I would agree 100. I would "assume", the Administrator - would have distinct knowledge & understanding of how "their" particular unit
works & what they wish to accomplish.

I deeply disagree with people saying that the CLI is difficult because one has to remember the switches, whereas GUI is easy because everything is laid down in front of you. With the CLI, you do not have to remember much really. The only command you ever need to remember is man and the only switches are man -k and man -K.

Has anyone ever found anything useful in any GUI help?

For the stuff that you really need but cannot remember, there are aliases, functions and shell scripts. And there is tab completion for anything else.

Automating GUI actions is not impossible, but who from the GUI-admins here does this—I would really like to know.

Sometimes but in the Linux community they are usually reluctant to do so.

Care to elaborate? You seem to prefer the GUI to the CLI, which is fine, so how and when have you found it easier and more efficient?

Edit: I am referring to the title of this thread "Do you prefer...". There are no right and wrong answers to that question.

I found it sometimes on various forums when I asked a question to be answered using the GUI and not using the CLI, but not often. When I started using computers it was with the crash prone Windows 98se. Using the GUI was easy to learn and easy to use even when I started using Linux. I find the CLI to be a real pain because you need to learn or ask just about every time what to put in there to do something. With the GUI it's pretty much self explanatory point and click which is faster. I look at it what people started with or are accustomed to. Unfortunately I see it too often, more so in the Linux community that the CLI is being forced on people instead of it being a choice which scares away people from switching to Linux. I hope you understand because I find so many that refuse to understand this. One of the things about Linux is suppose to be the freedom to choose, isn't it?

It is only faster when it has already been programmed with the tasks you are doing.

Anything out of the simple gets REALLY complicated with a GUI - and really SLOW.

One of the problems with the GUI is that they NEVER tell you what they did to accomplish a task; thus you never learn what is actually being done.

What I've been "curious about", is IF the GUI (actually uses/invokes) the CLI "string" to accomplish the "same action" as the CLI command line itself ?

MY "theory" is that virtually all (point & click) actions use - "CLI" sub-strings,with "Graphical"Interface to invoke/process the (unknown CLI command) ??? - (callhow)

In the "states", many (Windows & Apple/Mac users) - feel they're "technically proficient" (Computer Literate) - based on # of years
they have "managed" to use their "puters" for whatever functions/tasks PROVIDED from Point-And-Click (GUI's). However,
their degree of "computer literacy" IS dependent upon the simplicity of GUI. As mentioned in earlier posts, those users are "less likely"
to switch to most Linux dist - because they want simple & easy (no extra typing or knowledge required). More advanced users "might be" inclined to "trying something new/different", and "technically advanced/oriented" users - are usually "game" to try anything.
* If the Linux community wants/expects "widespread conversion from Windows & Apple/Mac users - 1 or 2 Bullet-Proof distributions, with plenty of "standard & unique apps" and very limited access(or NO access) to Terminal,- would be the way to proceed. Maybe an "option" for 2-3 "advanced levels" vs jumping to another dist - BUT would "have to be made "crash & child-proof"! (callhow)

1 members found this post helpful.

Well said.

Sometimes a GUI will use a command line string...

Unfortunately, other times it will not. Take the case of firewalld in fedora. There are multiple programs to configure the firewall - One for the command line, a different one for the GUI, a third one for the applet, a fourth one for use when the firewalld daemon isn't running...

And if you want things to work in a stable manner, disable the firewall daemon and just use the IPtables directly, edit the configuration files directly...

What do the others provide? loading/unloading the IPtables during changes... adding/removing rules on the fly... And generating the correct syntax.

Any help with understanding the firewall rules? nope.

But now there are five more programs that need to be maintained. The fifth program is the service daemon that is used to handle the directives from the four other programs...

I'm pretty sure they, or at least I, don't.

If somebody wants to take the time to get to know Linux and how it's different than Windows/Mac, both good and bad, then by all means let them try it out and make up their own mind. I have zero desire to force Linux on the masses though.

I agree. I also don't want to use a Linux which is like Windows or Mac -- I want control! I see Ubuntu as a Windows and Mac rival and it has many good points but there's no way I want to use a locked-down desktop like Unity* -- I have enough problems with that kind of thing with Windows at work.

*I know one can install other desktops but, for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming that to give GUI advice to every use consistently only one desktop can be used or guidance pages would be far, far too long...

Me too (and I once swore to never add "me too" to any post). Again, me too (I really can't say it any better).

This actually happens sometimes. But it is extremely amateurish.

In most cases, or at least for well-programmed stuff, you have a library behind the scene that does perform the actions it was written for. What the library presents to the world is its API. The users of the API are not humans but other programs, either GUI or CLI that call in the library's API. And these last programs are the ones you use.

This kind of layering is a very good thing by the way.

You sound like Linux would be more difficult and 1337 but that is not true anymore.

I speak for myself but I switched to linux because Windows XP was way too complicated for me and then to OS X as my main OS because it is Unix... I had experience on Solaris and IRIX though, so I was not going for something "new" or anything. Just for something that I knew would work for me.

We have actual, very good Windows admins at work and I don't even understand how they can get their job done. Windows is by far the most complex OS I know.