As a newbie, there's s.t. I need to figure out about Linux before I dive in and hit the bottom of the learning curve, and I would appreciate some honest feedback.

I am put off by the CLI approach and suspect that alot of it is unnecessary. For example, in what I've been reading -- on-line and in books -- s.o. might suggest to move files around using CLI. I'd much rather use a GUI file manager and feel it's alot easier and more intuative. So, I'm thinking that probably many other tasks that are typically suggested as CLI tasks can be done with dedicated "applets" (to keep within Gnome jargon).

Okay, another example. An older (2001) book will wax poetic about the joys of recompiling the kernel. Not something I would choose to do unless there was some compelling reason. The reason given is to pare Linux down to its needed constituents, otherwise you'd have s.t. similar to an unmentionable other OS's bloatware. Well, that may have been true a few years ago, but my understanding is any newer distro installs pretty much the basic kernel and you add what you need rather than this subtractive method of taking out what you don't want by recompiling.

The other big reason CLI is touted as necessary is, they say, you may not always have access to a GUI. I think the idea is in an emergency, systems failure, whatever, you may have to do alot of work at the prompt to do repairs, etc. and get everything working again. But again, this seems to me a kind of old-fashioned systems admin. approach. If it were me, I'd just stick in the install CD to get things running again and recover my saved user files from there. Probably a naive approach.

I assume that since most Linuxers are at least somewhat into programming that CLI is a "natural" way of getting things done . . . for them. But there is a darker, more insidious side to CLI that looms out of the black Terminal background. I suspect that the REAL reason CLI is still the default method in Linux is an obscurant control thing. It's like Latin mass for the Linux priesthood -- arcane & mysterious.

I now that's going to offend some people. To them I say, don't bash me (no pun intended), just prove me wrong (if I am) with reasoned and eloquent discourse (500 words or less please).

So, what say you Linux people? Is CLI in or out?

Charles.

Most definately in.

1) Why would you waste resources on a server system by running X?
2) Why would you waste time using a mouse when you don't need to?
3) It is one of the few things that will give you standard responses across distros.

500 words of less?? didn't realise this was an assisgnment...

it'll never be "out" ever. everything has a learning curve, some are just steeper than others. Steep learning curves often lead a lot more potential though. Until you really see the benefits of shell scripting and such, there's no way you can really understand why it does pay to properly learn bash, emacs, vi, grep, sed, awk etc... if you take your (potential) career within Linux or UNIX as a whole the slightest bit seriously then you'll pay attention to bash et al. So so often, what would take you hours with some file manger you could do in a single line in bash and walk away fitter, happier and more productive.

As for just reinstalling... well you're clearly not interested in *learning* Linux at all then. You can easily *USE* Linux - go see linspire, Mepis etc..., but you won't learn much. might as well stick with windows.

CLI is a direct and powerful tool. and as you note, it's not always possible (or desirable) to use a GUI, on remote server, for example, or yes in an emergency.

can you use linux without using CLI? for the most part, probably. but when you run into problems, knowing how to do basic commands (even permissions, etc.) will help you a lot. it's probably actually easier to learn how to do common tasks on the command line than hunt around a gui trying to figure out how to do it. from system to system the command line will always be the same (mostly). but if the GUI's different, you'll be lost back at square one.

"I am put off by the CLI approach and suspect that alot of it is unnecessary. "

That's fine. You can run your system any way that you want. There is no compelling reason to have everyone conform to any particular way of running their system.

----------------------------------
Steve Stites

You are a serious newbie and hopefully not an irritating troll... so, I will be very forgiving.



Almost never is it easier to use a GUI file manager to manipulate files than from the command line. You can do almost infinitely more with command line than GUI fm.



The kernel can be configured by command line, ncurses (a terminal user interface -- something that is similar to things you may have seen from DOS, although if you're making this big a fuss about the command line you probably never used DOS either ). Honestly, kernel configuring is something I don't do much of anymore as I don't have to max out every bit of hardware I can since I make a bit more money these days and can afford decent gear. Still, it's very good to know what makes Linux work --AND-- it's still no excuse to not learn the command line.



You speak of something which you know nothing about obviously.

And a rather lazy one as well... If you don't mind reinstalling Linux every time you get a segfault then that's ok.


Ahh padawan... I find your lack of faith disturbing. No, that's not it. While I will admit that there are some elements of us who like the gate keeper thing, this is not a primary reason (rather a symptom of it -- try not to confuse the two) for having a command line. Unix is a collection of smaller applications built with the intention that they will be used to build bigger and greater things. Never is it a good idea to have your GUI so intertwined with the operating system that the GUI itself causes system instability unlike another OS that will remain nameless.

I honestly believe you are lazy (I mean that in the best way possible and not to be insulting -- all of us get lazy about certain things at one time or another) or you haven't taken the proper amount of time to learn the command line and its usefulness.

One day hopefully you will take the time to do this and you can look back on your naive post with fond memories (oh what a fool I was) else I know what will happen: you'll go back to Windows (if you haven't already) because you like its GUI better and have no other compelling reason to keep your Linux cd's and books around except for impressing your Windows buddies who have less nerve than you.

Please don't become one of the latter. I work with too many Windows-using Linux intellectuals as it is.

Acid Kewpie wrote:

You, sir, are a genius.

I was close to flogging the mountain metaphor and saying there was a higher summit, but i got lost when i was trying to cram ice picks into it somehow...

Alas... methinks we are the fools. Perhaps this fellow and his buddies got together and said let's post on LQ and see how many responses/views we can possible get...

Troll1: "What would piss these guys off the most??"

Troll2: "Oh I know, let's talk about the Penguin."

Troll1: "Heh, no... I rather like the penguin... let's think... what does Linux have that Windows [blessed be its name and blessed be Bill's holy name] doesn't have?"

Troll2: "Hmm... stability...."

Troll1: "Now what helps them achieve this... this... what did you call it? ... ah yes, stability..."

Troll2: "Many many developers freely volunteering to create small applications that can be ... what is it these infidels call it? ... ah... "piped" ... into larger ones."

Troll1: "Yes, they have an underlying interface called a shell..."

Troll2: "Yes, we have one too, called DOS I think although I've never seen it"

Troll1: "Yes that's it... let's insult the Linux command line!!!"

Knowing CLI can and will save your butt many times over. Not to mention it is easier and faster to do quite a few things using CLI over a GUI.

Point and click is a windows mentality.

I am administrating few servers and neither me or the servers' owner want the GUI installed on it, it is not necessary at all. We use SSH and i dump files with the GUI(gftp) or the command line from a remote machine, sometimes i use the cli via ssh on the server for few tasks.

I never boot straight into X. When i need the GUI, i type startx. When i don't need it i stay in the "darkness".

On an old machine, with limited resources, i can for example listen music and use bittorent cli to download music, share files, etc. use a cli mp3 player, etc... I won't just throw the pc out because it is to old to install a GUI...

The GUI is just an interface to ease some tasks and nothing more to me. Sometimes i use it, sometimes i don't.

I think this guy, if he's not a troll, probably means as in a desktop/workstation environment. Such newbs have usually never worked in a server environment. Still, cli has far more effectiveness even when used strictly for desktop computing.

Okay. First to answer a few, ahem, comments that came up in response to my . . . well . . .er . . . perhaps somewhat acerbic post. Maybe I could just possibly have thought of a more polite way to put it.

Context: Just installed Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago. First experience with Linux. I'm intrigued but intimidated. I wouldn't know a system admin. if they hit me over the head with their "Linux in a Nutshell," which no doubt some of you would like to do.

1. Yes, "a serious newbie and hopefully not an irritating troll." Not baiting. Just a bit of a smart ass, I suppose.
2. Yes, lazy. I work very full-time hours at a non-tech job. If I'm going to take the time to learn Linux I want to make sure it's going to be useful first. Can't afford the time to learn s.t. "just because."

Linux is a bit of a conundrum to the uninitiated. Some things I need to sort out first before delving in.

Seems like the Linux community is made up of two groups. There are those of long-standing, who have put in the hours, 'done the time' so to speak; many who are systems admin's, contributing developers, etc. Then there are the newcomers, annoying Windows refugees who, perhaps like myself, just want to ditch what's-it and make computing fun again. Does the first group have "ownership" rights? I don't know. I can certainly see how irritating it must be to answer such nuB accusations.

Anyhow, I seriously appreciate the thoughtful responses. I may well end up learning Linux in some depth. I am listening and changing p.o.v. as we speak. And, yes, Harlin, I am comparing CLI to DOS . . . no doubt unfavorably due to past experience with the latter. Also, I'm trying to sort out which books might be of best use, at least initially, for learning Linux and am looking at works like Phillip Ezolt's "Optimizing Linux Performance," also Carla Schroeder's Linux Cookbook . . . Linux Desktop Hacks, etc. -- all of which are new and most of which tend to rely more on small GUI helpers over strictly CLI.

One last thing re the desktop GUI. For some of us "the computer" iS the interface. Isn't that why KDE and FluxBox are so popular. It's what you see and interact with on a daily basis. I've noticed that many people -- esp. so called power users -- who go with the graphics almost feel the need to apologize for the "eye candy." It's not "eye candy." Computing isn't just what it can crunch and spit out. It ought to fun, and part of fun is being easy. That's not exactly what I wanted to say. But anyhow, enough said for now.

CLI or not?

This is a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Linux is not just a desktop or a server. It's supported on embedded systems and hundreds of other architectures and systems. This isn't anything like being a "WinTel" machine at all. So, don't be so closed-minded about it.

Not every system out there is going to be running X. And that may be a limitation of the hardware.

So...

GNU/Linux supports the command line because it's necessary. If you want to drop a GUI on top of that, go for it. But, a GUI IS NOT necessary unless your users are ignorant of the command line.

A GUI is a preference. And there is nothing wrong with using a GUI. But, it does have it's limits.

Let's put it this way, Windows Admins could NOT do their work without a command line. Meaning, if the command line was gone in Windows, the systems would be completely unmanageable. Think of it, no scripts, no logonscripts.

Look at it this way: If the CLI were just for Linux show-offs, why would Microsoft, king of the GUI, be putting time & effort into creating a better CLI for Windows right now?

Says something, that does