Linux requires you to venture into the command line
No it doesn't. I choose to use the command line because it's more efficient which is entirely different.
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
8 points (60.0% liked)
Linux
48352 readers
575 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
I agree. If anyone looks at windows support you will find the command line as well. It is much easier to copy paste a specific command than to try and diagram a series of paths and clicks to get something done. Neither OS requires it, but support is much easier when you do.
Double agreed. The amount of time I spent in a command prompt on Windows this week, you'd think I was working on a headless Linux server. XP
Totally agree with this. The more you understand the terminal, the more you know how fast and efficient command line is (not for all activity, but many of them are easily done through command line) rather than through UI. But it takes time to understand, not in insant.
fully agreed. shure a barebones install of just the distro and no DE needs command line but once you have the DE you in theory never need it again. but i still prefer Entering a command. faster and more efficient instead of navigating 1000 menus
How long ago was this written? Sure it's not perfect but you can run a lot of distributions like fedora, ubuntu, opensuse etc etc whatever exactly as described. Maybe this is a joke I didn't understand lol. But in case it is not:
- No need to use command line if you don't want to
- Drivers are installed automatically (okay this might depend on the distro but in OpenSUSE I recall this being possible in a GUI)
- There is a steam flatpak, and most user apps can be installed through a GUI, often as flatpaks
- For a user like this, I see no reason to interact with system packages other than choosing when to update.
- I'm a programmer and even I rarely edit ANYTHING in /etc on my desktop. Sure I edit stuff in ~/.config, but that is not stuff a "normal" user would need to do.
Now sure if you want to start customizing your login screen and this that and the other thing, eventually you will have to run something on the command line. But Windows doesn't allow much customization beyond changing your desktop background, and pales in comparison to the amount of customization you can do with KDE, all through a GUI
What you're saying is correct but all the things you're describing are not 100% foolproof. Flatpaks are community maintained and can contain misconfigurations.
Also the sandboxed nature and all these foreign concepts for new users would have a user question why they're not seeing their folders or why their cursor or theme doesn't match their system.
These systems are great but they're not nearly as polished as Windows and Mac.
It's great for us but Linux has always struggled with any semblance of full polish. I think you're overestimating the average computer user. Probably Ubuntu based distro's are still as close as we got to an OS for the regular person.
The introduction of new concept could be mitigated by a proper system of introducing and explaining these to a new user but it's difficult not to overwhelm them with info or keep them engaged and willing to learn.
TLDR;
True but it's not that simple
lets be real windows isnt polished either. the windows control panel and settings situation highlights that.
At least they work.
I've always had issues with Linux that I'm happy to solve and capable of solving but a regular computer user would not know what to do.
I got into IT because troubleshooting Windows gave me a lot of experience. I don't think there is anything that comes to mind that would make apps less likely to have bugs then on Linux.
The only exception is gaming where a lot of game studios have years of experience with Windows APIs that they tightly integrated with in the past. Less needed now, but that's developer inertia for you.
I think the appstore / sandbox / flatpak situation is actually quite accessible to a younger audience that grew up with smartphones. They don't deal with files much
Not to mention the fact chromebooks exists where local files are a mere joke and everything get's uploaded to Google Disk or an alternative to that and they have never been more popular. The average person doesn't save a word-processing document on a computer locally, they save it on a cloud and trust whoever owns that cloud service.
While it's true that Windows offers less customization than KDE, it offers way more than vanilla GNOME.
I found a lot of customization options on W11, some that aren't even available on KDE (ex: touchpad gestures configuration)
It's true. On the other hand distros like Zorin or Pop!_OS don't need the command line and work "out of the box".
The real problem being that, Linux users are nerds. And once you get use to power, you can't imagine a time where you did not have that power. That is why when a newbie asks "what linux should I use", the answers are never the right ones. It's always : you can use that to do that, or that one is better for that aspect or [...] omitting the simple fact that before all of that, to have more Linux users, the goal is NOT to scare them. Give them something easy, that works. They'll eventually figure it out.
That's the point of the article. It's well written. It's spot-on.
The author of the blog post likes X, that's why distro A ~~is~~ might be the perfect distro for them. While I like Y, which is why distro B is the perfect distro for me etc. What makes Linux -in a sense as a platform- ~~perfect~~ great is that it allows one to either find/install/build/configure the perfect system for them^[1]^. Some prefer to be in full control from start to finish, while others just like sane defaults. The fact that Linux allows for such diversity is almost mind-blowing.
The degree of that diversity will only increase as time goes on and very likely at some point (purely as a side-effect of further diversification) very 'dumped down' versions of Linux might -and perhaps already have- arise. This is inevitable and -perhaps to a degree- essential. And no matter how 'dumped down' some Linux distros would have become by then, you can still bet your money that distros like Gentoo and Slackware will continue to do what they always have. So that everybody and their mom, but also the tinker-loving you, will be able to have their perfect distro.
Therefore I don't see any merit/benefit in contributing to gatekeeping, elitism or whatever this is supposed to be. Instead, we should contribute in more meaningful ways; e.g. like by maintaining some packages you need in your perfect distro. And perhaps those changes will actually contribute to it becoming the perfect distro for others...
- I'd argue Linux isn't quite there yet, unfortunately. As some highly specialized systems just don't exist yet... Regardless, l would reckon it allows one to get the closest to such systems.
I agree with this 100%, every word. Well, almost every word; the expression is "dumbed down" not "dumped down", but other than that, this is basically what I was going to say.
I find that elitist, gatekeepy posts like what OP said are completely unhelpful. They're worse than wrong, because they can't even yield useful discussion, really - just neck beards nodding vigorously and everyone else rolling their eyes.
You want a stable, locked down system? Vanilla OS, Silverblue, Blend, and Aeon will have you covered. You want to tinker? Debian, Fedora, Arch, and OpenSuse are still there. Linux is about choice, and it's just silly to worry that Arch is going to disappear just because Blend (or Garuda, or whatever the hell) exist.
Im not afraid of command line, but also dont feel like linux guy yet. The thing is that installing and using some distros are way easier than windows. I installed POP OS recently and cant believe how smooth and easy it was. Average windows users might not need command line at all on distro like that
There was a time where I liked configuring and compiling things. I wrote my own scripts and pkgbuilds for arch. I've broken and fixed my system more times than I can count. I don't mind it, but god I'm lazy. So I run POP now cause shit works and I don't really have to mess with it.
I'm in this camp. Been messing with linux since 2004. Ubuntu 5.10 i think it was, Fedora core 4, slackware, crunchbang, arch...almost 2 decades later i'm on Pop OS. shit just works it's out of my way. i can customize it to look how i want, set it and forget it. nvidia works great etc. i use the terminal a lot though. mainly for bash scripts and ssh server stuff, directory navigation and management etc. I use a lot of third party TỤI apps too. I like the option of having a stable easy to use GUI for mundane lazy periods and the ability to do whatever i need in terminal. Plus pop os with tiling and floating window manager toggle is awesome.
Same for me, sort of. Started with Ubuntu in 2007 (I still feel nostalgic about the login drum "bu-du-bup" sound), then arch for a couple of years, all the tiling wms, endless polishing of dotfiles. I mainly used the computer to modify how I used the computer. Then I found things I liked doing, like typesetting with TeX, and after that I just wanted a system that let me do that without spending time on the system itself. Since then I've used Debian.
Debian gang rise to the max!
This is pretty much PopOS. Especially with how drivers are integrated into the package manager app.
Nowadays you dont gotta use the terminal very often, but I agree that we can do more to make common tasks powered by the GUI instead, or implicitly work out of the box.
My pain point with Linux atm is how my Laptop's HDMI output doesnt work unless I'm on Nvidia-only graphics. Not only does that require logging out to switch, but it takes a command line program AND it stills feels like a broken workaround for something that would "just work" on Windows.
DisplayLink drivers also suck ass too, sadly.
Other than that, which is a pretty big pain point for new users, Linux is definitely as "out of the box" if not moreso than Windows, regardless of the distro.
ChromeOS right? Is that the answer to the blogs unanswered question? Of what if Linux but supported by a MAANG company made for people who don't want to delve into computer science or engineering or tinkering.