• TheOakTree@lemm.ee
    10·
    2 days ago

    GUI is a generic swiss army knife. It’s easy to introduce to someone, and it has a whole array of tools ready for use. However, each of those tools is only half-decent at its job at best, and all of the tools are unwieldy. The manual is included, but it mostly tells you how to do things that are pretty obvious.

    CLI is a toolbox full of quality tools and gadgets. Most people who open the box for the first time don’t even know which tools they’re looking for. In addition, each tool has a set of instructions that must be followed to a T. Those who know how to use the tools can get things done super quickly, but those who don’t know will inevitably cause some problems. Oh, but the high-detail manuals for all the tools are in the side compartment of the toolbox too.

  • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
    8·
    2 days ago

    People can do whatever they like, and heck I find CLI intimidating sometimes, but I’m always learning something new a little bit at a time.

    I’m tired of seeing it in every field of interest that has any kind of payoff, whether art or FOSS.

    “I’m [(almost always) a guy] who (maybe has kids and) has a job. I stopped learning anything after I got my job-paper / degree / highschool diploma. I shouldn’t have to learn anything anymore. I am happy to shell out disposable sad-salary-man money (and maybe my soul idk) to any mega-corp that offers me a “create desired outcome button” without me having to think too much. It’s [current year]! I shouldn’t have to think anymore! Therefore Linux is super behind and only for nerds and I desire its benefits so much that I leave this complaint anywhere these folks gather so they know what I deserve.”

    Agh. I gotta go before this rant gets too long lol

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    4·
    2 days ago

    Tbh the terminal is super convenient. No random UI placement. Most things follow one of several conventions so less to get used to. It’s easy to output the results of one command into another making automation obvious, no possibility for ads. It’s pretty sweet

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    3 days ago

    Having started out in programming before the GUI era, typing commands just feels good to me. But tbh Linux commands really are ridiculously cryptic - and needlessly so. In the 1980s and 90s there was a great OS called VMS whose commands and options were all English words (I don’t know if it was localized). It was amazingly intuitive. For example, to print 3 copies of a file in landscape orientation the command would be PRINT /COPIES=3 /ORIENTATION=LANDSCAPE. And you could abbreviate anything any way you wanted as long as it was still unambiguous. So PRI /COP=3 /OR=LAND would work, and if you really hated typing you could probably get away with PR /C=3 /O=L. And it wasn’t even case-sensitive, I’m just using uppercase for illustration.

    The point is, there’s no reason to make everybody remember some programmer’s individual decision about how to abbreviate something - “chmod o+rwx” could have been “setmode /other=read,write,execute” or something equally easy for newbies. The original developers of Unix and its descendants just thought the way they thought. Terseness was partly just computer culture of that era. Since computers were small with tight resources, filenames on many systems were limited to 8 characters with 3-char extension. This was still true even for DOS. Variables in older languages were often single characters or a letter + digit. As late as 1991 I remember having to debug an ancient accounting program whose variables were all like A1, A2, B5… with no comments. It was a freaking nightmare.

    Anyway, I’m just saying the crypticness is largely cultural and unnecessary. If there is some kind of CLI “skin” that lets you interact with Linux at the command line using normal words, I’d love to know about it.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        Like I said, you could abbreviate any way you liked as long as it was unambiguous. I think the ease of remembering meaningful words overrides the bit of extra typing It drives me more insane - and takes more time - looking up one-letter options that have no relation to what they do.

        • EarlGrey@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          The great thing about the core philosophy of unix is that you could easily do what you suggest and maintain compatibility with applications that rely on the traditional coreutils (Which is the major reason why no one will really suggest changing the traditional syntax. It’ll break way too much.).

          Just build a series of applications that actively translates your “less ambiguous” commands into traditional syntax. I’ve done it for a number of things where the syntax is long and hard to remember.

          In fact I think a “nuutilus” would actually be fairly well received for distributions that are more new user focused and a pretty worthwhile endeavor.

          • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

            I agree it’s definitely possible but I wouldn’t call it “easy” or describe it as “just build…”. If it were that that simple it would exist already - and possibly it does. In my DCL days - Digital Command Language, which I just remembered was the actual name of the VMS shell language - I had an elaborate set of shortcuts in my .bashrc equivalent, whatever it was called. But I don’t know bash anywhere near enough to take on creating a skin for it. Just making cheat sheets and gradually memorizing what I use most seems more realistic - and would be an easier process if the commands and options were more natural to begin with.

            • EarlGrey@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              2·
              2 days ago

              I say “easily” because it wouldn’t require a major effort on the scale of coreutils. It could just be a series of fancy automation scripts. It’ll take effort, but not the most intense of exercises.

              I made a handful of them at an old job because we had a few specific tasks that we would regularly do, but not enough to commit it to memory. I just spent an afternoon here and there slapping together python scripts with just the options we would need and tossed it into /bin

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.netEnglish
      7·
      3 days ago

      Anyway, I’m just saying the crypticness is largely cultural and unnecessary. If there is some kind of CLI “skin” that lets you interact with Linux at the command line using normal words, I’d love to know about it.

      This is far more manual than you probably had in mind, but Linux has support for a command called alias, which allows you to basically rename anything you like:

      https://phoenixnap.com/kb/linux-alias-command

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        3 days ago

        Alias lets you rename commands but not options. For example you could alias “grep” as “search”, but you couldn’t alias the “-h” option as “-nonames” and type “search -nonames” . You still have to type “search -h”.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      6·
      3 days ago

      typing commands just feels good to me

      That’s because for the most part, it’s faster. You don’t have to lift one hand off the keyboard. Also using the cursor and clicking on something requires more precision and effort to get right compared to typing a word or 2 and hitting enter.

      This is me kinda bragging, but at my typing speeds, something like ls -la is under half a second. Typing cd proj (tab to auto complete) (first few letters of project name if it’s fairly unique) (tab to auto complete), hitting enter, and then typing a quick docker compose up is an order of magnitude faster than starting the containers in docker GUI.

      But tbh Linux commands really are ridiculously cryptic - and needlessly so.

      Agreed. Okay, to be fair, for parameters, most of the time you have the double-dash options which spell out what they do, and for advanced users there’s the shorthands so everyone should be happy. But the program/command names themselves. Ugh. Why can’t we standardize aliases for copy, move, remove/delete? Keep the old binaries names, but make it so that guides for new users could use actual English aliases so people would learn quicker?

      • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
        4·
        3 days ago

        At least part of this is the decentralized/complied nature of a FOSS operating system. You don’t get a command called grep because someone making design decisions about a complete system holistically decides that tool should be called grep. You get it because some random programmer in the world needed a way to find patterns in text so they wrote one and that guy called it grep and someone else saw utility in packaging that tool with an OS. It’s a patchwork, and things like this are a culture of sorts.

        • Val@lemm.ee
          4·
          3 days ago

          interesting you used grep because it’s a command that has a very clear origin.

          in ed/vi the g command was used to run commands on some pattern. eg g/[regex pattern]/[command]

          the p command was used to print current line so to print any line that matched the string “grep” you would do: g/grep/p.

          when this was made into a seperate command it was called grep: g/re/p. using re to denote regex.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        The standard VMS text editor (EDT) assigned editing functions to the number keypad. Using it became so natural to me I eventually didn’t think about pressing keys, it was like using a car gearshift. I’ve never gotten to that point with any GUI editor, even with heavy use of keyboard shortcuts.

  • Tin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    18·
    3 days ago

    I do most of my work at the command line, my co-workers do think I’m nuts for doing it, but one of our recent projects required us all to log into a client’s systems, and a significant portion of the tasks must be done via bash prompt. Suddenly, I’m no longer the team weirdo, I’m a subject matter expert.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
    20·
    3 days ago

    Nothing wrong with CLI. It is fast and responsive.

    Unless you want mainstream use. Because the majority of people can’t even use a UI effectively. And CLI is much worse.

    • nfreak@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      This is the core of the argument. You can’t expected the average casual user to use CLI at all if you want mainstream adoption. The vast majority of people can barely operate Windows as-is, telling them to use a Linux CLI would be asinine.

      • Camelbeard@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 days ago

        There was a time before Windows where a lot of people used MS-DOS and it was all terminal. Maybe computers where less popular back in those days because of the learning curve, but still many people used a PC with just the terminal.

        • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.netEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Computers were definitely way less popular, and if you are an office worker you not only had the Baseline level of Education of an office worker but you probably received Technical training, and there was probably an IT department who could help. You might have also only know in just the things you specifically need for your job

        • nfreak@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          Oh absolutely. We’re in a very different age today though. Like hell I can’t imagine either of my own parents understanding the basics.

    • thevoidzero@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      Yup. I made a scientific analysis program. Using CLI and your own editors you can do so much. And instead of focusing on making the algorithms, I had to focus on making a GUI for months because people need things to click.

      And then even with very responsive and easy GUI, with like just 5 types of “views” and probably like <5 buttons/inputs each, people are like “it seems complicated” within like 1 minutes of demo. They haven’t even tried to use it or tried to learn anything. I even modeled the views to be as similar to another software they use.

      I feel like people just don’t like computers.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      Exactly. Most things need to optimize for the lowest common denominator of understanding, and buttons with words and fields that have explicit purposes and positioning are a much easier starting point than “use command -help and figure out the syntax yourself,” even if someone who learns the syntax could then possibly be more efficient at using it.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    41·
    2 days ago

    It’s wild that Linux stans are such masochists that they believe they can convert people to loving abuse, instead of just making the interface better to attract users.

  • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.netEnglish
    3·
    2 days ago

    I feel like a lot more people be comfortable using the terminal if the text displayed when it was first opened gave you a list of commands to try. There is a very steep initial learning curve immediately which discourages experimentation, and I think that with a little bit of effort you could get a lot of people over that hump and then they could enjoy terminal Bliss.

  • BoiBy@sh.itjust.works
    37·
    3 days ago

    I use Linux and I prefer GUIs. I’m the kind of person that would rather open a filemanager as superuser and drag and drop system files than type commands and addresses. I hope you hax0rs won’t forget that we mere mortals exist too and you’ll make GUIs for us 🙏🙏🙏

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
      231·
      3 days ago

      Tbf, the file explorer is actually one really good argument for GUIs over terminals. Same with editing text. Its either simple enough to use Nano or I need a proper text editor. I don’t mess around with vim or anything like that that.

      Its all tools. Some things are easier in a file manager, some things are easier in a GUI.

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        9·
        3 days ago

        I think it depends, if I have a simple file structure and know where stuff is, it’s pretty efficient to do operations in the terminal.

        If I have a billion files to go through a file manager might be easier.

      • BoiBy@sh.itjust.works
        51·
        3 days ago

        Yeah I prefer fancy text editor too. And my biggest heartbreak was learning that I can’t just sudo kate (there’s a way to use Kate to edit with higher privileges but I never remember how, edit: apparently it’s opensuse specific problem).

        Born to Kate, forced to nano

        • Illecors@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          3·
          3 days ago

          The problem is running GUI code as root as it’s never been vetted for that. What you want, effectively, is to have EDITOR variable of your session set to kate and open system files using sudoedit. I’m a terminal guy myself, so this exact thing is enough for me. Having said that - I’m sure someone will chime in with a plugin/addon/extension/etc that adds this to the right click context for what I assume is KDE. Or you can try looking for that om your favourite search engine.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      9·
      3 days ago

      I use both, depends a bit on the task at hand. Generally simple tasks GUI and complex ones CLI. Especially if I want anything automated.

    • TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world
      7·
      3 days ago

      I tried to learn superfile thinking it could make terminal more exciting but nah.

      Gimme that comfy file explorer gui.

      Totally agree.

    • utopiah@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 days ago

      FWIW I do use the file browser too when I’m looking for a file with a useful preview, e.g. images.

      When I do have to handle a large amount of files though (e.g. more than a dozen) and so something “to them”, rather than just move them around, then the CLI becomes very powerful.

      It’s not because one uses the CLI that one never used a file browser.

      • takeheart@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 days ago

        Yeah, when I need to inspect lots of images I just open the folder in gwenview.

        For peeking at a single picture or two through you can hold down control and click/hover on the filename when using Konsole. Love that feature. You can even listen to .wav files this way.

        • utopiah@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 days ago

          Very nice, I don’t seem to have that option available but I can right-click on a filename to open the file manager in the current directory. Good to know!

      • BoiBy@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        3 days ago

        I once did rm \* accidentally lol. I now have a program that just moves files to trash aliased as “rm” just in case. I just don’t feel confident moving files in CLI

    • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 days ago

      I would say “why not, to each their own” if not the thought about what else the filemanager is going to do with root access (like downloading data from web for file preview). But the general sentiment still stands, it is absurd to think that computer must be used only in one way by all people

  • beastlykings@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    2 days ago

    Just the other day, I was trying to run a CLI program, one I won’t name.

    I’m trying out a new immutable distro, and couldn’t install it, so I said hey these new flatpaks are supposed to be all a guy could ever need.

    So I downloaded an app that uses this unnamed CLI program as its core. It was a GUI app. And while it worked just fine, I also had very little control over what exactly was gonna happen and how it would happen. I wanted to do some specific things I knew the core program could do, but there was no way to do it.

    Eventually I dug deeper and realized I’m an idiot and the CLI program can run without installing it or any dependencies, so it was fine to use natively. I was able to accomplish my task quickly and efficiently after that, happy as a clam.

    CLI and GUI both have their place. I prefer GUI most the time, honestly. But having some CLI chops can be extremely useful at times.

  • dalekcaan@lemm.ee
    20·
    3 days ago

    It’s all a matter of preference anyway (assuming you have both options anyway). CLI is less intuitive and takes longer to learn, but can be wicked fast if you know what you’re doing. GUI is more intuitive and faster to pick up, but digging through the interface is usually slower than what a power user can accomplish in the CLI.

    It depends on what your use case is and how you prefer your work flow. The only dumb move is judging how other people like their setup.