this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
539 points (92.4% liked)
Technology
60055 readers
3216 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The point frankly was that I don't see your point.
Unix-like systems have Unix shell as the most basic and universal interface.
If your point was that it's a downside that it even exists, then you are basically saying that something you can't use should be taken away from those who can. Not many allies.
I didn't say it should be taken away, did I?
My first computer was all terminal, all the time. It was called the Commodore 64. After that, MS-DOS on an IBM PC (& compatible). I can do the typity-type. But most new adopters of tech aren't using terminals or command lines... they're using touch screens and voice commands.
Microsoft and Apple adapted, making their graphical user interfaces more robust, user-friendly, and compatible with modern workflows.. and in turn, those workflows evolved syncretically. The terminal, or command-line, is still accessible, but it's no longer the primary method for installing or accessing programs.
No Linux distribution that I know of has reached the same level of usability, and I think it's because Linux is a platform built by nerds, specifically for nerds to use. I'm a massive nerd myself, but I can see how a lot of new users, who are used to being able to use their computer with just a mouse, would feel excluded and unable to invest the time to learn to adapt.
There's no need for bad faith replies; there is nothing attacking nor scathing in my words.
Is my viewpoint unreasonable?
That's not what I meant, I just took a leap from complaining about the usual advice in the Web involving CLI to the only way to prevent it - as in having some particular GUI as universal, if not more, as CLI, for advice involving it to work.
I mean, for example, in OpenBSD there are no distributions and X server is part of the base system, so they in theory could make a GUI configurator, but OpenBSD configuration is already much simpler than usual Linux, yes, with editing config files. It's simpler than OpenWRT subjectively. That configurator likely wouldn't be in demand.
In FreeBSD they still could have some GUI configurator maybe not completely official, due to there being no X11 in the base system, but still functional. Maybe that even exists.
But with Linux various distributions exist.
If you are talking about user-friendly GUIs fit to do various stuff in a particular distribution, OpenSUSE's one is better than those proprietary things you mentioned. I think Mageia and Calculate Linux too had nice GUI configurations, and maybe OpenMandriva. Obviously Fedora has one, as the go-to "user-friendly" distribution, being from Red Hat and all.
So you have tried all in the list above and have this impression?
I hate GUI configurators due to my own personal issues with modern UI\UX. They make me anxious. But OpenSUSE's one in particular even for me felt as good as it gets.