Is this a joke? The main way most Linux users install software is still via the command line.
I reject the premise that the command line is not user friendly.
With either a GUI or a command line, the first step is going to be “Search the internet for the instructions.”
The second step for the command line option is “ctrl-c, ctrl-v”. The task is now complete.
The GUI option is only superior if it allows the user to skip the “Search for it” step. If it does not, now you are manually searching some arcane hierarchy for the specific location the developer decided to place that option.
The whole point of the GUI is to be more intuitive. If you need to go to the internet to realize how to do the basic stuff, that means your GUI “failed” in its purpose.
That’s still unavoidable for very complex UIs though, but still you measure how good a UI is at helping people accomplish their tasks.
Agreed. And I certainly use a GUI more than a command line.
My point is only that the command line should not be considered “unfriendly” to the user.
I don’t think “intuitive” is the proper metric for determining user friendliness. I think “ease of accomplishing a given task” is much more important. There are many tasks for which the command line is faster and simpler than using a GUI. Windows tends to hide these simpler, faster methods from the user. By regularly exposing the user to the CLI, Linux pushes the user to learn them.
Every button click is a dialog with the computer. It presents you with options and context, and waits for you to make a decision. Using a GUI, even simple tasks are going to take several dialogs to accomplish.
Most of the time, though, the user knows the exact task that needs to be accomplished, and is just appeasing the computer by going through each dialog to get to the point.
In these cases, the command line can enable the user to skip all that uneccessary dialog and go straight to execution of the intended task. I would say that this is not “unfriendly”.
Of course, I normally use a GUI on Linux to control WiFi, so that’s not a particularly good example.
I regularly use shell scripts. I do know how to use the GUI to change file permissions to make them executable. But why would I open a file manager, browse to the file location, right click, select properties, select permissions, and save, instead of just firing off “chmod a+x *.sh”?
The last shell script I made for work automatically concatenated a bunch of PDF documents, applied a watermark, and printed two copies, all using command line utilities. A simple task that would take several minutes for the user to perform with GUI tools.
This was a simple task that was regularly performed by several users. The command line gave the user a simple, consistent method to automate this task. To my way of thinking, that makes the command line more user-friendly: it does not limit the user to the pre-configured operations allowed by the GUI.
I reject the premise that the command line is not user friendly.
With either a GUI or a command line, the first step is going to be “Search the internet for the instructions.”
The second step for the command line option is “ctrl-c, ctrl-v”. The task is now complete.
The GUI option is only superior if it allows the user to skip the “Search for it” step. If it does not, now you are manually searching some arcane hierarchy for the specific location the developer decided to place that option.
The whole point of the GUI is to be more intuitive. If you need to go to the internet to realize how to do the basic stuff, that means your GUI “failed” in its purpose.
That’s still unavoidable for very complex UIs though, but still you measure how good a UI is at helping people accomplish their tasks.
Agreed. And I certainly use a GUI more than a command line.
My point is only that the command line should not be considered “unfriendly” to the user.
I don’t think “intuitive” is the proper metric for determining user friendliness. I think “ease of accomplishing a given task” is much more important. There are many tasks for which the command line is faster and simpler than using a GUI. Windows tends to hide these simpler, faster methods from the user. By regularly exposing the user to the CLI, Linux pushes the user to learn them.
Every button click is a dialog with the computer. It presents you with options and context, and waits for you to make a decision. Using a GUI, even simple tasks are going to take several dialogs to accomplish.
Most of the time, though, the user knows the exact task that needs to be accomplished, and is just appeasing the computer by going through each dialog to get to the point.
In these cases, the command line can enable the user to skip all that uneccessary dialog and go straight to execution of the intended task. I would say that this is not “unfriendly”.
Well yeah, and it usually does so it is usually superior. Did you have to Google how to connect to a WiFi network with a GUI? Of course not.
True.
Of course, I normally use a GUI on Linux to control WiFi, so that’s not a particularly good example.
I regularly use shell scripts. I do know how to use the GUI to change file permissions to make them executable. But why would I open a file manager, browse to the file location, right click, select properties, select permissions, and save, instead of just firing off “chmod a+x *.sh”?
The last shell script I made for work automatically concatenated a bunch of PDF documents, applied a watermark, and printed two copies, all using command line utilities. A simple task that would take several minutes for the user to perform with GUI tools.
This was a simple task that was regularly performed by several users. The command line gave the user a simple, consistent method to automate this task. To my way of thinking, that makes the command line more user-friendly: it does not limit the user to the pre-configured operations allowed by the GUI.