The command structure was developed from the late 60s to early 70s. The UNIX announcement paper in 1973 provided the foundation.
No, the GUI never "saved RAM". It always (and still does) just about doubles (or more) the memory required for a system. Linux can still fit in under a MB (barely, and with careful tuning, and choice of filesystems) without a GUI. It still runs in under 512MB with a GUI (though a bit slow).
Microfiche will last as long as the viewers... and media it is recorded on. Heavy use of microfiche does cause bleaching...

You are not getting true answer to this question because;
Most Linux users are not interested what happens in O/S. They just want the computer to work! They do not read your pages, and they have never used a terminal. They do not understand COMMAND LINE (used with terminal) or GUI (Graphical User Interface). They only use Graphical User Interface. You will not get there opinion this way.

Only way to get there opinion is to use a pop up window, that will appear to every Linux system and ask it with pictures explaining what is command line and GUI. And that is just what they do not want to see, that is why they changed away from Windows!

P4sblom

You know a different type of Linux user to those I have come across then. With the exception of a couple of people who have had Linux installed by friends the people I know who use Linux on the desktop* do so because they care about the OS they run and they are fully aware of the existence of the terminal and its usefulness even if they prefer the GUI. It takes some effort to use Linux, since it's not usually preinstalled, so I would expect most Linux users to have some awareness of what an operating system is and what it does.

*Let's leave Androis out of this as it is a special case which just confuses matters.

1 members found this post helpful.

I understand your opinion 273, but there are a huge number of computer users, who does not consider it as a hobby. Computer is for most users just a tool to get book keeping, text writing. . . done.
For them OS is just something in the box that helps it. the less to think about it, the better!

I do care of Linux. Still these pages are just for the "Active Linux Community".
P4sblom

But most of those users use the OS which came on their machine and in 90% of cases that is Windows. To even install Linux one needs, in part, to become part of the "active Linux community" as you put it because in the majority of cases the install is non-trivial -- not to say that Linux is always so hard to install that somebody has to come to a site like this but the installation process is usually tricky enough that people don't do it unless they want to use Linux.

The question wasn't directed at USERS. It was directed to ADMINISTRATORS.
The failure of a GUI is that it can only do what some developers have chosen. If there is a new problem - the GUI is nearly useless.

Why do you thing Microsoft is finally bringing a real command line to Windows with PowerShell?

The way I see it is some people prefer to use the terminal while others don't. In order to get more acceptance of Linux is to not force people to use the terminal and to stop criticizing people from using the terminal. The reason is for this is most people are coming from Windows like myself. The last time I used the command prompt was when I used Windows 2000 which is about 14 years ago. Some of the Linux developers have the foresight to create distros with a very powerful GUI that make the terminal as an option and not a necessity to operate a computer. In those distros the terminal is as necessary as the command prompt in Windows and is used as a very powerful tool or as a choice for the user to operate a computer. As someone that came from Windows about 3 months ago I cringe every time I see people using the terminal in stead of the GUI when they show people how to do something. They don't realize that they are scaring people away from considering on using Linux. One of the ways Linux is promoted is an OS that people has choices. Being that, chose to use the terminal or chose to the GUI.

There is a very good reason for that. Every distro and every DE on every distro has a different set of GUI tools to accomplish some task. Instructing a user how to do what they're looking to do via the GUI is a VERY involved and VERY complicated process, complete with screenshots, image editing, possibly even a video walkthrough. And all of that is assuming there is even a user on this forum who: a) knows how to answer the question, b) knows how to answer the question using GUI tools, and c) uses the same combination of distro, distro version, and DE that the OP is using, which it is VERY likely there is not. If every question on this forum had to be answered with GUI instructions, the number of solved threads would drop from whatever it currently is now to approximately zero.

Given the variability and diversity of Linux, it's simply not practical to answer questions with GUI walkthroughs, especially when there is a reliable alternative that requires only some text to explain and works consistently over the VAST majority of distros and DEs.

Even Windows help forums work the same way. At least 90% of the time when I have a problem in Windows and search for an answer, I'm met with CLI instructions, because it's the only consistent way to answer the question across multiple versions of the OS and multiple customization options available to the user.

3 members found this post helpful.

Thank you for the explanation and that's true depending on which forum or video like on youtube, but is not always the case if you search which distro and desktop environment.

http://linuxterminal.org/wp-content/...3/04/Linux.jpg

Yes, but the hand crank will work all the time, even if your battery is dead or your starter isn't working.

Would like to see the crank hand to repair modern cars .....
In my past, I repaired each car, from car body, over motor and electrics - with
todays cars, I need a repair shop and even my tool do no longer work ....

I am using windows, because the tools fit to my documnents, while the
open tools are even not able to show them properly.

In my thinking, I am a linux-men ...

Regards,
Manfred

BTW: Windows is spyware and should be depolluted ...
http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malwa...rosoft.en.html

1 members found this post helpful.

Note: The "only" time I've witnessed the "bleaching" effect you mentioned, was caused by leaving fiche/film in place with the "lamp"
on for long/extended periods of time. However, the heat & intense brightness, not only causes bleaching for "extended periods",
but, can actually warp/distort ones fiche and/or film. Better equipment had fan(s) to direct the heat away from fiche/film and
was "claimed" to make those Hi-Intensity bulbs "last" longer. However, I am unaware of any studies to prove/disprove those
claims. -callhow

Thank You #166, for pointing that out. My thinking was faster than my typing. Meant to say that the "GUI's" back then required more memory (especially when RAM was critical) - Thanks again for making this correct! (callhow)

In keeping "on track" for this thread....regarding (CLI) Command Line Interface vs (GUI)Graphical User Interface
One "must consider";
1. Users experience/knowledge vs "their" expertise using CLI. - GUI is very simple. CLI is for experienced users.
2. Function they wish to use/perform.
3. Variation(s) from other distro's

To truly "gauge" for accurate results, one must ascertain "the skills required" for suitability of both aspects. The "car" example mentioned earlier? Is the operator-experienced, mechanically-minded, familiar with starters?
Some-might call AAA because they/operator knows how to drive, but "nothing" about "what went wrong", or a mechanic "type" that is familiar, but, doesn't KNOW exactly, or someone that "assumes" it won't start because the battery doesn't have enough power/juice to spin the starter.
The argument about "having more options" with Linux is - actually true. Whether it's Better-Equal-Worse is easily disputed. As a DOS & Windows "expert" or "tech professional", I can truly say, thousands of computer problems, were "caused" by Users (not familiar/knowledgeable) about; wording-terms-processes-abbreviations-etc. However, as "more options" were offered, "solutions became harder & more complex! Apple-actually had this aspect RIGHT. Users -couldn't get into/mess-up functions. MicroSoft-(allowed "limited" access/options) and rapidly made millions/billions. Those "refined" programs that worked -so well,were dropped with "newer" releases which regressed, because they couldn't correct all the errors or actions caused by poor programming.
The result? The more options "allowed" = the greater number of problems! Like a bicycle! A regular bike will always work-all you do is pedal. It goes "faster/easier with more "speed mechanisms",and has the most problems directly related/compared to a greater # of speeds "offered". The more you know about how to use it-the better you become. (callhow)

I disagree. The title of this thread is, as far as I can tell, very unambiguous and asks the simple question "Do You Prefer the Command Line or a GUI When Administering Your Linux Desktop?".
There seems to be some movement toward turning this into "Which is best, CLI or GUI" but that is not the title of this thread.
I am sure I am not the only one who respects and values the opinions of others and their reasons for preferring a particular way to administer their machines but I am finding this devolving into some kind of "which is best" discussion which can only be counterproductive. I realise I'm probably guilty of this too.

2 members found this post helpful.