Linux Format forums

Re: CLI or GUI?

rayburn — Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:10 pm

Author: rayburn

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:10 pm

I use both, having initially been completely foxed by the CLI, I now use it whenever possible, as it's so fast for most things. I think that a lot of new users like me would probably take the same route, i.e. learn the CLI after having learnt about Linux on the GUI. Oh, and I too love Midnight Commander as a file manager.

Re: CLI or GUI?

bigbee — Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:04 am

Author: bigbee

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:04 am

my home-made servers (debian) have no X installed.
On my laptop and desktops I run KDE (SuSE 9.2) which would be a shame not to run in graphical mode (used for non server purposes) (try enemy territory in the CL :p )
On my collection of compaq 4131T's laptop I use the graphical mode for instant messaging and CL for reading mail, IRC, configging

My conclusion: I couldn't miss both

Re: CLI or GUI?

sandyman — Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:58 am

Author: sandyman

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:58 am

Both. I'm a bit like M0PHP 'cept I use SSH and Webmin from an iMac

Sandy

Re: CLI or GUI?

skecs — Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:56 am

Author: skecs

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:56 am

Hi nelz,

nelz: - "None of the tools you mention need a specific window manager, but Webmin has the huge advantage that it doesn't need X either, so you can use it on a server."

(I just got tired of waiting for "Quote Selected" to actually add the quote)

I know that you can use these tools from different graphical environments and from the command line. What I was trying to say is that these tools need to be integrated into a a standard configuration package that can manage all distributions. Using apps like alien you can use apt on RPM based systems, the Xen virtualisation in LXF67 also looks like a possible solution to having a standard GUI configuration interface in the background as a virtualised OS maybe?. The reason I stated X based was so that, as long as X was installed, a single command could start X and the configuration interface. Quiting would take it back to the command line.

This would enable quick GUI config on servers, remote graphical config on workstations & servers, configuration of X and input devices (like Sax2, etc), and would quickly enable admins and support staff to access a configuration tool regardless of the distibution installed. This would help standardise certification at the lower levels and still allow for "specialised" certification at a higher level. The distribution managers could add their preferred modules (you wouldn't need the Gnome & KDE stuff in DSL, etc) but anyone could quickly find the familiar configuration interface.

I think this has been one area that Microsoft have standardised successfully since 1995 - everything to configure the system is configured in the Control Panel. Anything to control the server configuration is in Administrative Tools, but it is still lacking in the "WTF have you changed in the registry?" area.

Just some ideas to go forward with Linux.

Re: CLI or GUI?

logandi — Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:03 pm

Author: logandi

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:03 pm

I boot into gnome, because it looks pretty, then use a terminal for almost everything (never figured out how to edit video on the command line).
I'd probably be able to do some things more quickly with a gui, but can't be bothered learning which programs to use.

Re: CLI or GUI?

Nomen_Luni — Sun May 29, 2005 3:57 pm

Author: Nomen_Luni

Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 3:57 pm

I have my Linux box set up for console login. I only use X-Windows for apps that require it like Gimp etc. Everything else is done through Bash.

Re: CLI or GUI?

paganpenguin — Sun May 29, 2005 8:30 am

Author: paganpenguin

Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 8:30 am

I use both, often at the same time to do (almost) the same thing. Redundancy or just me being a complete nut?
For net based work, it has to be GUI, otherwise Susan would remove various parts of my anatomy while I sleep, and show the me pickled evidence the next day. Saying this, six months Susan would have killed me if I told her to "open a terminal and type in <whatever>". Now, she generally defaults to this approach when I'm about to explain something to her. Which is strange as I'm using Mandriva LE 2005 and everything she needs I've configured to be done via the GUI (even downloading the photos from my camera now works through FLPhoto... previously I had to manually download via CLI using gphoto2).
As a web developer I use a variety of tools, although I do default to CLI vim when I start building web structures, only after a basic shell of a page is built do I switch to Quanta+. Each interface has its advantages and disadvantages, so I have both open to use all plus points

Myk

Re: CLI or GUI?

nelz — Sat May 28, 2005 9:28 pm

Author: nelz

Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 9:28 pm

skecs wrote:

I know that Debian has apt get to install packages, there is YaST which has been open sourced, Webmin and Usermin, there is Synaptic and Click-N-Run but , as I posted on another tech site, I think OSDL needs to look at an X based, not KDE/Gnome/Wfm/etc based, central configuration tool.

None of the tools you mention need a specific window manager, but Webmin has the huge advantage that it doesn't need X either, so you can use it on a server.

Re: CLI or GUI?

jjmac — Sat May 28, 2005 10:44 am

Author: jjmac

Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 10:44 am

>>
But I also believe that we have to get as much as possible under GUI if we are to stuff Micro$haft
>>

All both need is the explanation. As seems to be the case with people when they do start to use the cli more ... it's because they have become more familiar with it.

Getting as much as possible under the gui isn't the way though, impo. I don't really think that being a kind of windows clone is going to do anything but harm to Linux distros in the long run. I do think some better thought on the gui front is needed. An unfamiliar, bloated gui, with a crummy help facility, doesn't make for a better experience ... just because it's a gui. But clear documentation does. Especially for a new-user, which is the user the main, popular, well known distros, should be really aiming at. There should be that element of completeness and explaination in the install, that gives a person an initialially good experiance. Then they will be encouraged to take it further.

Take 'sed' as a case in point (a recent study (grin)), such an amazingly useful and powerful tool, even when used in a general way. But ... like ... how are the docs ... unless a person has a passion there, 'sed' could easily remain one of those strange no-go cli thingies that are never used. Such wast

It's not sed's fault, the structure for sed's explanation just isn't currently organised in that way. The docs are there ... but hey ... ya gota really go looking for them (grin), if ya wanta find them.

So, i think Linux has just got to go its' own way, like Mac has. And just get the install/set up process fixed, in order to attract users (desktop). Maybe with a completely different desktop type of layout ... well, we already have virtual screen layouts. Something i really couldn't live without any more.

And the cli can be quite a relaxing way to go about things. I always try to jump there when i can't make sense out of a gui app (grin). Any way ... seems most people are mixing and matching

>>
I had to go with gui as I spend a lot of time point and clicking.
>>

hehehe, hmmm, a person could have some difficulties there in a shell, i would think (grin)

jm

Code:

-|- If the systems the answer, then the question
must have been really stupid -|-

Re: CLI or GUI?

skecs — Sat May 28, 2005 8:58 am

Author: skecs

Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 8:58 am

I voted both as well, somethings can't be done from the GUI, but the point and click makes things quicker at times. Installing from source is easier in a CLI but RPMs can be done in a GUI or manager like YaST or Synaptic. I agree with davecs that GUI configuration needs to improve to push into the desktop market.

I know that Debian has apt get to install packages, there is YaST which has been open sourced, Webmin and Usermin, there is Synaptic and Click-N-Run but , as I posted on another tech site, I think OSDL needs to look at an X based, not KDE/Gnome/Wfm/etc based, central configuration tool. I like the Webmin module based admin tools idea where independent developers can submit modules to a central controlling organisation. It doesn't matter how it is organised - it just needs to be done.

Just a quick rant!

Re: CLI or GUI?

ryptyde — Sat May 28, 2005 3:37 am

Author: ryptyde

Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 3:37 am

I had to go with gui as I spend a lot of time point and clicking.

Re: CLI or GUI?

MachuMan — Fri May 27, 2005 10:13 pm

Author: MachuMan

Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 10:13 pm

As a desktop user i probably prefer the gui as i mostly just surf tinternet, though i admit the cli is very useful for some things. When i find the gui most useful is when i am just browsing through files, i'm not aware of an easy way of doing this with the cli. Its so much easier just to dbl click rather than having to keep typing cd then ls. I can see how developers and programers find it useful as there used to typing lots and fast, but those of us who just do this for fun then the gui makes everything so much more accessible and lets us into the "club" as it were. Though i have to admit the longer i use linux the more i use the cli.

Re: CLI or GUI?

wiz — Fri May 27, 2005 8:20 pm

Author: wiz

Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:20 pm

Midnight Commander for sysadmin duties.
I find it a zillion times quicker to get round a system using this with it's inbuilt file viewer, editor & twin panel view than I do using a GUI.

oops! forgot to add I voted both

Re: CLI or GUI?

davecs — Fri May 27, 2005 8:04 pm

Author: davecs

Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:04 pm

I voted both, but I suppose I really meant GUI if possible, CLI if necessary. But I also believe that we have to get as much as possible under GUI if we are to stuff Micro$haft.

Re: CLI or GUI?

jjmac — Fri May 27, 2005 12:49 pm

Author: jjmac

Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 12:49 pm

Like mentioned above, i tend to use both at the same time.

cli can provide a wider scope with different tool combination via the pipe command. gui's are nice too, but can be limited by the extent of available facilities. I think thats the trick to a good gui.

jm

edit: lilited --> limited

Code:

-|- If the systems the answer, then the question
must have been really stupid -|-