Obviously I’m talking about the DE packages, not the kernel or CLI base. We are talking about windows users switching to linux-based DEs, which are directly trying to compete with Windows and iOS.
This is not me having issue with CLIs. I’ve been on Linux for decades. I am pointing out the perspective of those that are frustrated with Linux DEs being blatantly unready for mass-adoption, specifically because they expect layman users to learn CLI. See my previous comment and this comment for more details.
It’s just that their expectations do not align with reality and they’re only going to hurt their experience by thinking that there is a path to using Linux without using the terminal. Some distros do a really good job of creating something that seems like a pure GUI experience, but that illusion only lasts right up until there is a problem that the UI designers didn’t anticipate and the only way forward is to type terminal commands.
I’m not trying to be an asshole when I say this kind of thing.
It’s just disingenuous for people to recommend Linux and also say ‘Don’t worry, you won’t need the terminal’ or to foster the illusion, in new users, that their fear of the terminal is justified. I get that, of all things Linux, the most alien thing from a Windows/Smartphone user’s perspective, is a text-based interface.
It seems difficult and social media is full of people acting like the terminal is incredibly difficult to learn so people believe that they can simply opt out of using the terminal. You can’t, and trying to do so is going to make users have a horrible experience. It’d be like telling people that Windows doesn’t require a mouse, that’s possibly true but if a person artificially limits themselves in that way, they’re going to have a much harder time than they would have if they’d spend the time to use the OS properly.
This is kind of erasing the author with your description of the issue. The reason that apps eventually require CLI to complete tasks is because devs think of CLI first and then produce a stop-gap P&CI over top of it. It is explicitly how devs in the Linux environment operate which creates a gap between CLI and P&CI. If apps were developed with P&CI in mind first, with CLI added after, this would not be a problem - and we know this because of every app developed for both Windows and Linux, which lack these gaps in functionality - or lack CLI entirely.
Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It’s not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It’s not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you’re trying to do your job at work. I think it’s pretty reasonable most people don’t want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they’ve already figured out how to with a P&CI.
Being realistic, of course, this paradigm shift is not going to happen. Linux will continue to be only a small portion of total computers used by end users because of this, and various other reasons it’s found unpalatable.
I’ve heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
The CLI is first because Linux is, first and foremost, an operating system built for terminal access. It was based on Unix, a mainframe operating system that served terminals.
I’ve heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
Between all of my devices at home and work, I use KDE, XFCE and hyprland.
KDE has a pretty comprehensive GUI, but to say that they’re all you need is a gross exaggeration. Sure, you can connect your bluetooth device via the GUI but if there is any problem with it the GUI is woefully insufficient for troubleshooting. Similarly, you can adjust the volume in the GUI… but if your device is using the wrong bitrate or you want to do anything more complicated than control the device that sound is sent to, then you’re going to be editing dot files and using the terminal.
In Linux, the GUI applications are a convenience but the core of the system is the terminal interface. That’s what everything has been designed for since the beginning. Graphical Desktop environments are not, at all, a replacement for the terminal.
Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It’s not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It’s not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you’re trying to do your job at work. I think it’s pretty reasonable most people don’t want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they’ve already figured out how to with a P&CI.
I don’t think that it is reasonable to want to swap operating systems without learning the new operating system.
If a person has decided that they never want to use anything but a mouse to solve their problems then Linux is not the OS for them. Learning a new operating system means learning how the operating system works, not declaring how you think it should work and declaring anything outside of your expectations as unreasonable.
If you’re coming into this with the idea that you’re going to swap to Linux but only use your Windows/Mac knowledge to puzzle through a GUI and also refuse to touch anything that is in the terminal then you should not use Linux. If you’re asking for help and then telling the people trying to help you that you’re not going to use the terminal, you’re going to face a lot of negative responses.
Obviously I’m talking about the DE packages, not the kernel or CLI base. We are talking about windows users switching to linux-based DEs, which are directly trying to compete with Windows and iOS.
This is not me having issue with CLIs. I’ve been on Linux for decades. I am pointing out the perspective of those that are frustrated with Linux DEs being blatantly unready for mass-adoption, specifically because they expect layman users to learn CLI. See my previous comment and this comment for more details.
I do understand their perspective.
It’s just that their expectations do not align with reality and they’re only going to hurt their experience by thinking that there is a path to using Linux without using the terminal. Some distros do a really good job of creating something that seems like a pure GUI experience, but that illusion only lasts right up until there is a problem that the UI designers didn’t anticipate and the only way forward is to type terminal commands.
I’m not trying to be an asshole when I say this kind of thing.
It’s just disingenuous for people to recommend Linux and also say ‘Don’t worry, you won’t need the terminal’ or to foster the illusion, in new users, that their fear of the terminal is justified. I get that, of all things Linux, the most alien thing from a Windows/Smartphone user’s perspective, is a text-based interface.
It seems difficult and social media is full of people acting like the terminal is incredibly difficult to learn so people believe that they can simply opt out of using the terminal. You can’t, and trying to do so is going to make users have a horrible experience. It’d be like telling people that Windows doesn’t require a mouse, that’s possibly true but if a person artificially limits themselves in that way, they’re going to have a much harder time than they would have if they’d spend the time to use the OS properly.
This is kind of erasing the author with your description of the issue. The reason that apps eventually require CLI to complete tasks is because devs think of CLI first and then produce a stop-gap P&CI over top of it. It is explicitly how devs in the Linux environment operate which creates a gap between CLI and P&CI. If apps were developed with P&CI in mind first, with CLI added after, this would not be a problem - and we know this because of every app developed for both Windows and Linux, which lack these gaps in functionality - or lack CLI entirely.
Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It’s not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It’s not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you’re trying to do your job at work. I think it’s pretty reasonable most people don’t want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they’ve already figured out how to with a P&CI.
Being realistic, of course, this paradigm shift is not going to happen. Linux will continue to be only a small portion of total computers used by end users because of this, and various other reasons it’s found unpalatable.
I’ve heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
The CLI is first because Linux is, first and foremost, an operating system built for terminal access. It was based on Unix, a mainframe operating system that served terminals.
Between all of my devices at home and work, I use KDE, XFCE and hyprland.
KDE has a pretty comprehensive GUI, but to say that they’re all you need is a gross exaggeration. Sure, you can connect your bluetooth device via the GUI but if there is any problem with it the GUI is woefully insufficient for troubleshooting. Similarly, you can adjust the volume in the GUI… but if your device is using the wrong bitrate or you want to do anything more complicated than control the device that sound is sent to, then you’re going to be editing dot files and using the terminal.
In Linux, the GUI applications are a convenience but the core of the system is the terminal interface. That’s what everything has been designed for since the beginning. Graphical Desktop environments are not, at all, a replacement for the terminal.
I don’t think that it is reasonable to want to swap operating systems without learning the new operating system.
If a person has decided that they never want to use anything but a mouse to solve their problems then Linux is not the OS for them. Learning a new operating system means learning how the operating system works, not declaring how you think it should work and declaring anything outside of your expectations as unreasonable.
If you’re coming into this with the idea that you’re going to swap to Linux but only use your Windows/Mac knowledge to puzzle through a GUI and also refuse to touch anything that is in the terminal then you should not use Linux. If you’re asking for help and then telling the people trying to help you that you’re not going to use the terminal, you’re going to face a lot of negative responses.