Hey,
I've read up on the idea/philosophy that Linux/BSD focuses on and strongly agree.
I finally got away from M$ when I got my Mac, but then realized that even with Mac having a strong base in Unix (OSX), I'm still not getting the OS I wanted. I've programmed before, but only in fluffed up editors/compilers. I'm not used to having the non colored editor that runs seperate from the compiler (if that makes any sense). If I understand this right I need to use VI or emacs to make the file and save it, then use gcc to compile it? It's not like a M$ compiler inwhich you click 'compile' in the menu inside of your editor. I've got no prob doing this, but I just don't see how this ends up becoming more efficient. Oh, and linux users are still hardcore command prompt users... is there a reason or is this just a revolt against gui's? Peace out, and oh yea, I just got slackware loaded if that's important.

1. No, you don't have to use VI or Emacs to do your coding. All you need is a text editor. There are tons of them. There are even some IDEs which will look like the "fluffed" environments you refer to. Two popular ones are Anjuta and Kdevelop. There are more, as I'm sure others will mention.

2. No, you don't have to compile with gcc; there are other compilers out there. However, gcc is the de facto standard compiler in *nix environments. The IDE environments can be set up to use any compiler as long as you know the command line to invoke it, and will offer to recompile with the push of a button if that's what you like.

3. Some Linux users could be considered "hardcore command prompt" users, but not all. As you use the computer, you'll find that the command prompt offers far more flexibility than any GUI can provide. How long would it take to delete each cpp and hpp file in a given directory with a GUI? You have to open the file browser, navigate to the directory, visually inspect each filename, select it if it's cpp or hpp, and then drag to the trash (not counting miss-clicks where the wrong file is selected and needs to be unselected before continuing). On the command line:
In general, the command line can do more in less time than a GUI, but it requires some knowledge on the user's part. The GUI has its uses, but it is not a replacement for the command line.

Small point - just so you know, if you're using the X-Windows Emacs to edit your code, you have immediate access to (1) syntax coloring/highlighting, (2) compiling your code from the editor (and seeing all the messages in a new buffer), if you have the C-mode installed. There is actually a compile button under "Tools." Emacs rocks. I'm still waiting for the "Emacs Desktop Environment" :-D

Regarding efficiency, I agree with Dark_Helmet. Actually, I think a more accurate way of saying it is that the keyboard is in general a lot more powerful than a mouse. It just takes more coordination and practice, which most people already have in spades if they've been using computers for a while for word processing.

The command prompt is popular in Linux, and I think if you use it for a while, you will see why. There are sooo many times when I'm using some fancy GUI application that I wish I could just switch into "command mode" and type commands instead of clicking all the time.

most modern 'vi' editors have syntax highlighting.
You can get IDEs, there's loads that do what you want.

But...why do you think we generally use vi and make files?
It's because it's more powerful, not less.
We are lazy, do you think we like making work for ourselves

I can do anything in vi or command line ten times quicker than a GUI.
Have you ever tried to search and replace in multiple files in Windows?
or rename 100 files? I'd need to book a day off

It already exists
It is called Emacspeak, and is targetted at blind people

Yves.

Re 'modern vi editors' see vim (vi improved). Usually comes as std on Linux installs. Has syntax highlighting, longer line limits, macros etc etc ...