I’ve found that some people use Linux just to be apart of the “cool tech kids” on the internet. They don’t understand how to use a CLI, what kernel level access is, what a kernel is, or even how Linux actually works as opposed to Windows/Mac.
I think Manjaro was made for them. It’s like the MLM version of a Linux distro.
I mean, when I started using Linux I also tried to avoid the CLI, and I was successful at that with Mint for quite a while. Actually, updating Mint in GUI is faster. I didn’t find a way to enable parallel downloads for apt like for pacman, but the GUI does just that.
Very much possible nowdays. I haven’t even switched from Windows, I got a first computer, didn’t know the difference between Linux Mint and Windows, but I found Mint easier to use. Windows confused me with separate settings and control panel, and then some guide asking me to do woodoo in scary looking registry editor…
Are you trying to gatekeep Linux to only power users that use a CLI, are way above the average in computer literacy, and happen to know the nuances between Linux and other operating systems?
This is the kind of thinking that will prevent adoption to the masses. Linux doesn’t have to be stupid hard to use. There are specific distros like vanilla Arch for advanced users to tinker with and options like Manjaro and Ubuntu that are ideally functional out of the box for those that just want something to work.
What Manjaro is doing here is dumb AF, and should rightfully be heavily criticized, but you statement feels like your saying you should have to be a computer expert to use any Linux distro, and that’s dumb.
As someone who read at least 2/3 of the DOS 6 manual when it came out, and have used a variety of Linux flavors as well, a command prompt is the least helpful interface devised. What do you type there? How do you let the computer know when you’re done typing? If the answers seem obvious to you, think about why, and what on the screen would point you that way if you hadn’t had training. People are very visual, in general, and a simple interface such as a mouse that directs focus and has a minimal amount of interaction options is far easier to get started with, especially if the GUI has culturally intuitive icons (save needs updating).
I don’t think the power of the command line, or text interfaces in general, can be overstated, but even the most helpful text interfaces, such as those found in some IDEs, require prior knowledge to be useful. This isn’t going to work for the majority of people.
If you think GUI is intuitive you have never worked in support and despaired at people trying their best to get “simple” concepts like “left-click” vs. “right-click” wrong.
At least there’s only a single way to tell the computer “ok, execute this command”. And you see the command written in plain text before you.
And, no, no useful interface is intuitive because computers just have too many functions. There’s no intuitive appliance in the world with more than a temperature knob and a timer knob. Knowledge is always required, be that cultural or by RTFM.
Unfortunately, for the scenario I was replying to, a lot of the times when you’re doing support, you can’t see the user’s screen and are limited to verbal communication, so verifying what they typed or the output can lead to just as many problems. Any support scenario where you’re talking the other person through a series of tasks will be very dependent on how familiar each person is with the task you’re supporting. And no one Rs TFM these days, if you even get one.
It is literally easier to explain to them how to do something on the command line than in a GUI, both in documentation and over the phone. That doesn’t mean they will ever discover how to do something in either interface on their own but I don’t really expect that from the people who make paper notes of the step-by-step process in GUI workflows anyway.
Just try to verbally describe the difference between a bracket, brace, or parenthesis, or forward slash vs backslash. I’m sure it will be fine. But absolutely, a text-based interface is easier to describe in text.
This is a “cool tech kid” opinion. Linux is for EVERYONE. Let’s not gatekeep it. Having GUI tools and stuff that is so easy to use that tech-illiterate people can use Linux is a great thing.
I’ve found that some people use Linux just to be apart of the “cool tech kids” on the internet. They don’t understand how to use a CLI, what kernel level access is, what a kernel is, or even how Linux actually works as opposed to Windows/Mac.
I think Manjaro was made for them. It’s like the MLM version of a Linux distro.
I hope that’s true. If Linux has come this far to make PC life possible for the cool kids, I say welcome to each and every one of them.
I mean, when I started using Linux I also tried to avoid the CLI, and I was successful at that with Mint for quite a while. Actually, updating Mint in GUI is faster. I didn’t find a way to enable parallel downloads for apt like for pacman, but the GUI does just that.
Very much possible nowdays. I haven’t even switched from Windows, I got a first computer, didn’t know the difference between Linux Mint and Windows, but I found Mint easier to use. Windows confused me with separate settings and control panel, and then some guide asking me to do woodoo in scary looking registry editor…
Are you trying to gatekeep Linux to only power users that use a CLI, are way above the average in computer literacy, and happen to know the nuances between Linux and other operating systems?
This is the kind of thinking that will prevent adoption to the masses. Linux doesn’t have to be stupid hard to use. There are specific distros like vanilla Arch for advanced users to tinker with and options like Manjaro and Ubuntu that are ideally functional out of the box for those that just want something to work.
What Manjaro is doing here is dumb AF, and should rightfully be heavily criticized, but you statement feels like your saying you should have to be a computer expert to use any Linux distro, and that’s dumb.
These fuckers want to prevent adoption of Linux to the masses. They hate the very idea of someone new asking questions.
Why do people always assume that is even something desirable? All that will get us is more requests for support with fewer people actually helping.
And the assumption that GUI=easy and CLI=hard should have really died in the 90s when it started.
As someone who read at least 2/3 of the DOS 6 manual when it came out, and have used a variety of Linux flavors as well, a command prompt is the least helpful interface devised. What do you type there? How do you let the computer know when you’re done typing? If the answers seem obvious to you, think about why, and what on the screen would point you that way if you hadn’t had training. People are very visual, in general, and a simple interface such as a mouse that directs focus and has a minimal amount of interaction options is far easier to get started with, especially if the GUI has culturally intuitive icons (save needs updating).
I don’t think the power of the command line, or text interfaces in general, can be overstated, but even the most helpful text interfaces, such as those found in some IDEs, require prior knowledge to be useful. This isn’t going to work for the majority of people.
If you think GUI is intuitive you have never worked in support and despaired at people trying their best to get “simple” concepts like “left-click” vs. “right-click” wrong.
Oh, I have. Now imagine giving those people a command line.
At least there’s only a single way to tell the computer “ok, execute this command”. And you see the command written in plain text before you.
And, no, no useful interface is intuitive because computers just have too many functions. There’s no intuitive appliance in the world with more than a temperature knob and a timer knob. Knowledge is always required, be that cultural or by RTFM.
Unfortunately, for the scenario I was replying to, a lot of the times when you’re doing support, you can’t see the user’s screen and are limited to verbal communication, so verifying what they typed or the output can lead to just as many problems. Any support scenario where you’re talking the other person through a series of tasks will be very dependent on how familiar each person is with the task you’re supporting. And no one Rs TFM these days, if you even get one.
It is literally easier to explain to them how to do something on the command line than in a GUI, both in documentation and over the phone. That doesn’t mean they will ever discover how to do something in either interface on their own but I don’t really expect that from the people who make paper notes of the step-by-step process in GUI workflows anyway.
Just try to verbally describe the difference between a bracket, brace, or parenthesis, or forward slash vs backslash. I’m sure it will be fine. But absolutely, a text-based interface is easier to describe in text.
This is a “cool tech kid” opinion. Linux is for EVERYONE. Let’s not gatekeep it. Having GUI tools and stuff that is so easy to use that tech-illiterate people can use Linux is a great thing.