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.
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.
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.