It’s not that they are mad others use CLI, it’s that they’re mad that Linux devs regularly stop creating P&CI features, instead opting for CLI with no P&CI equivalent action.
It’s kind of obvious why - CLI is already very flexible right out of the box, and it takes much less work to add functionality within CLI rather than creating it for the P&CI.
At the same time, I understand the P&CI folk’s frustration, since one of biggest obstacles to getting more people on Linux is the lack of P&CI solutions, and the fact that many actions on Linux are explained solely via CLI.
CLI folks have invested the time to use terminals effectively and view overuse of the P&CI as beneath them, and P&CI folks have no interest in dumping time into learning CLI to do something they could do on Windows with P&CI.
The GUI applications are just terminal applications where you press buttons instead of typing. Creating the buttons and UI is extra overhead for developers.
CLI folks have invested the time to use terminals effectively and view overuse of the P&CI as beneath them, and P&CI folks have no interest in dumping time into learning CLI to do something they could do on Windows with P&CI.
There are people who have learned to use Linux, using whatever tools are best for the job and people who have decided that the only way to interact with a computer is with a mouse and refuse to learn anything else.
You don’t have to swap away from Windows. But, if you choose to, know that you will have to learn a new operating system and, on Linux, this means becoming familiar with the terminal.
If you’re going to artificially limit yourself, despite the chorus of Linux users telling you otherwise, by deciding that any terminal use indicates a failure of the OS or of developers, then you should not use Linux.
It’s hard enough to learn a new OS. Artificially restricting yourself to only using your mouse is going to severely limit your ability to function.
Obviously I’m talking about the DE packages, not the kernel or CLI base. We are talking about windows users switching to linux-based DEs, which are directly trying to compete with Windows and iOS.
This is not me having issue with CLIs. I’ve been on Linux for decades. I am pointing out the perspective of those that are frustrated with Linux DEs being blatantly unready for mass-adoption, specifically because they expect layman users to learn CLI. See my previous comment and this comment for more details.
It’s just that their expectations do not align with reality and they’re only going to hurt their experience by thinking that there is a path to using Linux without using the terminal. Some distros do a really good job of creating something that seems like a pure GUI experience, but that illusion only lasts right up until there is a problem that the UI designers didn’t anticipate and the only way forward is to type terminal commands.
I’m not trying to be an asshole when I say this kind of thing.
It’s just disingenuous for people to recommend Linux and also say ‘Don’t worry, you won’t need the terminal’ or to foster the illusion, in new users, that their fear of the terminal is justified. I get that, of all things Linux, the most alien thing from a Windows/Smartphone user’s perspective, is a text-based interface.
It seems difficult and social media is full of people acting like the terminal is incredibly difficult to learn so people believe that they can simply opt out of using the terminal. You can’t, and trying to do so is going to make users have a horrible experience. It’d be like telling people that Windows doesn’t require a mouse, that’s possibly true but if a person artificially limits themselves in that way, they’re going to have a much harder time than they would have if they’d spend the time to use the OS properly.
This is kind of erasing the author with your description of the issue. The reason that apps eventually require CLI to complete tasks is because devs think of CLI first and then produce a stop-gap P&CI over top of it. It is explicitly how devs in the Linux environment operate which creates a gap between CLI and P&CI. If apps were developed with P&CI in mind first, with CLI added after, this would not be a problem - and we know this because of every app developed for both Windows and Linux, which lack these gaps in functionality - or lack CLI entirely.
Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It’s not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It’s not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you’re trying to do your job at work. I think it’s pretty reasonable most people don’t want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they’ve already figured out how to with a P&CI.
Being realistic, of course, this paradigm shift is not going to happen. Linux will continue to be only a small portion of total computers used by end users because of this, and various other reasons it’s found unpalatable.
I’ve heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
The CLI is first because Linux is, first and foremost, an operating system built for terminal access. It was based on Unix, a mainframe operating system that served terminals.
I’ve heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
Between all of my devices at home and work, I use KDE, XFCE and hyprland.
KDE has a pretty comprehensive GUI, but to say that they’re all you need is a gross exaggeration. Sure, you can connect your bluetooth device via the GUI but if there is any problem with it the GUI is woefully insufficient for troubleshooting. Similarly, you can adjust the volume in the GUI… but if your device is using the wrong bitrate or you want to do anything more complicated than control the device that sound is sent to, then you’re going to be editing dot files and using the terminal.
In Linux, the GUI applications are a convenience but the core of the system is the terminal interface. That’s what everything has been designed for since the beginning. Graphical Desktop environments are not, at all, a replacement for the terminal.
Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It’s not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It’s not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you’re trying to do your job at work. I think it’s pretty reasonable most people don’t want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they’ve already figured out how to with a P&CI.
I don’t think that it is reasonable to want to swap operating systems without learning the new operating system.
If a person has decided that they never want to use anything but a mouse to solve their problems then Linux is not the OS for them. Learning a new operating system means learning how the operating system works, not declaring how you think it should work and declaring anything outside of your expectations as unreasonable.
If you’re coming into this with the idea that you’re going to swap to Linux but only use your Windows/Mac knowledge to puzzle through a GUI and also refuse to touch anything that is in the terminal then you should not use Linux. If you’re asking for help and then telling the people trying to help you that you’re not going to use the terminal, you’re going to face a lot of negative responses.
I was specifically trying to not sound conspiratorial. I’m pointing out that it’s a matter of having learned a paradigm vs having to learn a new paradigm.
Devs have already gotten used to CLI and very rarely make full P&CI suites because of it. Even if the original Dev only did CLI for the app and someone came back and made a P&CI for that app, those P&CI interfaces are still fairly barebones. This is both a mix of devs knowing how good CLI can be and because it’s all open source volunteer work.
Layman users of P&CI-focused DEs actively avoid CLI so they don’t have to learn it. This means that using most Linux apps are something to be avoided for most Windows users, making the OS base mostly unusable for them.
To be clear, when I am talking about P&CI-focused DEs, like windows and iOS, I mean that if you cannot perform an action with the P&CI, then that action essentially does not exist for the average user. Contrast that with Linux DEs, where it’s quite common to have to directly edit configs or use the CLI to perform various actions.
As a veteran user, CLI does not bother me. I do understand the frustration of those who want some Linux DEs to become as default as Windows and iOS, because lack of P&CI does damage that effort.
This is not every app in Linux obvi, but the ones that are best at making sure the P&CI is full-flddged, are the apps that develop for windows and iOS as well as Linux - Blender, LibreOffice, Logseq, Godot, etc. The most common offenders are the utility apps, such as those that handle drivers, sound systems, DE functions, etc.
It’s not that they are mad others use CLI, it’s that they’re mad that Linux devs regularly stop creating P&CI features, instead opting for CLI with no P&CI equivalent action.
It’s kind of obvious why - CLI is already very flexible right out of the box, and it takes much less work to add functionality within CLI rather than creating it for the P&CI.
At the same time, I understand the P&CI folk’s frustration, since one of biggest obstacles to getting more people on Linux is the lack of P&CI solutions, and the fact that many actions on Linux are explained solely via CLI.
CLI folks have invested the time to use terminals effectively and view overuse of the P&CI as beneath them, and P&CI folks have no interest in dumping time into learning CLI to do something they could do on Windows with P&CI.
Pardon my ignorance but what does P&CI stand for?
Edit: nvm got it I think it’s Point & Click Interface
Correct, point and click interface
Linux is the terminal.
The GUI applications are just terminal applications where you press buttons instead of typing. Creating the buttons and UI is extra overhead for developers.
There are people who have learned to use Linux, using whatever tools are best for the job and people who have decided that the only way to interact with a computer is with a mouse and refuse to learn anything else.
You don’t have to swap away from Windows. But, if you choose to, know that you will have to learn a new operating system and, on Linux, this means becoming familiar with the terminal.
If you’re going to artificially limit yourself, despite the chorus of Linux users telling you otherwise, by deciding that any terminal use indicates a failure of the OS or of developers, then you should not use Linux.
It’s hard enough to learn a new OS. Artificially restricting yourself to only using your mouse is going to severely limit your ability to function.
Obviously I’m talking about the DE packages, not the kernel or CLI base. We are talking about windows users switching to linux-based DEs, which are directly trying to compete with Windows and iOS.
This is not me having issue with CLIs. I’ve been on Linux for decades. I am pointing out the perspective of those that are frustrated with Linux DEs being blatantly unready for mass-adoption, specifically because they expect layman users to learn CLI. See my previous comment and this comment for more details.
I do understand their perspective.
It’s just that their expectations do not align with reality and they’re only going to hurt their experience by thinking that there is a path to using Linux without using the terminal. Some distros do a really good job of creating something that seems like a pure GUI experience, but that illusion only lasts right up until there is a problem that the UI designers didn’t anticipate and the only way forward is to type terminal commands.
I’m not trying to be an asshole when I say this kind of thing.
It’s just disingenuous for people to recommend Linux and also say ‘Don’t worry, you won’t need the terminal’ or to foster the illusion, in new users, that their fear of the terminal is justified. I get that, of all things Linux, the most alien thing from a Windows/Smartphone user’s perspective, is a text-based interface.
It seems difficult and social media is full of people acting like the terminal is incredibly difficult to learn so people believe that they can simply opt out of using the terminal. You can’t, and trying to do so is going to make users have a horrible experience. It’d be like telling people that Windows doesn’t require a mouse, that’s possibly true but if a person artificially limits themselves in that way, they’re going to have a much harder time than they would have if they’d spend the time to use the OS properly.
This is kind of erasing the author with your description of the issue. The reason that apps eventually require CLI to complete tasks is because devs think of CLI first and then produce a stop-gap P&CI over top of it. It is explicitly how devs in the Linux environment operate which creates a gap between CLI and P&CI. If apps were developed with P&CI in mind first, with CLI added after, this would not be a problem - and we know this because of every app developed for both Windows and Linux, which lack these gaps in functionality - or lack CLI entirely.
Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It’s not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It’s not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you’re trying to do your job at work. I think it’s pretty reasonable most people don’t want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they’ve already figured out how to with a P&CI.
Being realistic, of course, this paradigm shift is not going to happen. Linux will continue to be only a small portion of total computers used by end users because of this, and various other reasons it’s found unpalatable.
I’ve heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
The CLI is first because Linux is, first and foremost, an operating system built for terminal access. It was based on Unix, a mainframe operating system that served terminals.
Between all of my devices at home and work, I use KDE, XFCE and hyprland.
KDE has a pretty comprehensive GUI, but to say that they’re all you need is a gross exaggeration. Sure, you can connect your bluetooth device via the GUI but if there is any problem with it the GUI is woefully insufficient for troubleshooting. Similarly, you can adjust the volume in the GUI… but if your device is using the wrong bitrate or you want to do anything more complicated than control the device that sound is sent to, then you’re going to be editing dot files and using the terminal.
In Linux, the GUI applications are a convenience but the core of the system is the terminal interface. That’s what everything has been designed for since the beginning. Graphical Desktop environments are not, at all, a replacement for the terminal.
I don’t think that it is reasonable to want to swap operating systems without learning the new operating system.
If a person has decided that they never want to use anything but a mouse to solve their problems then Linux is not the OS for them. Learning a new operating system means learning how the operating system works, not declaring how you think it should work and declaring anything outside of your expectations as unreasonable.
If you’re coming into this with the idea that you’re going to swap to Linux but only use your Windows/Mac knowledge to puzzle through a GUI and also refuse to touch anything that is in the terminal then you should not use Linux. If you’re asking for help and then telling the people trying to help you that you’re not going to use the terminal, you’re going to face a lot of negative responses.
I’ve never seen this?
It’s typically a completely different developer who creates the CLI first, and then one of us adds a P&C after.
So if something is brand new, sure there might be no P&C, yet.
I promise There’s no conspiracy to not have nice things. Haha.
I was specifically trying to not sound conspiratorial. I’m pointing out that it’s a matter of having learned a paradigm vs having to learn a new paradigm.
Devs have already gotten used to CLI and very rarely make full P&CI suites because of it. Even if the original Dev only did CLI for the app and someone came back and made a P&CI for that app, those P&CI interfaces are still fairly barebones. This is both a mix of devs knowing how good CLI can be and because it’s all open source volunteer work.
Layman users of P&CI-focused DEs actively avoid CLI so they don’t have to learn it. This means that using most Linux apps are something to be avoided for most Windows users, making the OS base mostly unusable for them.
To be clear, when I am talking about P&CI-focused DEs, like windows and iOS, I mean that if you cannot perform an action with the P&CI, then that action essentially does not exist for the average user. Contrast that with Linux DEs, where it’s quite common to have to directly edit configs or use the CLI to perform various actions.
As a veteran user, CLI does not bother me. I do understand the frustration of those who want some Linux DEs to become as default as Windows and iOS, because lack of P&CI does damage that effort.
This is not every app in Linux obvi, but the ones that are best at making sure the P&CI is full-flddged, are the apps that develop for windows and iOS as well as Linux - Blender, LibreOffice, Logseq, Godot, etc. The most common offenders are the utility apps, such as those that handle drivers, sound systems, DE functions, etc.
I take your point. And this was very much the case for a long time.
But it’s worth pointing out that Gnome and KDE are both done, now.
I haven’t been forced to reach for command line to change something - anything - on either of my last couple of Linux installs.
Edit: I almost didn’t notice, but it feels worth celebrating and raising awareness.