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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
The short answer is yes. But the interesting part - and I'm talking from personal experience - is that from the moment you realize just how easy and powerful using the console is, you learn how to use it.
And it does not mean you are going to turn into a full on expert or geek, tinkering around the console. You just learn a few simple commands that enable you to do something (or somethings) quicker, easier and cleaner than going through a GUI.
Can you? Yes. Should you? No.
I've always thought GUIs felt more like doing things by hand and CLIs felt more like having the computer do it for you. Like if you want to do some complicated task that requires multiple programs and lots of menus using a GUI, it's easy the first time, but once you need to do it a second time you have to do it all over again by hand. But if you do it from the command line, while it might be harder the first time, subsequent times are zero effort because you can just run the exact same commands again from your history or combine them into one or a script to make it even easier.
For many people it's not quicker or easier. If they've not used CLI before, they'd need to learn multiple new things. Going to a Web browser for help every time, before doing something is not quick. Memorising precise command strings that mean nothing to the user, is not easy for many either. For them it's bad usability.
from the moment you realize just how easy and powerful using the console is, you learn how to use it
Yes, I understand that; there is a learning curve. For some, too steep.
Kinda disappointing.
The article is really trying to sell us, the reader, that using Linux without knowing how to use the command line is not only possible but totally feasible. Unfortunately, after each paragraph that expresses that sentiment we are treated to up to several paragraphs on how it's totally easier, faster, and more powerful to do things via thé command line, and hey did you know that more people like coding on Linux than windows? Did you know you can do more powerful things with bash, awk, and sed than you ever could in a file manager?!
FFS vim and nano are brought up and vim's "shortcuts" are praised... in an article on how you can totally use Linux through a gui and never need to open up the command line.
Who is this written for? outside of people who not only already use Linux but are convinced that using any other OS is both a moral failing and a form of self-harm?
For clarity's sake: I have been daily driving Linux, specifically ArchLinux, for the past 9 years, across a rotation of laptop and desktop computers. I do almost everything in the command line and prefer it that way.
I still think if you want people to try Linux you need to chill the fuck out on getting them to use the command line. At the very least, until they're actually interested in using Linux on their own.
Yes you can but you often see the terminal used when helping people online. This is because it works across desktop environments and mostly across distros, however it does give the impression that the terminal is needed.
Even basic things in distros are quite different, for example the frontend for settings, so tech support threads will show how to do it in the backend. Oh well, but then there's someone who suggests
sudo nano /etc/default/grub
If you're a noob, run this and get a "nano: command not found" error, you'll google it and learn to resolve it using apt. However, Manjaro's package manager is pacman but you don't know, so you install apt using a weird guide without knowing what it even is. The next update then wreaks havoc on your system.
My first install ended in a dependency hell because of this.
I didn't see anyone else mention this but, as someone who uses Linux Mint, if you are going to install software through the Software Manager, read the reviews for the app you want before downloading it. Linux Mint's Software Manager is full of apps that are so outdated that some of them aren't even compatible with the current version of Linux Mint. There are other issues as well, like how there are at least 20 different versions of Wine and most of them are very old versions. I'd understand if they want to keep legacy apps for the older, still supported, versions of Linux Mint but it can be confusing to use sometimes.
I've been daily driving Linux Mint for 10 years now. The answer to this question is "for what most people consider everyday usage, you have to use the Linux terminal about as often as you have to edit the Windows registry." And in fact over the 10 years I've been a Linux user, GUI tools in Linux are increasingly available, and I've heard Windows normies talking about the registry more.
When I started out, Mint shipped with Synaptic Package Manager, and a lot of distros didn't include a GUI at all. Now GUI package managers are the rule rather than the exception and most have bespoke polished app store -like things. You of course can still use apt or dnf or pacman or whatever, but you decreasingly have to.
I never once touched the registry on my Win 98, Win XP, Win Vista or Win 7 machines. Win 8 required a couple registry keys to turn off that...curtain that you had to click away to get to the login screen? and a few other "tablet first" features Win 8 had, and now I hear "just go and add these registry keys to put the start menu on the left, turn off ads, re-enable right click and retract the rectal thermometer."
Linux is becoming more normie friendly while Windows is genuinely becoming less normie friendly.
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.
I agree with the author then.
This whole threat is a HUGE circle jerk and a collection of all the "I USE ARCH BTW" variations imaginable.
"WHY WOULDN'T ALL PEOPLE WANT THE KNOWLEDGE TO CRAFT COMMANDS TO MANIPULATE, FILTER AND SEARCH TEXT IN A WHOLE FILE SYSTEM WITH JUST ONE COMMAND? UNCULTURED PESANTS"
Come, not everyone is a computer nerd, nor everyone ones to optimize 30s in the workflow if it means memorizing a bunch of commands, their syntax and options.
If you want to use Linux without the terminal nowadays it's pretty easy. But also I think the fear of the terminal is part of the culture that consumer electronics have cultivated where people don't know (or want to know) how their systems work.
If you take the time to use it, not only can you save yourself time, but also learn a lot more about how you can fix things when they go wrong! That kind of knowledge gives you so much more ownership of your system, because you don't have to rely on your manufacturer to solve problems for you.
Same for Mac and Windows too, the terminal is something that shouldn't be necessary, but when it is it helps to know what you're doing. :)
I think not everyone needs to know how their device works. Specialization is what advances us as humans after all. If they wanted to know, good for them, and if they don't also good for them. If I were using a car, I don't need to know how the engine convert a chemical energy, transfer power, and generate thrust
Edit just to give an example, an office worker may only need to use a word processor and their OS be up to date. If the user can just click the GUI to update the OS rather than typing the command for whatever package manager the OS uses, it is good enough for him. Sysadmin can give them the instruction once and done.
If the user forgot the instruction, they can explore it on their own with GUI without internet since no matter how deep a GUI config is, then there must be a way to get there (assuming the UI designer isn't shit). Contrast that with CLI where if you forgot or don't know any command there is little help or indicator of what's available and what can be done without external help.
I could not agree more. The number of people in here who are demanding that everyone who uses an OS understand it completely is absolutely ridiculous. I’d love to sit down and watch these people rebuild a lawnmower engine or service the compressor on their refrigerator. Hell, a shocking number of people I meet don’t know how to cook for themselves and they’re going to demand that end users be able to chroot and save a nonbootable system? Get out of here.
There is a large degree of willful ignorance. Its 2024 and the degree of computer illiteracy is astounding.
I was an 80s kid but even I grew up with computers: Atari, Commodore and Amstrad. I then learnt PCs with DOS. All pretty much self learnt from 8 years old as no one else in my family knew shit about computers so I was on my own.
These days computers are so user friendly ad practically run themselves, even Linux but the amount of people who cant perform basic computer tasks even in Windows is unbelievable. Do they even still teach computers at schools anymore?
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.
Not sure if Bauh is available for Debian and it's derivatives, but it's an amazing software center. If anything, use synaptic on Debian. It's much better than any software center there.
I am a gui only user. AMA. I have to use command line occasionally but it's less than once a month, if that. Im on EndeavourOS desktop for over 2 years with Bauh managing updates. My home server runs Unraid with a web GUI interface maybe used CLI twice in 5 years? They told me Linux could be what I wanted it to be. I don't want to use command line, so I don't!
Yes, I do it every day, on my Android phone, router, printer, television, speakers, smart hub, smartwatch, cable box, car, and everything else running Linux underhood.
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
Yes. I've been using Ubuntu and now Kubuntu for about 12 years and I don't use the CLI. I don't play computer maintenance guy, so don't need any weird hacks. I just use my applications, which all have GUIs. I don't need the CLI despite people telling me I need to use it. They have never tried GUI only. So they don't know what they are talking about. The next lot, who typically have no idea about usability, tell me I'm missing out on something. But it's always something I've never needed. If I were to use the CLI, I would need to spend ages researching not just some command, but a whole lot of other concepts that I have no clue about, only to forget it all if I ever need that again. So not as fast as people claim. Luckily, Desktop Environment developers know this and put a lot of effort into making them user friendly. They understand usability. And that different users have different needs.
So I never planned on using the cli, but the thing is, when you're following a tutorial — say you're installing/configuring something new — it is so much easier to copy/paste commands than it is to read instructions and then translate them to your own particular GUI environment. Once you've done that a few times, you're already one of us
Recently I tried a new, modern distro: Solus.
After installation, I survived about 10 minutes without a command line and the next thing I needed was their package manager's manual (because that fancy GUI software shop simply killed itself)
No big deal for me. I feel safe on these paths. But IMHO "Linux without command line" is still only a dream.
Based on my experience, I think you can. Many distros nowadays offer ways to do things without the use of the terminal. In Linux Mint, for example, you can rely solely on the Update Manager to update all installed applications and modules rather than using the terminal. You can also uninstall apps by right-clicking on them in the Menu and selecting the uninstall option. And finally, if you want to move files around, even to some locations that require root, you can do that using the File Explorer app (e.g. Nemo).
That being said, when I started on my Linux journey, I made it a point to actually learn some terminal commands, because I saw it as an important feature in Linux and a good skill to possess.
Yeah, obviously, or the title wouldn't even have happened.
And it's been that way for a while now. Back when windows 10 happened, I was able to install mint, get most of my preferred programs set up, and handle data transfer with zero CLI use. Which was awesome, because my dyslexic ass would have taken forever otherwise. It wasn't until I started putzing around for pop and giggles that I even opened a terminal.
My mom w as able to jump right in after installation of mint, and go through the gui to try things out, no issues.
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.
Microsoft is one of if not the biggest and richest companies in the world and they got that way on a strategy based on the public's fear and hatred of reading comprehension.
For me, the terminal is something I’ll learn once I’m more familiar with which apps I like. Until then, it’s nice to have something like pamac to help me find the thing I need.
I can't personally, but I've installed/set up Linux systems for quite a lot of older people, and I think only one of them ever uses the terminal for anything. The rest just... use the computer.
On the whole, they're pretty much just using Libreoffice, Firefox and a few other bits these days. If something needs the terminal to fix, we're already past the point where they've phoned me to pop round and fix it.
These used to be Ubuntu systems, but I switched them all to Mint after having endless Snap permission problems with printers, USB sticks and other peripherals. Once up and running, it's pretty low maintenance.
I guess they don't need to use the terminal, because I'll go and do it if it's necessary - but we are looking at once every few years. Not a lot of tech support needed.
On my own machine, I probably use the terminal every day.
Yes you can but why would you not use the terminal. It's bloody handy.
Ιt depends on your competence. My mom's laptop is Debian with XFCE (2 GB RAM old Chromebook converted to run Debian) and of course, she doesn't use the terminal. But then again, she doesn't even know how to open a new tab on Chrome. She just uses 1 tab at the time (which is why it's enough with 2 GB of RAM). So she's never going to see a terminal in her life, and it's going to work just fine for her, since the only thing she does on a computer is load 1 tab on Chrome, and mostly use Facebook, or youtube, or news/recipe sites that I have put on her bookmark bar. When the computer needs to be updated, I do it for her once a month or so (using the terminal).
But if you're trying to do a lot more than that, then maybe, sometimes, you will need to fix or change things using the terminal.
Package management is probably the biggest thing a Linux user might need to use the terminal for. The graphical package managers used by default on most desktop environments are far too limited.
KDE's Discover for instance is capable of installing (graphical) desktop applications, uninstalling packages and performing updates. Sure, it supports native packages on the majority of distros through PackageKit, as well as Flatpaks and Snaps, but it can only perform very basic package manager operations. I imagine most users will at some point need to install a package that isn't a graphical desktop application, such as a driver or an optional dependency and they will need to use the terminal for it.
To my knowledge, this is also the state of most other graphical package managers that take the form of "software centers" like Discover. More powerful graphical package managers do exist, usually specific to a specific package manager such as Octopi for Pacman. Few distros ship with them, however. I believe one notable exception is OpenSUSE with YaST. There's also dnfdragora on Fedora, which is pretty basic, but might be good enough for most purposes.