What's with the command line?
 

I am an uber-noob, but am wondering why doing so much stuff in linux uses the command line.

Thanks!

it gets stuff done quickly and easily once you are familiar with it. a 5 second console command can easily take minutes clicky here clicky there. and plenty of things can't be done at all.

A Windows-style GUI is good for leading you through a task that you don't really know how to do in the first place. Enough clicking, and you'll probably find what you need. You basically stumble onto it because you are familiar with the interface. This is good for things that you rarely do and need some guidance. It is also good for complex tasks involving graphics. I'm posting to this forum using Firefox - a GUI browser. And I can't imagine trying to remove the redeye from a photograph using commandline only.

If you know what you want to do, and how to do it, the command line is much more powerful and faster for many tasks. Requires a lot less of the system also (CPU, memory, etc.) This is good for the stuff where you don't need the hints and prods that a GUI can provide. Much of the stuff many of us do with Linux doesn't require a GUI, although under Linux you can find an optional GUI-wrapper for just about anything if that's what you want. K3B is a great example of a GUI-wrapper for the basic commandline stuff like mkisofs, cdrecord, growisofs, etc.

In the beginning (Apple-II, commodore, DOS, etc.) we had nothing BUT the command-line. It is only in the last 10-15 years that people have come to believe that the GUI is the only way to run a computer.

In the better Linux Distros, most of what you need to do on a daily basis CAN be done in the GUI. But it is generally easier using the CLI.

I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with that statement!

This is one of those things that are very dependent on how the question is asked....

If you are totally unfamiliar with the CLI, then it is harder to get something done.

If you spend ~ 4 hours learning a few basics, then certain things are easier at the CLI.

Here is an absurd example: Apple-II, circa 1980, proceedure to start the word processor:
1. turn on the computer
2. type "write" at the prompt

Show me any modern computer that will start up as quickly or reliably to do a specific task.
Show me a person who could not learn those two steps, but who CAN do a custom desktop configuration in a modern GUI environment.

We perceive as "easiest" that which we are most used to......

Because that's what Linux is; you could ask the same question about MS-DOS.

Seeing as you're an "uber-noob" I believe you haven't fully grasped the concept of how Linux works. Given time, I guarantee that you'll be asking "Why is so much done using the GUI".

Enjoy Linux. :)

totally, and the other major factor is a learning curve. yes you need to know more to use a CLI than to use a GUI, but once you put in that initial groundwork you can very easily reach much higher levels of ability and convenience, all for the sake of eye candy.

And i'm not saying this is windows vs linux at all either. I come across so many areas of it where a product will present a web and console interface. in the first instance you play around here and there with the web interface to try things out, but time nad agin i gravitate back to the cli as i know and trust what is going on, and i can get the exact results i want a LOT fast, be it a linux box, a cisco switch, a packet shaper, and IDS appliance...

Actually there is another angle here that may be being observed. as Linux is so different, and there are so many ways it can behave in the gui circle inparticular, it is not always a good environment for achieving a certain goal via documentation. I fscking hate KDE, i fscking hate debian. i am anot about to tell a debian/KDE user how to navigate their pointy clicky world that i don't know to achieve menial tasks. as long as you're not going too fasr into debians "twists" i can however tell you how to do that very simply here on LQ via a gui. which is easier to read...

1) right click the flashy thing in the task bar
2) select "wobble" from the menu
3) click the X to get rid of the annoying avatar
4) click the "squidge" tab
5) expand the tree and select the "flurp" option
6) click "report" (or "go" on some older versions - or "now" on version 32.2f)
7) complete

or

1) open a console
2) run "flibblety -abc"
3) complete

you mightn't understand the second as easily, but it'll sure as hell answer your problem and get you the answer you want.

this logic also applies heavily to software developers. they are all geeks, and so write installation guides at their own level, not least because the methods used at their level haven't changed in 10 years and work across nearly every system. there are bits and bobs in fedora or other things which only hang around for a single release, but then that's irrelevant for anyone not using fedora anyway.

I use Gnome, and there's always a terminal open.

To kill a running process:

GUI: System>Administration>System Monitor....wait for it to open....find the running process....highlight (or right-click)....end process....wait for it to end....oops, only root can terminate....um, now what?

CLI: su -; pwd; pidof process; kill -option pid ...next.


cheers,

here's another one for you :D

;) As a Debian user, my pointy-clicky world is pretty much limited to three icons in my Gnome panel - "New Terminal Window", "Firefox", and "Thunderbird". Of course I'll run other GUI programs, but not all that frequently.

---

Debian (or any distro) does not preclude CLI. If I want to create a new account, useradd is my choice. If I want the burn a CD/DVD, it's mkisofs/cdrecord/growisofs rather than K3B. A new startup script? vi /etc/init.d/xxx and manually symlink to the /etc/rcX.d directory I'm targeting. Just because Debian comes out of the box with "easier" ways does not mean anyone has to live and die by them.

But I can't imagine brain-bashing myself trying to browse LQ.org using only wget and vi from the command line. lynx would be better, but still a tad tedious!

You can use distros both ways - CLI or GUI, as you see fit (assuming X is installed). Which knowledge/experience do I value more? CLI. No doubt about it. I can use it anywhere ... it's not distro-specific (for the most part). It's no big deal to flip over to one of my Solaris accounts either. CLI is CLI, with only minor adjustments as you hop between *nix OS'es.

Just my two cents but I think alot of sys admins find that mangement through cli is easier. Especially when the machine is say at another property or could just be a network server. It is easier to make a ssh connection to the server and run a couple of commands then to get up, walk to the server, find the right application, open it, and then do the same function.

"The X server has to be the biggest program I've ever seen that doesn't do anything for you."
- Ken Thompson

And a lot of it has to do with developers as well... honestly, many developers are just too lazy to add a GUI... the CLI gets the job done for them, so why write a GUI? In many cases, a GUI would have more code than the code that does the work.

Also, some things just don't make sense in the GUI paradigm... take pipelined commands... in the GUI, it's hard to connect tools together to make the 'bigger' tool.

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

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.

command line
 

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? :scratch: :confused: 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.
:twocents:

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.

OK I'm not going to get into an argument over this. I apologise if I sound arrogant, dogmatic or patronising; I'm neither of those. I don't know a terrible amount about Linux so I don't claim to be a "know it all".

Back to the OP's question, didn't see anyone mention that the CLI often gives error messages (or more verbose error messages) than the GUI equivalent.

Command line also lends itself to scripting. By learning to use the command line your halfway there to putting your commands into scripts and run them via cron automatically.

While I suppose you could get by with only a gui in Linux I can't imagine why one would want to do that.
My wife will use one of my Linux boxes but she only uses it for internet access and majong. She does not need, nor care about the CLI. If you admin your own system at least try the CLI. I think you'd be glad you did. :D

* a command that will help you in CLI:
apropos anyword
this can help show you what to 'man' which will help explain many things about your Linux system. If man is not familar to you at the CLI type man man.
(man = manual, man man tells you how to use the online Linux manual.) Hope that helps someone.

The CLI, It's What's For Dinner
 

Actually, the whole point of this thread is a little bit sad. In all honesty, with vbs and the windows scripting host, the CLI under MS Windows can be pretty darned powerful too. But even many self styled "Windows Gurus" know little or nothing about it. Bash is a Windows command prompt - squared.

Sorry, I just think it a little sad the question was asked at all. It speaks of a complete and utter reliance on what is painted on the screen rather than what is going on under the hood.

I would disagree. The user had as stated is new to linux. So in turn wanted to know why to use the cli when things can be done on the gui. Therefore we are all giving him reasons or personal expierences on why we think the cli is better or even worth using.

@arow that is a great reason. Can't tell everyone how many times the cli gave a better error message than what was displayed in the gui.

It's worth mentioning .. Windows has a command-line, too! And there are a lot of things that you basically cannot do without it.

Personally, I find the reliance on the command-line somewhat annoying also. But there are some good projects, like linuxconf, that make many routine administrative tasks point-and-click.

That's like asking why top end sports cars have manual transmissions.

Well, the world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same. But I honestly don't see any logic in your Debian comment.
Do you mind explaining what you meant with it?

Debian actually made it a lot more easy to have a fully working (and modern) OS without the need for X (using apt-lib).

I like Slackware just as much, but getting a fully functional minimal system with it is much harder. I guess Gentoo is more Debian like, but I personally hate the idea of spending that much time using automated source installers (thats one of the reasons why I left BSD for Linux).

I admin (and have used) many debian systems, most of them don't even have/had X.

I do agree about KDE though (did you know Linus doesn't. He feels that a GUI does need to be able to do everything, as KDE aims to do. Luckily we don't all have to agree with Linus either).

Between The Lines
 

But probably NOT new to Windows - where the command line remains a complete mystery to him. Much of that knowledge does conceptually translate from Windows to Linux. I bemoan the lack of that skill in both environments.

I can't even count the number of times I've freaked out co-workers by launching a GUI app from the command line feeding it command line parameters that it then executes. These are technical people that don't have a clue what I've just done. Network admins of very large enterprise networks that are astounded that you can do complex Active Directory Service mods with a script. That had no idea that there was even any way other than through their admin gui crapplet.

Ah well, so few know the old ways...

There is just something about that pitch black screen of the cli that I really enjoy more than a gui. Maybe it's that I can use it as a programming language. Or maybe when people see if they run and scream for their lives. I guess when I have a terminal open It just seems like I have a lot of power in my hands waiting to be grapsed and used to any way I see fit.

How does one get to become a network admin without knowing how to use a command line?

AFAIK, there aren't many industrial routers which have GUIs.

I find it sad that Windows worshippers don't even know the full power of their own OS. Little wonder that they freak out with Linux!

BTW - did you know that the Vista betas still come with edlin? There are also many other little DOS knick-knacks which are included as well. I don't know if they'll be in the final version, but considering that they made it this far, I'd be amazed if they aren't.

Another BIG plus of the CLI is history. You sure can't do that with GUI. With history you can see what commands you've run, and run any of them again. Very simple, yet powerful.

Both Dos and Unix started out as CLI. Unix / Linux never ever tried to leave the CLI behind. Windows did, and brought it back in what seemed to me as an afterthought. I do not know Windows Scripting Host well, but the little I did know about it left me frustrated.

I think you've answered your own question.

(Where Wikipedia got this information from is unknown to me, the MS marketing department for all I care.)
It shows there's still demand for a CLI, even for desktop admins :)

I imagine the developers weren't targetting the same demographics that his wife shares.. (no offense to mateys wife).

Whereas GUI centric OS' like windows are aimed at EVERYBODY (power users, frequent users, joe sixpack, my grandma) i think Linux/Unix/Variants of are more targetted to advanced users (both in concepts and ability to learn/adapt in the environment). I am of the firm belief that the CLI offers infinite more power, but not everyone WANTS or NEEDS that power.

I've been following this thread and i summarise as you not wanting to do so much in the CLI... that's fine, but asking why Linux has to do it that way, and perhaps (in my perception) suggesting it's a problem/obstacle/oversight is a tad narrow minded. The world is full of people that say why does x use z and not y. I say because it wasn't intended to, you would rather adapt something to your needs fine, but that's down to whoever is developing it,


The above is a tiny fraction of this arguement, and i've tried not to re-hash others points. I also think the answer has it's roots in tradition and culture of the OS' development, but thats a broader scope than i have time for whilst hiding from the boss.