Eh. I’m mostly a power user, all day at work in terminals and keyboard shortcut galore.
It doesn’t prevent me from laying back and running a “filthy casual” kubuntu with little to no setup at all. At one point you reach the state where you just want to use your computer, not tinker with it all the time.
And Alexander wept, seeing as he had no more computers to set up and tinker
-Alexander (probably)
I am not able to comprehend what you mean. I love tinkering, ricing and starting all over again if something is permanently fucked. This is not a joke.
I respect your approach, though , ofc.
This is why Arch never stuck for me. I work with Linux all day. I don’t want to spend my free time fixing my own shit because a update broke the bootloader.
Ubuntu Server baby. That shit is absolutely rock solid, I’ve literally never had an update break stuff in the decade+ I’ve been managing it.
This is ultimately why I switched from Arch… Now I’ve just got an Arch distrobox and if it breaks, no big deal.
I’m on Mint, but I still use the terminal to update my flatpaks. I’m just freaky that way 😎
Someday you’ll try that over SSH once.
Once.
I have no idea why it is the way it is.
Linux Mint vs Windows is already enough to learn for a day 1 linux user.
I think it’s fine to have some less commonly used actions be only accessible through a terminal, even on more user-friendly distros. That is basically what Minecraft does, and yet no one’s scared of that.
A sensible opinion on my porn app?
yt-dlp?
Ah yes, the good old
/time set 1000
Counterpoint: why should the standard for “just works” mean no CLI? What if distro maintainers decide that their user’s experience is improved by relegating some tasks to the shell?
Because knowing terminal commands is neither accessible nor feasible for the average computer user. It might be more efficient, if you take the time to learn it but the average computer user doesn’t want to spend that extra time. They want everything to be accessible and to be easy.
Linux should always have the choice to use the terminal. But if you want the day of the Linux desktop to actually arrive some day, you need at least a couple of distros that don’t require you to know what a package manager is.
neither accessible nor feasible for the average computer user.
Absolute hogwash. Learning like five short words is absolutely not unfeasible for any literate person, if a user can’t do that, you can be sure they aren’t actually an average user, they can’t do anything with gui either. And probably need help tying their shoes.
A two years old child can learn 5 short words. A grown up can write them on a sticky note and plop them on a screen.A good modern gui also presents itself in front of you. It directs your attention to important buttons/options. You don’t need any prior knowledge to know that a cog shaped button labeled settings will take you to settings. Good UIs are self explanatory. CLI are not.
To be able to use the terminal, you either need another person to tell you the necessary commands or search for a tutorial yourself, either online or somewhere else.
That’s not intuitive. It’s not too hard to learn, but you need to actively pursue learning how to do it. An average person doesn’t want to do that. An average person doesn’t even want to memorize more than one password. They should. But they won’t. Thus, password managers were created. And non technical minded people still don’t even use those.
You got to look at it from the point of view of someone who has no interest in knowing any more about their computer than how to turn it on, where to put their photos and how to open their browser and maybe an office suite. The kind of people that wouldn’t even update the system, if there wasn’t a notification asking for it. They’re not stupid. They just don’t care about computers and don’t want to spend any more mental power on them than necessary, the same way you wouldn’t want to think about manually keeping the timing of your car’s engine on point for the current conditions. You just want it to get you safely from A to B. Or maybe you do, but I assure you, most people wouldn’t.
A good modern gui also presents itself in front of you. It directs your attention to important buttons/options. You don’t need any prior knowledge to know that a cog shaped button labeled settings will take you to settings. Good UIs are self explanatory. CLI are not.
it also suffers from exponential growth complexity. CLI only has linear growth complexity. Every button and element you add to a gui makes refactoring the entire GUI layout exponentially harder.
self explanatory
If you ever had to teach anyone anything, properly teach, you would know it’s a myth. It’s self-explanatory to you because you’re already familiar with the logic, language, conventions. I’m guessing, you grew up with all that from childhood, and you just forgot how you had to learn all that, and now you assume this knowledge didn’t need to be taught. You think cog is a universally understood language for settings because you always had it in front of you. Just like a lot of people think/thought that 3.5 floppy is a universally understood icon for “save”, and people who grow up now have no idea what I am talking about.
And then you assume that you are the average person, and start measuring everyone by this mark.
But if several years of teaching people of different skills, motivations, and ages, how to work with computers taught me anything, it’s that there is no universal language, there is no, and cannot be anything self-explanatory, and intuitive interface is a myth perpetuated by people who newer used anything other that one OS they grew up with. There is no amount of skeuomorphism you can employ that doesn’t require at least some amount of learning.
And when it comes to learning, let me tell you, there is nothing more straightforward to teach than “you type words and then read what the computer typed you back.”
And if several years of tech support taught me anything, it’s that if a regular person who doesn’t care about a computer encounters a problem, they don’t have inherently better time fixing it with GUI, never, not at all, not in a million years. I however always have way better time helping them, if it’s Linux and I can tell them what to type and they can read me the response. This actually true even if people are good with computers and know their OS.Most people do know how to use a computer though. Windows and macOS have been around for a very long time by now, and both have not required you to use the CLI for anything but very extreme cases in more than 25 years. You’re not starting with a blank slate. They know how a GUI is supposed to work. It is self explanatory to them. Shoving them towards a CLI is making them relearn stuff they already knew how to do. There’s a reason a lot of Windows migrants end up with KDE or Cinnamon. It’s familiar, it’s easy. Most people do in fact associate a cog with settings. CLI aren’t familiar to most people and thus a much larger hurdle.
Also, I’m not talking about fixing problems. The CLI is a perfectly valid tool to fix problems. Not everything has to be graphical. Just enough that you don’t need it unless something breaks.
It’s self-explanatory to you because you’re already familiar with the logic, language, conventions. I’m guessing, you grew up with all that from childhood…
This argument can be used as a reason to implement GUIs.
If we wish to market to an audience that has had some basic experience with using Windows and Mac, we can skip some of the reteaching by implementing familiar GUIs
knowing terminal commands is neither accessible nor feasible for the average computer user
I don’t think that’s true. It’s literally just asking your computer what to do, much easier to remember than memorizing which subpage of the control panel opens the right wizard to get what you want.
But people don’t memorize which subpage of the control panel leads to what they need. They go after content clues. You need to change your ip adress? Well it’s probably somewhere in the settings under the category network.
But cli you have to memorize. It doesn’t give you any context clues
But cli you have to memorize
It literally keeps a history of everything you’ve typed in, that you can search with context clues or just look through chronologically and get the exact command you needed from last time. Seems like you’re just making excuses. Needing to look in a dozen different pages isn’t any easier than looking to see what program you need to use.
What if we took the most used commands and instead of having to arrow-up through them, we just laid them out in a list or a grid, so you could click on them? And then we give them a little icon each that makes it a little prettier, more quickly recognizable and easier to click on. And because there are a lot of commands, maybe sort them by category. But who’d ever want that?
Also, I don’t know, when you last used a settings app or something similar but once you‘re more than two sub pages in, you’re usually in the realm of stuff even people who use a cli a lot would have to look up the commands. Because a good UI Design makes stuff you need regularly easy accessible.
You mean something like this? They exist, they’ve been around, for awhile actually.
The problem with them is that it is simply not easier. If you know what you want to do, it is faster to press two keys and start searching history, or just start typing and use autocomplete, than it is to move your mouse to click a square. And if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’ll have to do research regardless, and maybe I’m biased but I still think it is easier to copy and paste a command than it is to read the directions to get to the submenu I want, and then replicate each step in my own GUI.
Also, I don’t know, when you last used a settings app or something similar but once you‘re more than two sub pages in, you’re usually in the realm of stuff even people who use a CLI a lot would have to look up the commands
That’s just not true, at least for Windows. Many common things are hidden in window menus that can only be accessed from specific pages from the control panel, because MS never really committed to the whole Metro thing so you gotta dig around for the real stuff that hasn’t been added to the regular control panel.
Because a good UI Design makes stuff you need regularly easy accessible.
Right, but how often are UIs designed goodly? GUIs are nice, don’t get me wrong, but the simplicity of a CLI is wrongly maligned because people think it’s scary, and are in fact very easy to use if you spend the minimum necessary effort to know what you’re doing. Literally just tell the computer what you want to do
Different is not hard. Popular Linux distros have been streamlined to the point of not needing a CLI for casual use for 10+ years now anyway.
I’m aware stuff like that exists. I was being sarcastic. Just wanted to highlight, that searching through recent commands would be much easier in a GUI as well. Should’ve used a “/s”, my bad.
Also, I too wouldn’t highlight Windows as a staple of good UI design. Their jumble of 4 different design languages nested into each other in the most unintuitive ways with some actions having multiple possible ways and some having been hidden away deeply is not how I’d want a GUI to be. It’s also not user friendly and very much one reason I’ve banished windows from my household.
But, people are used to it. At least enough to find basic settings. And I think that’s the best argument against pushing the terminal. People are familiar with graphical interfaces. They understand commonly used symbols (like cog = settings and similar stuff) because all mainstream operating systems (be it desktop or mobile) have used something similar for close to 3 decades. They are familiar with menus and submenus. They don’t know where everything is, when they use an unfamiliar program/OS, of course but they are familiar with the concepts. They are not with CLIs. You are, because you have been using them for a while. So am I and so are quite a few other people who regularly use it. The average Joe computer user doesn’t.
Even stuff like tab to autocomplete and arrow-up for history are foreign concepts for someone who has never used a terminal before. Sure, it’s not hard to learn but they’d need to learn it. Not to mention, that a lot of commands are abstract enough that they are hard to memorise and thus to understand. It’s like a language you do have to learn. Not a difficult language if you don’t need to do complicated things but it’s a hurdle nonetheless.
Which is also why don’t like the “literally just telling the computer what to do” argument, I’ve heard a few times now. I mean, it’s not entirely wrong but it’s telling the computer what to do in its language, not in yours. You don’t type “Hello computer please update my system and programs” or even just “update”, you type “sudo pacman -Syu”. Any non-tech person will be utterly confused at what even a “sudo” is or what pacman has to do with Linux. And yes, pacman is an especially obtrusive example and Arch definitely not the distro for newbies, regardless of their stance on terminals but my point still stands, even with apt, dnf and co. To tell a computer what to do via CLI, you’ll either have to either learn its language or copy it from someone who does.
A GUI however tries to translate that language for you already and give you context clues based on common culture (floppy = save, cog = settings, folder = directories, etc.). It’s a language even small children and illiterate people and can understand, to some extent at least.
But yes, I do agree, the most popular distros are fairly streamlined and mostly useable without CLI. And that’s good. Makes it possible for Linux to slowly gain market share even among non technical people and I can, in good faith, recommend/install it for friends and family, knowing they’ll manage unless there’s a problem. And I do think, Linux is getting better in this regard every day, and while not on par yet with the current mainstream OSes in terms of ease of use, it’s not far behind anymore. But it is still behind.
I’m just tired of the elitist-enthusiast who doesn’t want linux to become easier to use for the everyman because it’d be less special. That attitude does not further FOSS and does not help anyone. Because that’s not how you reduce Microsoft’s, Google’s or Apple’s influence on the tech scene.
They want everything to be accessible and to be easy.
CLI is both accessible and easy, intuitive even. The only problem is that it requires a fundamental knowledge basis, and some syntactic context. But that’s all pretty minimal.
I would argue a GUI is more confusing if it has any nested elements in it (like photoshop for example)
Agreed. But some people who never ever touched a terminal are scared by them and think they should not have to ever touch it. They can’t fathom that it’s actually less complicated to use for some tasks. And so this topic comes up every few days and nothing ever changes. Round and round it goes, like clockwork.
because taking away user choice and accessibility is never a good idea
A meme is a great way to avoid their fury; Lynx doesn’t show images.
It’s open source, they can just make their own distro.
And that attitude is why Linux is struggling to gain market cap imho.
Yes they can, but maybe we need to embrace those who arent tech saavy?
Saying if you dont like it, go do your own thing is not very welcoming.
We should encourage people to create their own distribution, but maybe welcome people with open arms first, guide them to a flavour that works for them, and then encourage them to learn how to make it exactly what they want
Edit:
Market capture> market shareMarket cap? Which stock symbol is it? 😉
Couldn’t think of a more appropriate term, feel free to suggest some better terms
Market share
Except thats not even true because Linux has absolutely no market, there is no money in mass adoption
Haha market cap, market share , they’re still all about selling stuff so dont really apply./ Market share is normally measured in share of revenue in most industries.
There are lots of webpages, tutorials, youtubes and stuff like that for these people already. I’m sure they can also pay companies like canonical for more dedicated support if that’s what they need.
If you want to welcome people, go ahead and do it, nothing stopping you. Create the webpage or forum or youtube channel, distribution, or write the book whatever is missing. Just make sure to moderate it to remove CLI based answers and block users like me.
“I” exist and I’m sure I’m never going to be part of your “we”. The current situation of linux home user base seems just fine to me without pandering to a load of windows users. I think you should work on your desired subculture and keep me out if it. Leave me out of it - i can stay over here under my bridge in linuxmemes wearing my new programming socks.
For the home market maybe you can look at valve and steamdeck or something as an example of an acessible linux sub-culture. Valve doesn’t maintain and support that for free though. It’d be interesting to know how many full time employees they have on steamdeck OS just for the one device (and maybe a few gaming perpherals) and one GUI. Then expand that to all esoteric hardware and all GUIs . . .
I guess chromeOS and a few forks of that is another similar example - i think that’s still linux kernel based - some limitations on hardware i think.What I’d actually like to see is B2B growth (for user ) - but I don’t think linux will ever be bought by employers like mine - I know how the procurement department operates - and I can’t see that changing. There are plenty of people who don’t need my support trying business sales, redhat, canonical, suse etc and more power to them - but microsoft didn’t get big in B2B by being usable, nor by nor having “no CLI”, nor by having a supportive community to home users. They just packaged it in a way that ticked all the boxes for the corpo procurement types - though most B2B customers do need their own dedicated user support.
My presumption is that we want people too so using Windows and supporting Microsoft/Apple
If you don’t agree with that there really isn’t much for you and I to discuss, my above view doesn’t make much sense without that presumption.
So, do you think the world would be better if people stopped using Microsoft?
That’s not something that I’d think is any of my business to want or not want.
I can’t really answer the last question, I’d need to know a lot more about all thendifferent things these microsoft users are doing; what’re the alternatives; and, how disruptive might the transition be. On balance, given the uncertainties, I’d have to say probably not.
I mean if i stopped using Microsoft entirely (i.e. at work) I’d have to find a new job, probably one I’m less experienced at. And likely I’d end up working for a bigger bunch of scumbags. Likely no net gain and a load of botheration in the meanwhile.
Also i might miss the regular BSOD inspired tea breaks . . .
Why, no really tell me why we need to embrace nontechnical Linux users? What exactly does Linux have to gain? Because afaik nontechnical users dont donate, don’t contribute, and dont even appreciate the software or the work maintainers put into it (and they complain far more often). Theres always “x feature doesnt work” or “y app isn’t compatible” and suddenly “Linux isn’t ready yet”.
Well, first of all that’s just elitist/gatekeeping thinking and i find it quite frustrating. If you think about it, it’s kind of like the “we don’t want immigrants, they cause much work, cost us much and don’t contribute”. A higher market share always comes with benefits and with drawbacks. There will always be more people who contribute if the market share is higher. The same with hardware compatibility. Having widely adopted open source software will always benefit the community.
Theres a fundamental difference between installing an operating system and immigration. That difference is the value of human life. Once again Linux is not a corporate product, there is no commercial benefit in mass adoption. Furthermore the people who contribute are for the most part technical users. Using your example the fact is nearly every country gives citizenship to skilled workers far faster and for a very good reason.
Okay, I see that this comparison wasn’t really good. Thinking more about it it reads like a straw man argument and i’m sorry for that.
It indeed woudn’t offer a commercial benefit, but I do really think that it would offer a benefit humanity. Because it would lessen the power that Mocrosoft has over the computer market. If the market share is high enough it would even spark innovation because Microsoft and co would be forced to innovate to keep their market share.
I know many people who would like to have an alternative to Windows, without the hurdles Linux still comes with. And I would like to be able to tell them that there is one but sadly I can’t.Thats the fundamental problem ive been trying to get at, people fundamentally view Linux incorrectly. Linux is not a Windows competitor (at least directly) and I think thats a good thing. Linux will never run all windows software because its not Windows, that doesn’t mean its not ready. Linux will never function exactly like Windows and thats imo an amazing thing (and for those people who want their system to work like Windows they have Windows).
Linux should embrace the things that make it stand out and not try to copy other operating systems, that doesn’t make it non-user friendly. For example I love tiling, I love that Cosmic has embraced tiling, however keyboard based tiling is not naturally intuitive to Windows users. In addition I would argue that you arent forced to use the terminal, however the terminal is so powerful that its hard to ignore it. That doesn’t mean Linux GUI apps are weak, it simply means Linux TTY/TUI software is extremely powerful.
Heres the thing, I think to a certain degree Linux is a benefit for humanity. However we need to be honest about what it is and what it is not. I think naturally rather than convincing people to switch with lies or deceit we should instead focus on strengthening the community we already have. We need more people contributing to wikis, more people on forums answeing questions, and more people in IRC/Matrix chats to help people.
My final point is this, Linux (as much as I love it) fundamentally cannot challenge Microsoft in any meaningful way. OEMs simply have no reason to switch (and in many cases Microsoft has pressured OEMs to continue using windows in an illegal manner). My point is for us thats ok, Linux right now is arguably not in a bad place. Sure there are issues with legacy apps and wayland but we are slowly progressing and with the release of Cosmic I belive Linux is progressing in a distinct manner.
literally just learn CLI, you’re actively wasting time by not learning it. It’s so hard to describe how utterly beneficial the CLI is to someone who hasn’t used it.
Stop being the person the meme is about
im correct though.
You should just learn CLI, if you’re already using linux, clearly you desire more than the “it works” approach of windows or macos. Why not improve your life by learning how to better utilize it?
This is like arguing that you shouldnt have to learn self finance because it’s a choice. Sure, but it’s an objectively stupid choice.
Stop being the person the meme is about
Why do people need to learn CLI to watch youtube and write emails? That’s all the average computer user does.
obviously you don’t have to, i just recommend, aggressively perhaps, that anybody using linux, should learn the CLI, because it’s highly advantageous.
Nope, it’s gatekeeping. I installed Ubuntu on my partner’s machine instead of paying for windows, because he only uses webapps. Learning CLI isn’t required for browsing the web, and trying to force it only makes people think it’s useless for basic shit.
I can understand people not wanting to learn a ton of CLIs, I cannot understand people refusing to use any at all. They have the distinct advantage that you can copy + paste stuff, whereas in Windows you sometimes have to follow like a dozen steps to do whatever you want to do in a 2000s GUI.
Dude, in a previous job I had a superior aggressively refuse to let me teach him how to do some extremely basic things on his computer (he’d just call me over to do it whenever he needed it done) and told me he did not know what an internet browser was (he used one everyday).
Now, I did not understand his thought process, but he exists. There are 100% people who understand the basics but experience intense cognitive stress at the mere sight of a command line.
I got blocked by someone here for the same idea that I thought was balanced: it is a useful tool, it makes it easy to share how to do something.
That’s it. Use it if you want, or don’t, but it’s not a negative thing. And I too don’t advocating sitting up at night reading man pages or anything…
I couldn’t see anyone in my family using a CLI, they’d either be scared of it or get annoyed that they have to remember things. They’d quite happily spend all day clicking around a GUI to avoid 5 seconds of scary terminal words.
I’ve used PowerShell in Windows for the past 15 years. Following dozens of steps in a GUI is not required.
I also use Linux, with bash and Python for automation. I’ve also grown to love NixOS for its automation options.
Both operating systems feature rich automation options. Both have ClickOps oriented interfaces for those that want it or are unwilling to learn to automate / use a CLI.
Doing ClickOps is a choice and a mindset, not a requirement of Windows. Using a CLI in Linux is not a requirement depending on the distro or your use case.
If you see having to use the terminal as a failure of the operating system then you shouldn’t use Linux
You don’t have to live in the terminal, but the amount of people who treat the terminal like it’s lava is too damn high.
Nah, that’s wrong.
normie users should not have to use the terminal
That just isn’t how novice users interact with a computer, though. Most mainstream OSes have GUI for anything you’d need to do as a novice.
Touching virtual buttons on a multitouch screen wasn’t how novice users interacted with a computer until it was.
To me this feels like recommending Android to someone and then people on social media saying that I’m elitist for expecting someone to use a computer with only a touchscreen when everyone knows that you interact with computers with a mouse and keyboard.
I’m not speaking hypothetically, this was the exact argument people were using when smartphones were still nerd toys and not a standard part of human experience. “Nobody will ever use them”, “they’re too confusing”, “typing on a screen is too clunky at least my flip phone has buttons”.
People can learn. As soon as the iPhone came out suddenly everyone was capable of using a touchscreen interface and learning a new OS.
Linux isn’t for everyone. But if you’re going to choose make the leap to Linux, you will be using the terminal occasionally. You don’t have to be a terminal-only user, most people use a GUI for daily tasks.
As long as you’re okay learning how to do some basic terminal tasks you’ll be fine. But if you come into with the mindset that the terminal shouldn’t be needed and get upset at people for telling you otherwise, you’re going to have a bad time.
Thing is, terminal came first, then came a gui tool make things easier, more intuitive and then came touch to make things even easier.
Saying users should just get used to using the terminal feels to me more like someone designing a smartphone in 2025, that requires you to use a trackball and physical keyboard and then complaining about people wanting touchscreens, when they clearly could just get used to the trackball.
Of course they could, but why should they want to?
Using the terminal is not the next evolution, it’s technically two steps back. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or doesn’t have it’s place. It can be incredibly efficient for power users. But most users aren’t power users. They want the operating system to get out of their way so they can focus on what they actually want to do. And that’s not learning how to update their system via the CLI.
We’re not talking about most users, Linux isn’t for everyone.
Every time this argument comes up people always point at someone like their grandmother and her inability to learn the terminal as if that is the target audience for Linux. It isn’t, Linux isn’t for everyone. It’s an operating system built by and for enthusiasts.
There has been a lot of improvements to Linux so that ‘enthusiasts’ need to do less work but even the most user friendly distro requires you to use the terminal for some tasks.
But why shouldn’t it be for everyone? Why do grandmothers have to use Windows or macOS?
I mean, yes, for now, Linux isn’t a everyman‘s OS. But why shouldn’t the community strive to make it so? Isn’t the idea behind FOSS „by the people for the people“ not „by enthusiasts for enthusiasts“?
And I’m not saying that every distro should be idiot proof. The Arches and Gentoos do have their rightful place. I just think, the mindset should be more „how can we make Linux as a whole more accessible and inviting for everyone, so FOSS can become the dominant type of software one day“ and less (and I’m exaggerating here) „how dare regular people want to benefit from the same freedom as me, this should be for enthusiasts only“.
Because at the moment, only valve is really doing something to make Linux more mainstream and do you really want that movement in the hand of a company instead of the people?
I’d take it a step further that by “by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts”, they’re really meaning “it’s for the elites”. They like that it’s hard, they had to work to learn it and they’ll be damned if anyone should get it easier, and also it’s a way to flex on people.
I may be overstating this person’s take on it and reading more into it than is there, but that’s my general view of this enthusiast (elitist) mindset, and really, it isn’t doing anyone any favors.
Regular joes can’t really hurt the direction of this ecosystem; corpos are limited in the influence they have over it, and anyone can exclude their contributions (even systemd can be left out still). But more people using it means more resources available to improve things and more interest in that happening. It also means more direct support for mainstream programs rather than just a hodge podge of companies throwing out minimally usable versions as a proof of concept and not bothering to go further with the work of Wine, Valve through Proton and Steam Deck, and CodeWeavers, to pick up the slack and try to get things to mostly work right.
Anyway, tl;dr, I agree with you… The Gentoos and Arches aren’t going away just because there’s more mainstream interest, if anything they’ll get more enthusiasts to join because they got the itch from the easier distros, much like a gateway drug.
I’d take it a step further that by “by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts”, they’re really meaning “it’s for the elites”. They like that it’s hard, they had to work to learn it and they’ll be damned if anyone should get it easier, and also it’s a way to flex on people.
I may be overstating this person’s take on it and reading more into it than is there, but that’s my general view of this enthusiast (elitist) mindset, and really, it isn’t doing anyone any favors.
You’re going to always have a negative view of people that disagree with you if you simply create an strawman position and declare it as their beliefs rather than listening to what they’re saying.
I’ve never been against GUIs, as I’ve said in my previous comments. But, like the user I was replying to, treating terminal use like a failure of UI design instead of the core reason that Linux was developed is just ignorant of the history of the operating system.
If some people want to make a fully graphical UI for the everyman, that’s perfectly fine but that is only one small use case for Linux and since, as of today, such a UI doesn’t exist then everyone using Linux will need to learn to use the terminal because some tasks will require it. That’s the reality of Linux today.
Absolutely! Honestly I feel like human apathy towards leaning new things has increased exponentially over the years. People are thinking less and less, especially with Ai enabling people to put their brain in a jar and forgo critical thinking themselves.
The difference is that the touch screen stuff was a more dumbed down experience, not an increase in difficulty and options.
Everything but ffmpeg. ffmpeg was what made me accept (with silent contempt) the Terninal on Windows, fish made me love it on linux
Most mainstream OSes have GUI for anything you’d need to do as a novice.
And how is Linux any different?
I’ve literally had a non-technical person who used Linux for less than a week fix an issue through the xfce gui while I was googling a solution.
You just need to choose a correct distro and DE for the job.
This is the kind of mindset that prevents mass adoption of Linux. Sure the terminal should be available but there still should be distros catering to less tech-savvy people if we want the year of the Linux desktop to arrive at all. Some governments are looking to replace Windows with Linux, and you cannot expect the average desk worker to know or even care about doing stuff in a terminal.
You don’t need to do everything on the terminal – even today, you don’t have to. But you should not fear the terminal, the same way you should not fear a piano because you play a violin. Windows also has a terminal, there’s stuff that tells you to go there to enable some Powershel things, and no one complains.
Great comparison, because playing either piano or violin is beyond 99% of all people who just want to listen to music. Common users and office workers have never even heard of Powershell.
You should not have to learn for years before being comfortable using a computer. If everyone has to do that it’s not something that will be adopted widely, as we can obviously see with Linux on Desktop. It’s both a Software problem (either lack thereof or bad design) as well as a culture problem; the latter is what I criticize, because it’s so utterly unnecessary and alienates common people.
And the Windows Shell really isn’t comparable, it’s 100% optional.
Terminal usage is a tool just like GUI tools, I don’t think it’s helpful either to preload people with the belief that it’s some arcane tool that takes years before you can start using it, like anything you pick it up by doing.
Can’t really say it’s 100% optional as a blanket case either, heavily depends on a user, my work I’ve depended on having a terminal for years, and that was even before I moved into SWE, I’ve seen lots of business developed processes put together as an amalgam of batch files, VBA/VBS, and python because they needed to put something together with what they had rights to.
Be honest that I don’t see the terminal as a barrier to Linux anyhow, for the use case of “I browse the internet and use office programs”, you absolutely do not need to drop to the CLI, at least not for Debian or Mint, can handle installs and updates through their graphical package managers. Most people probably aren’t setting up services or the like on their machines, and if they are they already require terminal usage on any operating system.
You don’t need years for a terminal, at least not for the stuff a normal user would have to expect to do with it (so eg.: not browsing files, that has good UIs already). But you should expect to have to learn something. We require people to learn and even certify their learning when they are to drive a car for example, and for computers we are not even askng 1/6th of that, even tho the last few decades show we maybe should.
Why? A computer is not a car. You should have to learn to use certain programs, sure. Can’t expect people to master spreadsheet or video editing programs by default. And maybe you should learn about the dangers of the Internet. But, at least in my opinion, the operating system should require as little attention as possible. It should be as intuitive as possible for anyone touching it for the first time. CLI is useful, sure. But it’s definitely not intuitive and thus inaccessible for many users.
The moment you need a secondary resource to be able to use your system, that system has failed for the vast majority of users. And it’s near impossible to learn how to use the terminal without a secondary resource. A good GUI you can figure out pretty quickly.
Learn for years? Dude you just search on the internet if you need to find out how to do something in the terminal that you don’t know how to do. This isn’t the 90s where you had to have a bookshelf of technical manuals to install and run your favorite distro.
Lol okay, just enter a command from the internet you don’t understand. What can possibly go wrong? The learning isn’t about being able to enter something, but to know what not to copy and paste. Just executing commands from the internet is the fastest way to fuck up your computer, to use the CLI regularly you have to understand what happens. And to do so is something that grows over years; years of broken systems, at least if you wildly enter stuff from the internet.
This is not good enough if we ever want Linux to be mass adopted. And expecting it is even worse if this is to ever change; In my many years being into Linux I read outright warnings for e.g. Linux Mint users to not ever look for help outside of Mint forums because of this culture. Which is ridiculous, it shouldn’t be this way.
Then you have the security issue that comes from teaching users they should just trust whatever random people tell them to do when facing an issue with their computer.
That would be an issue with a GUI too though.
You can’t do as much damage with a GUI that tells you what you’re doing in regular language vs commands.
sudo rm -rf /* means nothing to a newbie
“Reset to factory settings” is pretty freaking clear
Now you’re just lying. I’m literally a non-programmer & it took me 1 month to properly learn the basics of CLI.
The lengths you terminal-haters will go to, oh man
You really don’t understand who you’re talking to here. The average person hasn’t heard about browser extensions. I’m serious. The amount of even engineers that work with me who are incredibly good at one specific thing, like autocad design, but don’t really know or care about general computer things is pretty high, let alone non technical personnel. I’ve had people ask me to explain extensions and how to use ad blocking software. People just want a computer that works and does the thing they want it to without fancy things.
People don’t fear the terminal, they just don’t understand it and they don’t care to memorize things to learn it. If Linux wants to be an end user desktop, you need to do everything by the GUI. What is intuitive, interesting and easy to you is a nightmare for other people. I’m assuming vice versa if the accountant gives you a 10 dimension excel spreadsheet or something. It might just be me projecting my fear of accounting excel spreadsheets.
Year of the Linux desktop but it’s chrome os? :-)
Noooo go away and take that monkey’s paw with you :(
While I agree with you that reluctance to use the terminal for literally anything is way too high, regular users shouldn’t have to. And some distros make that easy for them to never have to stick a toe into the terminal, and this is not a bad thing.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that there are some tasks that can be done in a GUI.
I don’t believe that any Linux DE is at the point where a regular user never needs to use the terminal. Knowing how to use the terminal is, currently, a required skill for using Linux.
Now, don’t take this to mean that I think someone’s grandmother needs to be a terminal user. By “regular user” I mean “average person who has chosen to use Linux” and not “random person off the streets”, that person should probably use Windows still because Linux isn’t ready for everyone.
some linux users dream of having their grandma run linux so they never have to look at windows or macos ever again
I’ve gone back and forth on this topic over the years, but I’ve finally just come to the conclusion that the year of the Linux Desktop just…shouldn’t come, and I hate when I see this argument that people shouldn’t have to learn to use the terminal.
The terminal is about as difficult to learn as a Word Processor or a Spreadsheet Application.
Sure, it can get complicated sometimes, but most of the time you just become familiar with your daily habits in it and when something weird comes up that’s what a search engine is for.
A lot of the time when I hear “Computer users shouldn’t have to learn how to use the terminal,” what I hear is “Computer users shouldn’t have to learn how to use the Computer.”
f you want to play basketball but don’t want to pick up a ball or learn how to dribble, then you don’t want to play basketball. Maybe you just like to watch basketball?
But using a computer is not a spectator sport, you’re typing and clicking and touching, etc. You’re interacting with the computer, and thusly you have to speak it’s language, at least a little, to get stuff done.
Additionally, most Linux Distros these days have made things incredibly user friendly, just not as braindead easy as Windows or MacOS.
Beginner friendly distros (Ubuntu, Mint) generally require you to open up a terminal to update your system and install/uninstall new software, and that’s usually all you have to do. That is a couple commands to remember and one password.
If most people can’t manage that then, yeah, I’m sorry, Linux will never be for you, and distros shouldn’t inherently have to create an autoupdate fix all errors back end for you just for the sake of getting every idiot under the sun using Linux.
You don’t want to learn how to use the terminal? Then you don’t want to use Linux. You just hate Windows, and hating Windows does not mean you love Linux.
Saucy rant over.
But why not make Linux idiot proof? What would you lose from the existence of a distro that has an easy gui tool for everything an average computer user would ever do?
The terminal wouldn’t go away or lose it’s functionality, if that’s how you prefer doing things but it would open up the benefits of Linux to a way bigger audience.
Because knowing how to use a terminal is not the same as knowing how to use a computer. Windows doesn’t need you to use the cmd for anything most people would ever do. Neither does macOS, Android, iOS, even ChromeOS. Only Linux can’t get rid of that stigma and I just don’t get why.
Why is it better to force users to run updates via the terminal than having a menu for that in the settings or the „AppStore“ (graphical package manager) or a „Update“ app?
Why don’t you want Linux to become easy enough to use that my grandma could handle it?
Because the use of the terminal is as intuitive as using a Word Processor. Learning to use the terminal is as important as learning how to type. Without this knowledge, I’d argue you’re not using your computer, you’re spectating. Which is fine if you’re paying for support, but with Linux you are doing no such thing unless you use Redhat.
As soon as computers hit the general public, there should have been a mass effort to teach people that the terminal is the main interface through which everything happens on a computer, just like there were a ton of men suddenly learning to type in the early 70s when computing suddenly became important to everyday work. Prior to that typing was considered the sole domain of female secretaries. But this never happened for use of the terminal for better or worse.
Ultimately I get that people don’t have time to learn everything, but, again, the terminal is as ubiquitous as the Word Processor and ten thousand times more powerful. The fact it is not a staple in the arsenal of anyone who has ever sat in front of a Computer screen is a sad state of affairs.
The argument I’m making is that we have multiple generations of people where the majority of them simply don’t speak the language of computers while the majority of them have to use them everyday. It’s no wonder they all get so frustrated. If only someone had taught them how to use it in the first place rather than gave them a bandaid solution that hides the majority of what’s happening behind the scenes.
While frustrating to learn at first, that is all learning, it is always hard to learn something new. Picking up a Word Processor is hard, learning to use Graphics Manipulation Program is hard, etc. But people rarely argue you shouldn’t learn to use those tools, even though the terminal is just as essential to modern computer use as those tools. Again, we have multiple generations who generally lack the knowledge on how to use something as essential as the Word Processor, and that is a damn shame.
The CLI is very much an enthusiast/professional tool. It isn‘t and it shouldn’t be the default in this day and age. Saying everyone should know how to use the CLI is like saying everyone should know how to use a DSLR camera instead of just relying on their phone’s or everyone should know how to drive a manual transmission car. Those are all great skills to have but most people just want a snapshot or a car that gets them from A to B safely. They don’t want to think about it. And most people just want a computer that gets out of their way. And why shouldn’t they have it?
And I’m not saying the terminal shouldn’t exist and that people shouldn’t be encouraged to learn about how it functions. But there should always be the option to completely avoid it. Because of you want mainstream adoption, you need to face the sad reality, that the Mainstream doesn’t want to look under the hood. And if you don’t want mainstream adoption, why?
I do want mainstream adoption … of the terminal. The terminal is not just a professional tool. In fact, whenever anything goes wrong with your computer silently, I can almost guarantee there’s some helpful output that you’d see had you been invoking that program from the terminal. So what ends up happening? You go to a “professional” who looks at that output, search engines the output, and uses the online documentation to attempt a fix.
The analogy to the car is somewhat apt. I’d argue we’d all be better off if we knew how to at least do some basic mechanic work. This is the same thing. I’m not saying we all need to live in the terminal…I’m saying we all should know the very basics around it. Update our system, read and search error problems should they arise, and know when and where to reach out to others for help when we can’t solve it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest everybody learn a tool, especially when, again, that tool becomes ubiquitous amongst anyone who does any troubleshooting with computers on a regular basis (i.e. everyone who ever encountered an error ever).
I don’t care about mainstream Linux adoption. I care about mainstream curiosity into how things we use everyday work and attaining a basic knowledge of it.
Many attempts have been made at graphical package updaters, and honestly they always end up just outputting an error message when something goes wrong. The reason it frustrates new users so much is that they aren’t used to having to troubleshoot their own systems. If they don’t wish to do so, that’s fine, but then they should pay for support since that requires other people’s time, efforts, and skills to do so.
Arguing that everything should just work on Linux, a free OS, without having to troubleshoot things on your own (which, again, 99% of the time, involves the terminal regardless of what OS you’re using), is simply a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If you want to run Linux, and you refuse to pay for it, then complain that it should be more “user friendly”, which is just another way of saying “I want tech support but don’t want to pay for it”, then it shows you probably shouldn’t be using that OS, and maybe you don’t understand even the basics of how a computer works?
If you’re just not willing to do even the bare minimum to open up a terminal, attempt to run the program, read the output, and then research said output, then you should be on a platform that will provide the support you need should anything go wrong. In other words, you should be on Windows or MacOS.
If you all want the year of the Linux Desktop, and you all seem to be proclaiming it can’t happen until it can operate without the use of the terminal, then you should pay a group of developers to develop it and provide support for it. Until then, you are the maintainer of your own computer, and you should probably just do the work and open the terminal up and do the bare minimum, or shutup and go back to Windows/MacOS.
Edit: wording/grammar.
The terminal will never reach mainstream adoption because it already had in the 80s and 90s and people progressed away from CLI and towards GUI. It’s archaic. It’s a fallback. It’s useful, sure. I use it regularly. But not because I‘d not just prefer having a graphical front end. It’s only more useful because the respective front end is lacking.
Also, the „shut up and go use Windows/macOS“ attitude seems very elitist to me. You‘d rather have the non techies suffer high prices, privacy violations, etc., have them suffer microsoft/Apple instead of making the system more inviting for them? And you‘d rather have another company (like valve is doing right now btw) swoop in and offer what you refuse to entertain because you want everyone to do things the way you like to do things.
I am very proficient with the terminal. But there are many use cases when I want a OS that does not need the terminal at all. For instances media dedicated pcs.
I have a pc that I only use from the couch, for playing games a viewing media, and using the terminal from my remote size keyboard is a bore, I would prefer a 100% gui solution for that usage.
For gaming and media consumption, you can run Steam Big Picture Mode or Plex/Jellyfin which are designed for controller use.
But you’re not doing system administration with a TV remote on any operating system. By having a system that you can fully control from the terminal, you can just ssh into it to fix any issues without wasting system resources on a GUI that you will rarely use.
my friend, I want to impart something on you. I write this with the sincere hope it changes your mind.
The average user of a computer does not want to even think about the operating system it uses.
Most people, myself included, want to work on our computer, not work on our computer (which is why I use Mint). An operating system should be the software version of a motherboard – an invisible plinth upon which all the other things you actually care about, sit. In a hardware context the things you care about are all the components plugged into the motherboard – your GPU, CPU, RAM, storage devices, and so on. In a software context, this is email, web browsing, video games, and office software, the programs the average user actually gives a shit about. Notice: Nowhere in that list does it say getting up into the systems guts via terminal or command prompt or whatever flavor of blinking cursor you prefer. Most users just want their programs to run and to never think about the underlying system, and that is okay. Not everyone needs to be technical, and shouldn’t have to be to use a computer and reap the full benefits of using one. I choose to be because I’m a fucking spaz, but that doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t want to be should instead be condemned to inferior offerings from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. If Linux were, indeed, the best – as Microsoft seems determined to prove via Windows enshittification – then it should be, ideally, just as easy for nontechnical people to pick up as Windows. If it isn’t, that’s a problem with Linux that is yet to be solved, not a problem with people.
Fortunately, my experience using Mint for the past year has been largely exactly that. It’s very close to that ideal, if not already there – I’ve had a few very minor issues, but, nothing I was unable to fix via a quick internet search.
I say all this in the hope you’ll understand, if you want Linux to take off, it needs to be accessible to the average idiot. It must be, because I don’t know if you’ve seen the news, but we are not cumulatively getting smarter.
The average user of a computer does not want to even think about the operating system it uses.
That is certainly true.
Not everyone needs to be technical, and shouldn’t have to be to use a computer and reap the full benefits of using one. I choose to be because I’m a fucking spaz, but that doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t want to be should instead be condemned to inferior offerings from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. If Linux were, indeed, the best – as Microsoft seems determined to prove via Windows enshittification – then it should be, ideally, just as easy for nontechnical people to pick up as Windows. If it isn’t, that’s a problem with Linux that is yet to be solved, not a problem with people. […] I say all this in the hope you’ll understand, if you want Linux to take off, it needs to be accessible to the average idiot.
You seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying.
I am not here as a Linux evangelical, trying to spread the
Source CodeWord of Linus. It’s admirable that you want that, you should contribute to the many open source projects that are bringing that closer to reality.I’m here as a user of Linux trying to read Linux memes in c/linuxmemes and so I focus my attention on the present state of being a user in Linux, not some hypothetical reality that, though desirable, doesn’t yet exist.
In the current state of things, Linux is not for everyone. It is a good operating system, but not everyone has the time to use it. I will certainly tell people of the advantages that it has over Windows and, for those capable, I will recommend it.
For the people that choose to use Linux today, the 1st of April in the Year of our Lord 2025: you will have to use the Terminal. It isn’t optional. Nor, despite the griping of newbies, is it a difficult thing to learn and you should become comfortable with it if you want to be a successful user of Linux. Artificially limiting yourself to GUI applications is going to make the operating system seem less capable than it actually is and you will be frustrated by a much larger set of problems.
Until that glorious day in The Future when the universal GUI DE comes out, learn to use the terminal.
I have no idea what CLI is. I just use Mint and don’t put much thought in.
The command line allows people to help troubleshoot problems across Linux dostros without everyone’s desktop having to look exactly the same.
Stop whining, you ninnies, it’s a good thing!
Ah, the classic “CLI commands are universal” nonsense. Isn’t even true with poweruser distros (look at Alpine or Nix), but neither with common ones. But I’m sure reinstalling grub on a systemd-boot distro can’t be that bad, right? Here, quickly install something to fix that. Oh, your distro doesn’t apt but pacman/dnf/zypper/whatever? Too bad, don’t know those. Wait, why is that config file missing? Oh, your distro saves it somewhere else, sure hope you didn’t copy some script from the internet that now failed halfway through!
Surely after copy-pasting all those commands the other person has learned something to help themselves next time, other than that they’re utterly lost on Linux without the help of others. This will definitely make people use Linux instead of going back to the exploitative OS they know where they at least feel comfortable enough to know it won’t fail on them.
Lol. Navigating through menu-in-popup-in-window-in-tab-in-popup or adding/changing registry keys you understand nothing about is surely superior, right?
I haven’t seen anyone complain about that, complaining about freedom is a red-flag
I have fixed loads & loads of issues via cli. I don’t even know what the hell you’re on about. Sounds like a skill issue, tbh.
Copy-pasting commands from search results instead of learning how the applications installed on their machine work. It’s a lot deeper than skill issue…
You guys seem so utterly disconnected from the common user’s perspective it’s not even funny anymore. Expecting everyone to learn all those CLI tools and system components they may encounter… I hope you guys are also mechatronics engineers if you drive cars, botanists if you have a garden and at least intermediate chefs if you own more than the most basic kitchen.
Please go out and talk with some people who’re NOT into tech about this stuff, it’s a sobering experience.
What a fucking leap. CLI does not equal complexity.
If you can write and read, you can use a CLI. Can you read and write? Great, you can learn CLI cmds.
People don’t want to use CLIs because unless you’ve been using computers before windows 95, chances are that all your life you’ve been using a GUI, and humans in general don’t like changes.
Going from Windows to any Linux distro is a big enough leap, and adding a new way to interact with your tool on top of that is too much at once for the vast majority of people.
With that said, a lot of Windows issues require you to use the CLI and mess with regedit to fix them. How is that any different than asking people to run a diagnostic command to troubleshoot their PC?
You can use a Linux distro through a GUI pretty much 99.9% of the time, just like Windows. The only difference is that on Linux, the CLI is much more powerful than the GUI, so the majority of users will use the CLI to troubleshoot.
If I can’t be expected to remember
sudo dnf update -ywhy would I be able to remember a whole ass recipe, or how to care for plants, or how to change my oil? There’s no GUI to tell me how much nitrogen my soil needs, I can’t be expected to learn anything!Because a GUI conveys meaning, because humans are intrinsically better at memorizing shapes and location than some random abstract characters that do not mean anything to then unless you use them all the time. Because a System Settings panel with submenus and descriptions on their checkboxes and sliders is the manual AND the option simultaneously, small “?” with hover-over information boxes make it optimal. A GUI can go so far to turn completely red to signal dangerous settings, the CLI will happily oblige in whatever stupid command you enter. Hell, even god damn APT had NO option to warn users that they’re about to uninstall core system components until a big Youtuber like LTT had his distro blow up in his face. And STILL there were those people who tirelessly argued against a god damn warning… and colored text.
GUI is by design better at guardrailing, meanwhile in the CLI a single wrong command with sudo in front can destroy your entire OS.
I can’t fathom how this isn’t painfully obvious to anyone who thinks about this for even a moment…
And yet you expect me to be able to figure out paella or my soil PH without a GUI? I’m expected to learn what color means what on these test strips and measure ingredients with different sized spoons? This is madness!
Dude the only people expecting shit are the ones who get mad when they migrate to Linux and won’t just learn a few simple tools to make their life easier.
Your package manager commands and options and some basic tools to troubleshoot local networking are really not that fucking hard.
Your package manager commands and options and some basic tools to troubleshoot local networking are really not that fucking hard.
Who are you trying to fool, yourself or others? Setting up networking in the CLI isn’t even remotely as simple / straightforward as you make it seem for the common user. Package manager commands are reasonable, however also by far less enticing to most people than a graphical software manager that shows all information at a glance. Especially if you look for something for a certain purpose instead of a specific name.
It may seem hard at first, it’s just that people are scared of the terminal. It’s not as if widely used programs with fancy UIs aren’t also complex.
I’m understanding of people who are just using their computer for web browsing and email, but I’m directing ire towards Windows power users who just expect certain tool sets to materialize for them.
I’m not in tech at all, I’ve just learned to use my operating system over time. It’s really not that hard & now I prefer command line sometimes b/c it’s just faster.
What’s really weird is your complete aversion to learning a new utility & your bizarre shaming of people for being knowledgeable about their tools.
You don’t need to be into tech stuff. You can do everything in CLI that you can do in GUI (but not necessarily vice-versa). Just because you are better with visual shit doesn’t mean that either approach is “right” or “wrong.”
if you’re using systemd, 90% of your system maintenance and boot handling is going to be running through systemd, so it’s likely to be pretty syntactically similar.
other than that they’re utterly lost on Linux without the help of others. This will definitely make people use Linux instead of going back to the exploitative OS they know where they at least feel comfortable enough to know it won’t fail on them.
yknow, unless they do actual debug. Everytime i’ve seen someone go over an issue they have with linux, via someone else, it follow the process of debug, troubleshoot, solve. Where you must necessarily learn something. Maybe not as much as when you figure it out yourself, but group troubleshooting is often more efficient.
Not to mention all of the resources and information out there to actually figure out what’s happening is so much more accessible.
When are you REQUIRED to use cli? The app store works well, many apps have installers, and will be perfect for average users.
Advanced users should already be familiar with CLI and just need to learn a little more.
To be fair the absolute majority of online help posts involve the CLI. Want to change language on my Debian install? It’s off to the CLI!
But they come with instructions usually. Copy paste done.
Sure, but if CLI is for advanced users and the community points towards CLI for changing the GUI language, is changing language an advanced task? Is the community making it more difficult/intimidating than necessary?
In my case I had to pull the language data AND use a TUI configuration to change language. No biggie for someone who’s comfortable with CLI, an unsurmountable hinder for those not comfortable with the terminal.
inb4 “Why didn’t you use the built in GUI?”. Desired language wasn’t an option and no obvious way to DL it either.
Yes I agree this could be made easier. When did you do this, maybe it’s been added since?
To be honest, I have no idea where to install language packs for windows either.
Bugfixing.
Falls under advanced users or copy paste from forums with instructions.
There’s quite some hypocrisy in learning to use windows, its obscure registry and the shady softwares that will tune it while refusing to copy commands in a terminal.
Yeah, but regedit is a GUI. So it’s all cool and dandy.
A true mainstream Linux distro would need guidelines like this:
- The user is never be expected to type a command into a terminal.
- The user is never be expected to edit a configuration file.
- There is a graphical UI for every possible action the user might want to (or have to) do.
This especially includes:
- Configuring audio devices
- Installing graphics drivers
- Updating the operating system
- Managing applications and storage space
- Connecting to networked storage
- Adjusting kernel parameters (This is neccessary on certain hardware, yet, barely any distro has a graphical UI for it.)
The only distro that comes close to this is Linux Mint, but not even Mint covers everything I just mentioned.
If we want Linux to succeed, there needs to be at least one distro that confidently ships without a terminal.
The user is never be expected to type a command into a terminal.
Nope! Absolutely not. This is where Windows 95 fucked us all over. Prior to 95, windows was an application executed from a DOS prompt. Users may not have known many commands, but they learned that commands could be given.
Windows 95 tried to convince us that a GUI developer knew better than the user everything the user wanted to be able to do with that computer. It did make simple use easier, but the way it did it was by hiding the average user away from any simple ability to automate. It took away virtually all command line utilities that could be scripted to run themselves, and replaced them with GUI-driven applications that required the human’s time and attention, repeatedly and monotonously sorting through graphical menus and prompts to achieve a task that the computer could easily be “trained” to do itself. It did it by dumbing down the user, reducing their expectations to the few idea the GUI allowed them to express.
GUIs are Fisher-Price toys. They are the bright and shiny, but functionally crippled. There is no need for a distro that deliberately impairs the user in the way that you describe.
I understand where you’re coming from, but this may simply be a difference in goals.
If your goal is that people become more computer-literate, then yes, perhaps we should use the GUI less. People who are already Linux users aren’t going to have that big of an issue using apt instead of a GUI software manager.
If your goal is that more people use Linux, then you need to have GUI support. If anything else, it eases them in so that they’re not drinking from the firehose all at once.
My litmus test would be “could I feasibly teach my grandparents how to use this?” Which I think is true of Linux Mint (yes, you need terminal for good driver management, but it’s not like my grandparents do that via Windows GUI)
Also, I’m not really aware of any Linux distros that remove command line utilities - mostly, they just have the same thing in both GUI and commands
indeed 30 years ago it might have made sense. But it’s 2025 now users want the less pain in the neck usage of a os. if my whole family is to use a Linux environement thet moment they will see a consol they will run away.
if my whole family is to use a Linux environement thet moment they will see a consol they will run away.
Then they will never script anything. They will never automate a task themselves. They will only ever operate a computer manually, interactively, rather than programmatically.
Windows pushed users to remain toddlers their entire lives. They charge us for the privilege, so they want to keep spoon feeding us for our entire lives. When we see a spoon anywhere but in their hands, they want us to throw it across the room rather than pick it up and try to use it.
Microsoft wants your family to run away screaming, rather than asking what that console is and what it can do.
The objective of Linux is to put the spoon on the tray of your toddler’s high chair. Linux encourages her to pick it up, poke it at her food, and keep encouraging her to learn, to develop and build on her skills, until she is asking for the fork, the knife.
Then they will never script anything. They will never automate a task themselves. They will only ever operate a computer manually, interactively, rather than programmatically.
Here’s the thing.
Most people don’t care about automation. They just don’t.
The objective of Linux is to put the spoon on the tray of your toddler’s high chair. Linux encourages her to pick it up, poke it at her food, and keep encouraging her to learn, to develop and build on her skills, until she is asking for the fork, the knife.
And your still refusing the point. People don’t want a knife and a fork. You can’t make them want it. They want something they can intuitively understand. Because to most people, tech is a basic tool to get another job done.
Most people only need a basic hammer, screwdriver, etc…
That’s all they need to do what they need day to day to get other things done.
Machinists need more complicated tools with tons of settings, complicated setup and saftey to know. So they spend the time learning. But you don’t need a wood shop to hang a picture frame.
This is before we even talk about accessibility. That means much more than large fonts or screen readers. It’s also about the fact humans exist on distribution curves in every possible way. For some people, it will just never make sense. No matter what you do. Because it’s just not how their brains work. In the same way mine can’t do languages very well. It just doesn’t click for me. And deep dives into computers wont click for some. Should they never learn to use a computer? Or can they learn basic enough functions from good GUIs to get by.
It’s even fine to say linux isn’t meant for that. But if you want everyone to get away from macOS and Windows, you need a viable alternative for everyone
Most people don’t care about automation. They just don’t.
Microsoft would certainly have us believe that. Decades of operant conditioning by Microsoft and Apple have given us that attitude.
Most people certainly do want automation; they don’t know how to automate. There was a meme floating around recently about a temp who replaced hours and hours of tedious, daily transcription between two applications with ctrl-c, ctrl-v.
We have all seen plenty of examples like this, with users doing excessive manual labor out of simple ignorance of absurdly simple automation.
And your still refusing the point.
The point arises from the very attitude I am challenging, so yes, I am refusing the point. We should not be encouraging or supporting the behaviors you describe, but should instead be promoting the tools that allow the average user to identify menial tasks and relegate them to the machine.
So fuck people with disabilities then?
Your still believe computers are machines and not hand tools at this point.
How much copy paste do you think the average user actually uses of their computer?
deleted by creator
Dude, nobody wants to take away the CLI on Linux
…
If we want Linux to succeed, there needs to be at least one distro that confidently ships without a terminal.
Just realized that person above wants that. Was too focused on the part you quoted, my bad. That’s indeed outlandish.
No worries!
What is your goal? Are you content with Linux being niche?
If not, what group do you think this appeals to?
The casual device user continues to ignore Windows desktops and use their phone let alone Linux at this point.
The normie desktop user who just wants a internet browser and basic office software can easily be won over to Linux Mint. You advocating everything be CLI based will kill that.
The casual desktop enthusiast & PC gamer will get irritated and impatient and go back to comfy Windows. They mostly just want their games to run smoothly and maybe look pretty. Maybe install an application that does something moderately technical for them with tweaks here and there.
You already have the hardcore techy users. They don’t need to be converted.
In my opinion, Linux and its various distro’s main goal ought to be to undermine for-profit OS. Not to turn everyone into computer techs. The latter is a pipe dream anyway.
In my opinion, Linux and its various distro’s main goal ought to be to undermine for-profit OS. Not to turn everyone into computer techs.
Turning everyone into “computer techs” is how we undermine for-profit OS. The command line is a spoon. In the hand of a toddler, it goes flying across the room, along with the mashed potatoes it held. Microsoft’s answer to that flying spoon is to teach the kid that they can never touch the spoon; they must let mommy do it for them (and here is “mommy’s” bill for that “service”).
Microsoft teaches that it is a “pipe dream” for the average person to ever have sufficient mastery over the spoon to be able to feed themselves. They taught us that spoons are scary and dangerous.
Linux keeps putting that spoon on her tray, and encouraging her to use it.
My “goal” has less to do with bringing Linux to the masses and more with bringing the masses to Linux. The “pipe dream” argument you presented should not be ported in. The “normie” should be taught from a very young age that the command line isn’t “unfriendly”, but wildly powerful, and well within their capacity to wield.
Do you also think that anyone that wants a car should be a mechanic? Anyone that wants a house should be a builder? Anyone that wants to have electricity should be a electrician? Anyone that wants to listen to music should be a musician? Anyone that wants to eat they should learn how to farm? Anyone that wants a drug should be a pharmacist?
People put their time and effort in different things, you might’ve learned how to program and became tech literate, but that doesn’t mean everyone else wants or should do the same.
Sure life would be easier if everyone was an expert in every field, but that’s a clearly ridiculous proposition.
Maybe realize the sheer privilege that is wanting everyone to be a “computer tech” just because you are one yourself. Maybe realize that the only reason you can afford to be a “computer tech” is because someone else is a “hardware tech” or a “architecture tech” or a “electricity tech” or whatever else, and those people would likely also want you to be a “tech” in their field so they don’t need to make things that “just work” for non-“tech” people.
Do you also think that anyone that wants a car should be a mechanic?
I reject the premise.
I think that anyone who wants to be a driver should be able to understand that the brake pedal squeezes the pads against the rotor.
I don’t think that everyone who can identify a brake rotor is a mechanic.
Anyone that wants a drug should be a pharmacist?
I think that anyone who wants any sort of medicine should have enough medical, mathematical, and statistical knowledge to understand that vaccines don’t cause autism. I don’t think that everyone with such knowledge is a pharmacist, mathematician, or statistician.
The idea that the command line is “unfriendly” and that decelopers should hide it away is, in my opinion, the computer equivalent of the antivax movement.
I reject the premise.
Here is a simpler one:
People see computers the same way they see clothes, it’s a tool for a job. Some people know a lot about them and some people make their living making or modifying them. But most people just want it to be usable.
In the same vein, saying people should be able to use the terminal to use a computer is like saying that people should be able to sew to wear clothes.
Much like how people don’t want to pick up a needle to patch a hole in their clothes, they don’t want to mess with the terminal to troubleshoot any errors. People expect things to “just work” and that’s not an unreasonable expectation.
It’s easy for you to say that everyone should just know how to use the terminal, but it’s also easy for someone that sews to say that everyone should know how to use a sewing machine; or for someone that likes hardware to say everyone should be able to open their computers and swap components; or for someone that how to drive to say that everyone should know too; or for someone that diets a lot to say that everyone should know how to count calories; etc. etc. etc.
Point is that people learn different things, not everyone has the same interests or specialties. And just because they don’t share specialties, doesn’t mean they should be shut out of important or useful tools.
P.S.: the antivax movement happens because of lack of trust in medical institutions. People should be able to trust qualified doctors to inform them and recommend proper procedures, people shouldn’t need to be “medicine savvy” enough to know what each drug or procedure does before they seek treatment. If anything, this need for “medicine savviness” is what pushes people into “doing their own research” and becoming antivax.
they don’t want to mess with the terminal to troubleshoot any errors.
I reject your premise that the purpose of the terminal is to troubleshoot errors. That is part of the widespread misconception I am talking about.
The terminal is simply for using the computer. With all the command line utilities available, and their widespread interoperability, the terminal should be one of the first tools a user looks for.
A GUI is a hammer. The CLI is the Snap-On tool truck.
Microsoft is not the reason I believe its a pipedream to turn people into computer techs. Its a cold hard reality.
Even particularly smart people have to want to be computer techs. I work with teachers, genuinely smart people, who have zero desire or motivation to learn computer use outside how it can help them teach in a fairly “if its not broke don’t fix it” mentality. They aren’t incurious but they have limited time and resources and they use such elsewhere. My attempts to get them to even try Linux Mint has thus far failed, the idea that I could get them to learn CLI is absurd.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe even dim wits could learn to be computer techs and use a command line, but that requires them to want that. Most people do not intrinsically desire that.
Most people do not intrinsically desire that.
The only things that people “intrinsically” want are food and fornication. Everything else, they have been taught and trained. The training they have received from Microsoft domination has been “don’t learn how to use a computer”.
That training is something to despise and reject, not incorporate into Linux.
The only things that people “intrinsically” want are food and fornication. Everything else, they have been taught and trained.
EVERYTHING? I enjoy doing things that aren’t eating and sex on a intrinsic level that I was never trained to enjoy. I just… wanted to do those things. A lot of things are intrinsically fun that are not eating and sex.
The training they have received from Microsoft domination has been “don’t learn how to use a computer”.
Why didn’t people adopt personal computers en masse before Windows came to be then? After Windows 3.0, personal ownership of computers more than doubled over the course of 5-6 years and then continued to balloon, speeding up adoption well beyond the previous decade.
Look, I’m not a fan of Microsoft either but this is conspiracism.
EVERYTHING? I enjoy doing things that aren’t eating and sex on a intrinsic level that I was never trained to enjoy.
No, not “intrinsically”, you don’t. Food, fuck, sleep, that’s about it. You likely enjoy other things as well, but not intrinsically. I enjoy Sudoku, but that is something I learned. There is no “enjoy sudoko” element within me that I did not put there myself.
Why didn’t people adopt personal computers en masse before Windows came to be then?
They did. Everyone I knew back in the Windows 3.1 days already had computers. Most of those people didn’t have Windows, and used standalone applications. The increase in ownership came when hardware prices finally fell enough for them to be affordable. Windows development was a result of that uptick, not the cause.
OpenSuse does all of this or almost all of this.
I’ve been a happy daily linux user for over 20 years. No need to wait for “linux to succeed” whatever that means. It has gotten better and more advanced every year since I first switched.
There can never be a distro that ships without a terminal. I will burn it with the fire of a thousand suns. Even Windows has a terminal
They don’t need to take away the command line. Just to make it so a low skill user can get by without it. Even windows ships with PowerShell.
You were absolutely right about everything up until your very last sentence.
We need a distro that comes with GUIs for everything indeed, but shipping without a terminal would be both a bad idea and would cause the distro maintainer to go up in flames immediately.
Interesting, i kinda read that quickly and took awsay from it more of a
Ships without the expectation to need a terminal, not actually ship without one at all
Every KDE distro can do all of these except whatever adjusting kernel parameters means? I don’t know how to do any of this in the command and I’ve been using Linux for 8 years.
I dont understand, why do we want Linux to go mainstream? Eveyone constantly says it yet nobody has an answer. In order to become mainstream it would need to be so dumbed down that people like me would stop using it.
Windows doesn’t even cover everything you just said. The number of times Windows 10 broke my Bluetooth devices and I had to much around in registry to remove the device profile just to try to repair the device, is part of the reason I switched to Linux in the first place.
Yes, many distros need a little refining and smoothing for the general public, but only because people are so used to dealing with bullshit troubleshooting on Windows that they don’t see it as bullshit anymore.
That’s a low bar, but importantly they’re still correct that technically Windows looks like it can handle those things as far as a regular consumer can see. Windows is unholy trash, but it at least doesn’t tell people who can’t even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands they likely found on a forum or third-party website.
Personally I think a little more tinkering spirit would do the whole world good, not just with computers, but reality is the way that it is for the moment(things can change, fingers crossed).
but at least people who can’t even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands.
This! I work in IT, in fact, I’m the director of both the IT and software teams at my company and I am constantly teaching my new techs and reminding my existing techs that they need to remember just how little the “average” person knows about computers, and how much more that is than what they’d actually care to learn.
99% of people don’t care about computers, or how to make things “more efficient”, or anything else. They just care about the easiest way to do something. And like it or not, the easiest way for the vast majority of people is through a GUI.
There is even an XKCD about this
And that’s even before you get to the security problems! I am constantly trying to prevent users from going to FreeNuclearCodes.com or sending passwords and social security numbers to [email protected] (actual email address I had to block last week)
Been using fedora on a laptop for a year with no command line intervention.
I don’t mind the command line, but it has been uneccesary.
No pc OS available meets your requirements for this lol, not linux, windowns or crapple osx
Sure would be nice if linux was the first available though.
The reason I had no problem whatsoever editing config files is because I’d been doing it for decades already in Windows with .ini files.
And not needing a terminal is different than not having access to one. Windows has a terminal.
I think it even ships with 3(?) terminals for some reason now for some reason lol
Seriously - Linux needs a standardized config schema spec. Something that programs should provide which an application can read and provide a frontend interface for the users to adjust config files.
Could be something like:
schema_version: 1.0 application: name: Poo Analyzer icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/icon.png description: Analyzes photos of poo schema: - config_file: path: /etc/pooanalyzer/conf/poo.conf conf_type: ini configs: - field: poo_directory type: dir_path name: Poo Image Directory description: Directory of Poo Images icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/poo.png - field: poo_type type: list name: Poo Types description: Types of Poo to Analyze values: - dog - cat - human - brown bear icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/animal.png ...Any distro could then create any frontend they’d like to manage this - the user could even install their own.
I agree and disagree.
The premise is solid: unify config so it’s standardized and machine parse-able for better integrations like an easier-to-build UI/UX. It could even have ramifications for cloud-init and older IaC tech like Puppet.
The problem is Linux itself. Or rather, the subsystems that are cobbled together to make Linux a viable OS. You’re not going to get all the different projects to pivot to a common config scheme, so this YAML standard would need a backend to convert to/from whatever each little deamon and driver requires. This creates a few secondary problems like community backlash (see systemd), and having multiple places where config data must be actively synchronized.
I think the current crop of GUI config systems are aleady well down the most pragmatic path: each config panel touches one or more standard config files, wherever they are, and however they are structured. It’s not pretty under the hood, and it’s complicated, but it works. These tools just need a lot more polish on the frontend.
They could still use whatever config format they wanted - this would just be for providing their config schema. It also doesn’t need to be YAML, that’s just the easiest one for me to type on my phone. In fact, I think most schema validation programs rely on JSON as it is.
I also don’t think programs should be required to provide it. Many core programs and kernel modules would likely take years if they ever were able to add it just to avoid the risk of mistakes causing any major issues, especially if they haven’t needed an update in years. There are also many config files that use their own nonstandardized schema. A possibility is that they could be allowed to provide a CLI tool which could update the config or they could just ignore it entirely.
But creating a common schema for… well, the config schema would make it easier for systems to provide a frontend interface for updating your configs.
This particular program would work great in combination with old school German/Dutch toilets with the poop shelf, take a pic after the deed and let the program tell you how you need to adjust your diet.
Ever heard of xdg?
