. Read more about the oralism and manualism debate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oralism

It is political and it is a real issue.

If I'm ignorant on some point, educate me. Don't just name-call.

This is exactly what I said
But there are those who never do learn to speak with words--deaf people who refuse (usually for political reasons) to learn to speak audibly. They gesture, but their gestures are not simple points and "clicks." The gestures of sign languages are as sophisticated as spoken languages and carry nuances the same way. They have their own syntax and vocabulary. The people who never learn to speak with words gesture in sophisticated ways, and those are usually manualists. The people who do learn to speak with words are either hearing people who learn to speak with words or deaf people who have been forced to learn or chose to acquire speech. Certainly you can have people gesturing in sophisticated ways (using sign language) who fall into any category (hearing, deaf and speaking/signing, deaf and only signing), but since I said there are those are never do learn to speak with words that would exclude two categories and leave only those who are deaf and sign and do not speak. The reason they do not speak is usually political, although it can be personal as well (if they're too self-conscious about how their speech sounds, for example) or physical (if they are not only deaf but mute as well) or circumstantial (they had a desire to learn to speak but never had the educational opportunity to learn it).

[Dimitriid]

Personally, the ideal system for me would include both at the same time: Any gui tool I use would have a small "details" windows ( i.e. synaptic ) to see everything that is being changed. That would mean that

a) It would be an incredible tool to learn command line interface, bash scripts, configuration files, etc.

b) It would mean that even if you only use GUI on a day to day basis you'd had an easier time ( if not doing it by memory ) when trying to troubleshoot or use cli ( ssh, busted xorg, etc. )

[inversekinetix]

I daren't say much because of your status on these forums and that I have yet to see someone with your status be wrong in any case.

However, your wording made your statement sound like GUIs are made for simpletons. How can you call someone a simpleton because they're not a specialist, it doesn't follow. A GUI is made for as many people as possible to use without expert/advanced knowledge of computing. You don't need to know command line to use a word processor. I can speak Japanese, should I presume then that all tourist japanese phrase books are made for simpletons? I mean anyone can use one. I think not. Because something is made easy it does NOT follow that it is made for simpletons.





If I'm ignorant on some point, educate me. Don't just name-call.



Is the above quote telling me not to call people, who are ignorant of command line and methods other than GUI, simpletons?




I won't even bother with your defense of the deaf analogy. Anyone can trawl the net to find something to back up what they said earlier. Your initial wording was wrong, it was noticed twice. You have no argument on that front, unless you are yoursekf deaf.


There is a lot of this kind of thing on these forums and it is that lack of professionalism that will set ubuntu apart from other OSs. I hope paying customers aren't directed to these forums.

[mdsmedia]

I daren't say much because of your status on these forums and that I have yet to see someone with your status be wrong in any case.

However, your wording made your statement sound like GUIs are made for simpletons. I disagree. Aysiu said GUIs are "designed" for simpletons. He explained very well what he meant, and if you misread the original quote I'm sure that Aysiu meant no offence to anyone.

As for his "position" on the forums, I doubt that disagreeing with ANY of the staff would cause any sort of infraction provided anything said was said in an inoffensive manner. If you intended to be offensive, and I don't think you do, then any of the forums staff would be within their rights to take whatever action necessary.

I believe Aysiu to be a humanitarian, from the way he holds himself on these forums, the amount of effort he puts into the forums and from his essays on his own website.


How can you call someone a simpleton...{snip}He didn't.

[themerchant]

Well, if you don't wish to use the command line, then Ubuntu is not for you. You should use Mandriva instead. That is the only Linux distribution that really has wizards for everything.

Otherwise, if you are just complaining because you like to vent some frustration, then maybe you should switch to Slackware or OpenBSD - then you'll *really* have reason to vent...

Cheers,

H.

:lolflag: Though I have learned some command line, 100 percent of I have used ubuntu, I've either installed it through GUI, or somone posting the command line to install a certain program.

[SomeGuyDude]

Every day at work I use GUIs designed for simpletons. That doesn't make me a simpleton any more than it makes you or someone else a simpleton. I use that GUI because it's the only access I have to certain functions in Windows. I have no other option, for example, to install most Windows programs except through a setup.exe installation "wizard." And most of the wizards are designed for simpletons. Most people who use those wizards are not simpletons, though. They "rely on" GUIs designed for simpletons because there are no alternative GUIs for the same tasks.


Apparently you're not catching on.

I prefer a GUI. Given the option between command line and GUI for the exact same task, I go for the GUI. You're implying that you or someone else is not a simpleton because you use a GUI only in lieu of a command-line type interface.

That's not how I am. I picked Ubuntu because I can use GUI for most tasks but terminal for more technical things. Given the OPTION I'd like to have GUI for everything. If I can accomplish something via GUI, I do. Failing that, I open up my terminal. You come at it in the opposite direction, and it seems that you're suggesting those in MY camp are the simpletons because we'd like it if everything was graphical.

[aysiu]

Apparently you're not catching on. Apparently, you're not catching on. I said GUIs are mostly now designed for simpletons and that it'd be interesting to see if we could develop more GUIs that are not.

I am not saying that a GUI by definition is for simpletons.

Read what I said:
It would be interesting to look at developing graphical interfaces that are not designed for simpletons but are still graphical.

The only example that immediately springs to mind is the location bar in Firefox or Opera. You click into it and look at a drop-down menu of previously visited addresses. You can type an address directly. You can use Control-L to focus there or use a mouse to click there. If you don't know the precise address of what you're looking for, you can type a search in the location bar.

Mouse gestures could also be akin to sign language, even though it is a relatively simple one. Versus what you appear to think I've said:
it seems that you're suggesting those in MY camp are the simpletons because we'd like it if everything was graphical. Actually, I've suggested nothing of the sort.

Once again, people choose to argue with some twisted version of what I'm saying instead of what I'm actually saying.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but at least disagree with me. There's no need to argue with straw men and then call those straw men aysiu when they are not.

[p_quarles]

Once again, people choose to argue with some twisted version of what I'm saying instead of what I'm actually saying.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but at least disagree with me. There's no need to argue with straw men and then call those straw men aysiu when they are not.
I honestly don't understand why people have a problem with your statement. Saying that something is designed to be usable by an unsophisticated person is in no way equivalent to saying that only unsophisticated people use that tool.

By analogy: hammers are very easy to use. There's a toy for very young children that consists of a plastic hammer and a bunch of pegs. Pointing out that hammers are easy to use does not imply that everyone who uses a hammer is a simpering nitwit.

[aysiu]

I honestly don't understand why people have a problem with your statement. Saying that something is designed to be usable by an unsophisticated person is in no way equivalent to saying that only unsophisticated people use that tool.

By analogy: hammers are very easy to use. There's a toy for very young children that consists of a plastic hammer and a bunch of pegs. Pointing out that hammers are easy to use does not imply that everyone who uses a hammer is a simpering nitwit.
I'm not sure about that analogy, but the principle is on.

Just because a tool is designed for simpletons it doesn't mean only simpletons use that tool... especially if no other (more sophistacted) suitable tool exists.

[osx424242]

Well this might be somewhat topical: www.bumptop.com. My roommate pointed me toward that site, it is a new type of GUI, trying to be a _better_ desktop model.

Whichever side you're on, this software seems to be designed for both simpletons (by acting more like your real desktop) and non-simpletons (by acting more like your real desktop).

No idea if it will ever "integrate well with the Ubuntu desktop."

[inversekinetix]

This thread is pathetic, can't someone close it?

[p_quarles]

This thread is pathetic, can't someone close it?
1) You bumped a thread that hadn't been posted to in nearly a week
2) The correct way to request a thread be closed is to use the "report" button. I don't see why this thread would be closed, however. It was already moved to Recurring Discussions.
3) If you don't like a thread, you can use the "thread tools" drop-down menu at the top of the page to ignore it. You'll never see it again.

[mdsmedia]

This thread is pathetic, can't someone close it?What is pathetic about it?

Apart from it being a recurring theme, for which it's been moved to THAT forum, what's pathetic about it?

[inversekinetix]

if i need to point it out its not worth it.

[mdsmedia]

if i need to point it out its not worth it.So you make the blanket and uninformative statement that a thread that hasn't been posted to in a week is "pathetic" and ask for it to be closed, yet you won't elaborate on why you re-opened it just to make that statement?

[inversekinetix]

So you make the blanket and uninformative statement that a thread that hasn't been posted to in a week is "pathetic" and ask for it to be closed, yet you won't elaborate on why you re-opened it just to make that statement?


And continuing it doesnt help at all does it.

Cheers

[smartboyathome]

Please don't feed the troll. ;)

[inversekinetix]

sorry ;-)

[p_quarles]

sorry ;-)
You're welcome.

[ctyc]

EVERY OS has a command line.
Yes even windows.
In fact windows has a new one, powershell.

Just get used to it.

[airtonix]

Car mechanics makes lots of money by feeding ignorant car owners myths about their cars.
they also do things like set things up to fall apart slowly, hence requiring further trips to car mechanic.

ignorance of your enviroment around you allows others to led you astray.

if the presence of a commandline makes you feel inadequate or vnerable to your own blunders, then it is not a law that needs to be made, nor is it a barrier that needs to be errected between 'incompetent people' such as yourself and the system'

no no no, what is needed is for you to educate & discpline yourself.

Why would you propose reducing the freedom of others just to accomodate your own insecurities?

sounds like the madness thats going on in america right now.

[starcannon]

I use both as needed.
command line is not that hard to learn for basic things, and man pages as well as the limitless online tutorials and walk-thru's make getting command line jobs very doable. The caveat is that one should never enter a command without understanding what it does. Copy pasting terminal commands without knowing what they are, or what they do pretty much destroys your security.
That said, even if your uncomfortable with command line, I have found that I can do a majority of my stuff using a gui /shrug.
I would not say one way is better than another, they are tools, and as such should be used for appropriate jobs, kinda like asking if a screwdriver is better than a pliers, it comes down to what your using the tool for.

[highfructose327]

The interesting thing for me was I learned more about command line trying to get my GUI up and running starting with edgy my ATI card did not work out of the box. So my first lines were sudo nano /etc/X11/xorg.conf, this experience empowered me to try to tweak things more.it seems others like my self have learned command line trying to tweak their GUI.It did not stop there for me I have found tools in command line that I like better but the same can be said about the GUI.

The statement made by starcannon is right on
asking if a screwdriver is better than a pliers, it comes down to what your using the tool for.

I use what works best for my usage. If you use MOC or Amarok(or any other comparison ) use what suits your needs, I use both and each has its place. What I like about Linux/GNU specifically is that I have the choice.

peace

[marx2k]

Imagine telling someone to fire up this app, click this button, switch to this tab, enter the following in the third text box from the top in the first section, and finally click the green button at the bottom that says okay.

Or you tell them, copy and paste this into the terminal and enter your password.

I understand that's an extreme example, but that's one reason the command line is used when helping someone out. It's just easier to tell them to copy and paste something.

Besides, many of the commands give outputs that help us diagnose the problem. Going with your car analogy, it's like the mechanic asking you what types of sounds you hear coming from the engine, or if you could give him the full text from page 37 of the manual. You don't have to know about the engine; you just have to follow a couple of instructions to help the mechanic understand and fix the real problem.

Along these lines, would you rather copy and paste the output of one command, say lspci, or consolidate the output of various lines of text spread out over the course of a list, as in the Hardware Information tool?

Even better.. the terminal lets YOU be the mechanic, and as the mechanic, the terminal is the diagnostic computer readout you hook into the car to give you the exact breakdown of what's going on in there that your dashboard simply will not tell you

[marx2k]

Can you imagine if you had to mess around on forums and flash hardware just to get your set top DVD player to play surround sound? If you had to recompile the software on your cellphone for it to display flash animation?

You totally just hit on what "Linux as a hobby" means to me, and why it's my hobby :D

[days_of_ruin]

About the malicious commands, I was wondering
if the ubuntu dev team has any plans on making a warning
if pop up if you enter that in a shell?

[warpuck]

Up until recently I have had mutiple users on my linux box. one of them sholder surfed my admin password. I got the standard, " I didnt do nothin.The stupid thing just quit working. :confused:I cant see why you just dont use Windows." I tried to recover the GUI, but I could not figure out how to. I did not know what happened to cause it either. I used up the rest of the hard drive on a new install. I still have not figured out how to access the old partitions.
I used to do alright with drdos and windows 3.x with issues like that, and kinda sorta with win95/98/win2k and the regedit thing. If you can not get to safe mode your pretty much screwed.
When XP came out I just switched over to Linux. XP and Vista are just to difficult to excise rogue programming via the registry. Example anything Symantec. You cant uninstall it and cant edit it out. But even after using linux for 3 years I still am having a hard time with command line because it It is hard to find a comprehensable manual to use when the gui quits. It is pretty hard to do man page without the gui interface. I am not afraid of command line, and so far I have not anything go so bad that I lost it all.

[diogenes2]

Hi there people!
THIS actually turned into quite a philosophical discussion. Anyone who remembers my original post/s might understand that any intelligent person doesn't really like to do things in the dark - especially following strangers..... ( NB the warnings in these forums about "clever-dickies" offering trashing code to unsuspecting newbies.)
A real world example happened to a subscriber of mine (another Lux system) and totalled their system for them quite recently, thanks to some online "help".

A similar example is the following clip from a message:

"But for now it's just easier for me to use the CLI. It's easier for me to type into the terminal to check and get updates by using "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade" Then type in password and Y. then to go to system > administrator > update manager > type in password. Then click the buttons."
Even on MY system 8.04 - the update process is painless: a display top indicator lights up with upgrade info and I click on it when ready and bingo a simple clean GUI gives me options and tells me step-by-step what is going on.

In another century, I raced small difficult vehicles called Volkswagens. Difficult? Yes, the class was strictly controlled and virtually no mods except for safety were allowed. The performance of the vehicles could only be enhanced by driving skills. You simply had to be the best DRIVER. (I wasn't.. :-) )

But would I want to drive around in one today?

My car is not even current technology but it has power steering (magic for parking in tight spots),
Cruise control - saved me hundreds of dollars in speeding fines (they are "fund-raising" here 5 m ph over is enough. ) Automatic Gearbox (magic in crawler traffic) auto-sensing airconditioning (should be illegal NOT to have it where I live, in the near tropics). Ok, the power windows ARE a wank.... but were standard.
I could have bought a manual with no extras - even saved a few dollars...... would you?
THAT is the whole point of differential (pun) and the car analogy is a good one.

HOWEVER:
Here I am with a still useless system after all this time.
I have Kubuntu 804 as the OS, Vbox to contain XP and months later can't get the info to get it all to go together.

No USB: Now know it is a "fault" of VBox. Who would leave out USB today???

Amazingly, got Video - no sound. Apparently/possibly I need to find and install Linux Sound drivers specifically - The installed XP can't be used ( a simple insertion of a self installing update from the Board maker ASUS in XP is an unknown task in Kubuntu.)

The Brightest hope is that ONE person I found has actually got a similar setup to my plan to work and even has my one vital program running in Vbox - DragonDictate ( a voice-2-text application)!

Tried to reach him separately - but on this board you have to post an astounding 75 messages before you can use the private message facility!

I'd even use the **** if someone could help me out here. It can't be that difficult..... it has already been done; once at least.

Cheers!
(Diogenes looked for an honest man - I just seek a Linux solution):confused:

[glacialfury]

Yes, it's an old discussion - actually continued from an original post in 2005.

One thing a lot of people on both sides of the argument seem to miss is *why* the command line scares newbies. Why? Because they don't understand what they are doing.

I do find that tutorials using the command line, where you can copy and paste, are often the fastest solution to linux problems as a new user. The reason it intimidates them is that most tutorials don't actually tell you what those commands are doing. Am I deleting something? Creating a virtual link to porn? Who knows?

Not every user has the time to research what all the commands mean in every tutorial; not every computer user - verily, not even every linux user - is in it for the fun and exploration of using new and interesting software. As a tool, a computer and its OS should be accessible, and where the technical nature of that tool (i.e. Linux command line) is a barrier to new users, then tutorials ought to explain the tool as you go along.

[cmay]

i am a casual computer user. i use the commandline for learning to program and since it it also the way to fix something that is broken on both windows and linux i learn the stuff as i need it. i had pc-bsd for sometime and i could not find the commandline at first. i was stuck in cliking and mousing around and i did not like that very much. i do not think that we should all go straight CLI since there is no need to do anything more dificult that it has to be. any person with pratical relations to nature will tell you that also. i can if needed strike fire with two flints but that is not a good reason to not using a match or lighter. same in this question about cli vs gui i do not write endless scripts if i can avoid it by clikin a button or two. but in the end the commandline is far more practial than some of the gui alternatives for many things. as seen on these forums the adwise given is almost always just a few lines of code that should be run in the terminal. somtimes gui is for convinience and cli is for trouble shooting but it can be the ohter way around. having freedos and minix i do not mind commandine but the reason i have these systems are to save and rescue really old computers that simply cant run desktop since hardware is too old. if lynx or w3m as browser could work with my email providers account system i would be happy to use a terminal based system only for such things. it would be a great way to use old computers. sorry long post . i am tired and need some zzzzzzzz. hope it makes sence anyway.