The author argues that you don’t need to use the terminal but constantly argues that you should. The average computer user doesn’t even know which version of Windows they’re using. Many don’t even know if they’re using Windows or Mac. Until Linux gets over the obsession with the terminal we’re never going to have the year of Linux.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
48 points (88.7% liked)
Linux
47749 readers
831 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
What's wrong with using the cli? People act like it's some arcane dark magic...
You're typing things in a small box here rather than clicking on icons to reply. Sometimes text is just better.
Just use openSuse. With Tumblweed you even get a a rolling distro that does not require any terminal use.
load more comments
(4 replies)
In my firs time with linux I install ubuntu (maybe 12.04, I dont't remember, it was gnome 2) in the only PC in my parents home, I delete windows, and we was using it 2 years without knowing what is a terminal and everything went fine, the problems appeard when I was discover the terminal hahahaha
I've tried to run Ubuntu, mint, Debian, and couple other distros without the terminal to see if I can actually recommend it to non-geeks. And every time, I conclude I can't because the fucking "software center" (or whatever it's called) is always garbage, and it's easier to just use apt.
The only time I'll recommend Linux to a non-tech person is when the hardware is so old that it would just be junked without Linux.
And apt is just the beginning of it. It's not that uncommon for apt to not work either.
Specially when it's hijacked to run other things instead (cough cough snaps).
Using screenshots, demonstrate to me how the current edition of Linux Mint's Software Manager application is "garbage" and show me how the Apple App Store, Google Play Store or the Windows Store is better.
I can agree that there are not great software managers out there, Pop!_Shop always felt like it was malfunctioning to me, and Synaptic Package Manager works but has some significant klunk, but...what's wrong with Mint Software Manager that anyone else gets right.
no.
And there it is.
I think tools like YaST help to save time, instead of editing the bootloader in config files, you can simply enter, search for "Boot Loader" and edit there, be following a tutorial or official documentation. I sometimes prefer to use YaST just so I don't do things wrong. it's like the old Control Panel in Windows.
To be fair you can't use windows without using the terminal. And you have to open regedit to turn off a lot of annoying crap
You can use Linux without a terminal, but life is so much easier to just remember few letters (command) and pressing enter instead remembering 200 places where a setting is. You can also always just do sudo pacman --help.
So many comments here saying you don't need the terminal for full functionality.... What Distro are you people using??? How do you install programs not in the "software center" and how do you edit config files? How do you configure a network share? I don't really think you guys are thinking this through.
For any use-cases beyond a very limited chromebook-like functionality, Linux is absolutely not fully usable without access to the terminal.
The article uses Linux Mint
Right, and they only demonstrated limited functionality.
Any modern distro.
There are GUI methods for adding repositories to every major software center to my knowledge, and it isn't very hard.
Kate, and other modern file editors are more than equipped to handle some config files, that's probably the simplest thing ever.
There are multiple GUI front ends for samba.
Don't comment on the usability of Linux GUI if you haven't even tried in the last 20 years like seriously
Any modern distro.
I don't suppose you could give the name of a distro that achieves full functionality purely in the GUI?
Well if i double-click a file I've made executable, it will ask if I'd like to run it, and most software will have a github or downloads page that will give you direct downloads to the software.
In other words, I can successfully install things like a windows user, I just have to go the extra step to open the file's properties and make it executable with the GUI first.
Apt is faster, and it's also faster to do a direct download, make it executable, then execute it in the terminal, too. But I CAN do it.
Config files can be edited in the GUI text editor, it's just slower.
To test my claim and prove your third point, this link is the repository for a samba GUI, found at https://www.samba.org/samba/GUI/. Specifically, it's SMB4K, the first one.
Convenient? No. Would it update automatically? No. Do I want to do it this way, or recommend it? Still no. But it does function.
In other words, I can successfully install things like a windows user, I just have to go the extra step to open the file’s properties and make it executable with the GUI first.
Some programs can be installed this way, but it's extremely far from universal.
Config files can be edited in the GUI text editor
Not without opening them as root, which in every distro I know of, requires the terminal.
To test my claim and prove your third point, this link is the repository for a samba GUI
The install directions for that program involve the terminal.
I'm sure you could but why? Terminal is so useful. Am I out of touch?
You may be out of touch with people that are used to GUI. For example, during the first installation of linux distro after the user is landed on their DE, as far as I know, no distro ever curates the terminal to them. Like "this is the menu", "this is the terminal emulator", and even after the user managed to open the terminal, it is not obvious what to do next as there is only text prompt. Remember, users using GUI usually encounter text prompts with some hint (username, comment, email). Meanwhile the terminal has nothing. Suddenly you see the user you are logged in as and a blinking cursor. After that, how do you know what apps are installed? What commands can you call? Typing help doesn't always help on every distro. Again, remember, users using GUI will see what apps are installed usually using a menu of some sort. There is a lot of friction coming from GUI if you have never encountered CLI before. Heck, I bet some people have never installed an application outside from an app store or their commissioned device. Even a file explorer concept is foreign to some.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes you can but why would you not use the terminal. It's bloody handy.
Eh, you really can't. Linux without the terminal only enables about 5% of the functionality available the user.
Linux geeks like to imagine a hypothetical "average user" who never needs to adjust settings or install anything beyond a web browser. But a person looking for that limited of functionality while also knowing how to install an operating system is not an average user.