The CLI is a bit scary for Windows users, all I needed it for was to run RegEdit.

I like stuff like for-loops, that's simply not available in a GUI. Programming Bash is a lot easier than writing a tool for KDE.

I found using the GUI and the CLI at the same time made it easier to understand how the CLI worked and in a couple of months it felt like second nature, just start off doing basic things like creating or changing dirctories, making and copying files to new location, eventually it will become easier.

There are certain things that may be easier from the command line, but that's not the point. There are also certian things that are easier with a GUI, but that's not he point either.

The point is that you said that most of what you need to do an a daily basis is generally easier from the command line, and that's what I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) take issue with.

Not completely true.

There are a number of factors that determine how "easy" something is perceived to be, of which familiarity is only one. Others include how many steps are involved, how well documented the method is, how "self explanatory" the method is, and not forgetting of course personal preference.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by that. Just because Linux is based on a ststem that has a command line doesn't mean you have to use the command line for everything. There are a lot of GUI tools available for various tasks in Linux, and there's nothing to say you're not allowed to use any of them.

What do you mean "how Linux works"? As I said before, just because Linux has command line tools burried in it doesn't mean you have to use them. Linux can "work" with a GUI or a CLI (or both).

That seems rather patronising (not to mention rather dogmatic) to assume that anyone who doesn't share your personal preference for the CLI is immature, and everyone will eventually "grow up" to share all your own prejudices.

Perhaps rather than discussing the ease of clicking versus typing, the 'why' should be examined. Unix was designed as an amalgamation of many tools desgned to do one specific task properly and quickly. In order to do many things to data, the output of one tool could be used as an input to another, using a 'device' called a 'pipe'. It is much harder, and more prone to error to design large tools to do many things properly. Perhpas the philosophy is best summarized by an article from 1981 in a journal of ACM: "There are two ways of constructing a software design. One is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies; the other is to make it so complicated there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." C.A.R. Hoare -- The Emperor's Old Clothes.

From my experience, much of it boils down to experience.

If someone works in the IT or programming fields, command line is second nature to them, because when you learn programming and IT administration, most if not all is done at the command line.
Which is fine.

For many who just want to use the internet, play a few games, type a report, etc, these are users, they have no implicit need or prerequsite that requires working from the command line on a regular basis. This is also just fine.

When you already know the commands and have a bit of experience using them, CL is very quick, and powerful. it is concise.

While GUI may be less concise, for those without a need for command line, CL almost borders on unnecessary. Their goal and tasks do not really require that knowledge.

This brings us to the beauty of having multiple distros. some are made with certain users and environments in mind. Find a distro that fulfills your expectations and use it.

There is no need to patronize, criticize, demonize or any other -ize users who don't work with a PC the same as any other user.

Knowing command line might make you a better programmer or administrator but certainly not a better user.

Knowing command line certainly has it's benefits, and I have always recommended that given the time and opportunity, anyone who uses a PC should learn as much as they can about CL.

Finally, to quote an infamous Los Angeles schmuck Rodney King, " Can't we all just get along?"



Just my 2 cents,

Big Bear

I'm not sure what you define as a "Windows-style" GUI. Everything you have said seems to apply to any GUI, not just a "Windows-style" (whatever that means) GUI.

I don't think "stumble onto it" is quite the right description here. Most GUIs are logically organised, and finding the setting you need should just be a question of looking in the most logical place. There shouldn't be any "stumbling" involved.

As you said, a GUI is good for things that you need to do rarely or for the first time (which a CLI is generaly very bad for). For most desktop users, they only set up one machine once, then use that machine. They generally use graphical programs for their everyday tasks, and most complex configuration tasks the do are done rarely. In this case a GUI is far more suitable for their needs than a CLI.

This basically leads to the summary that a CLI is a professional system administrators' tool, but not generally the best tool for the average user.

You've never used "Nero" in the Windows world, have you? Powerful ... yes, I'll grant you that. Logical ... no. That one's a real stumble-bunny IMHO.

But that's just one example. It does not imply that all GUI's are bad. Generally, I'm better at remembering commandline options than I am at guessing the "logical place" in a GUI. So I have a natural leaning to go for the CLI first. I don't expect that everybody else is that way though.

My biggest argument is reaction time.

From the time I click the "Word" icon until the time word starts and I can actually start typing, I could have been finished using Vim. Then, to print I have to wait for this, wait for that... lpr file. Bam. It's all about speed for me.

Cool

I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to the original poster (buckdog). I don't care how you perceived it. If buckdog was offended by my post, or wants me to elaborate then I'll answer to him or her.

If you've got an issue with my posts, please don't talk down to me about it.

Thanks.

When I first started using computers (when I was only 12 or 13), Windows 95 has just come out. Then 98, and XP came along. I pretty much grew up in the GUI world with over a decade of experience using Windows before I switched to Linux (Ubuntu FTW).

It really just boils down to what's faster for me personally. If I want to delete all the files with the extension *.abc in a directory, it's easier for me to open a terminal window and invoke "rm *.abc" in that directory than trying to highlight all those files in Nautilus and hitting delete, not to mention probably having to go to the trash can and emptying that. (I even use a Nautilus script to open a terminal window in the folder I desire.) Some people prefer using the command line because they've grown up with it and learning to use a GUI might actually decrease their efficiency even if the task itself is inherently easier with a GUI.

Well, you can't say much in general about 'the' computer user, I think. Using CLI or GUI is rather irrelevant as long as you get done what you want. I'm new to the GNU/Linux world but I have experience on different systems, from text-based only to GUI heavy and I'd like to recommend everyone to have a little understanding about what you can do through the CLI, especially on GNU/Linux environment.

I don't know much about Macs so I can't say anything about it but with Windows XP I found most functionality to be only available through windows-screens. The further .Net is taken, the more this'll increase imho: it's so easy to create a window and whack some functionality behind it. This is probably also true for the KDE development tools but I haven't really looked into that yet. Windows XP isn't fully GUI driven; even less demanding users may stumble upon some nice tweaks, in a magazine for example, that can only be used from the CLI.

What I did see was a lot of GUI programs in Gnu/Linux window managers being a frontside for CLI programs, meaning that buttons and menu's are there only as a replacement to command line parameters, GUI programs merely acting as elaborate shell scripts. That's fine of course and that pretty much takes away the necessity of having to look at the CLI.
It doesn't diminish the power of the CLI however. Power which may not be needed by everyone, but power which may inspire someone to make more use of their system.
.....
Hmm, that doesn't really answer the question at all but perhaps the person from the first post can use it to look at things differently.

Man can I agree with that. I am learning c++ right now and I wanted to start creating programs with a gui. Just to make a gui with GTK+ it was about 50 to 60 lines of code just for one window, with out a button.

With the command line, you have to type the command you want to run. If you make a mistake by the command you are giving, you will just receive an error message. By clikcing away, you can start, stop or messup quite a lot of stuff on your PC, just by making a simple mistake.

I think the command line helps you make less mistakes. You first have to think "What do I want to do now", then type it. You have less chance to make a mistake in that whole process.

Your post was not a private message, it was a post in a publically accessible forum. What you write on here is talking to everyone. As a member of this forum, I have just as much right to read and contribute to it as anyone else.

If you object to anyone except the one user you imagine you are talking to reading or responding to what you write, then you shouldn't write it in a public forum. If you want to communicate intimately with one user, then there are other ways in which you can do that.