Thats the neat part, we dont need to and theres literally no benefit in doing so. Heres the cycle
Linux user suggests Linux to eveyone (like a dumbass) -> people install Linux -> its not a Windows clone -> people get pissed and complain (without doing anything constructive) -> people reinstall Windows
The fact is the more nontechnical people use Linux the more complaints maintainers get, the less detailed bug reports become, and the increase to funding/contributions will be mininal if even noticeable.
Been using Linux for almost two decades now. Mostly Ubuntu and now recently Linux Mint.
True Linux users build their own kernel and distro from scratch from an environment running directly in EFI
Pff, I carve my own CPUs from compacted sand, like real men.
I don’t compile, I flip the CPU instruction switches manually while reading directly from the source code.
@wander1236 @Lexam with tcc, this should be possible…
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc
normie users should be able to everything without using a terminal
Eh. I’m mostly a power user, all day at work in terminals and keyboard shortcut galore.
It doesn’t prevent me from laying back and running a “filthy casual” kubuntu with little to no setup at all. At one point you reach the state where you just want to use your computer, not tinker with it all the time.
This is why Arch never stuck for me. I work with Linux all day. I don’t want to spend my free time fixing my own shit because a update broke the bootloader.
This is ultimately why I switched from Arch… Now I’ve just got an Arch distrobox and if it breaks, no big deal.
Ubuntu Server baby. That shit is absolutely rock solid, I’ve literally never had an update break stuff in the decade+ I’ve been managing it.
And Alexander wept, seeing as he had no more computers to set up and tinker
-Alexander (probably)
I am not able to comprehend what you mean. I love tinkering, ricing and starting all over again if something is permanently fucked. This is not a joke.
I respect your approach, though , ofc.
A true mainstream Linux distro would need guidelines like this:
- The user is never be expected to type a command into a terminal.
- The user is never be expected to edit a configuration file.
- There is a graphical UI for every possible action the user might want to (or have to) do.
This especially includes:
- Configuring audio devices
- Installing graphics drivers
- Updating the operating system
- Managing applications and storage space
- Connecting to networked storage
- Adjusting kernel parameters (This is neccessary on certain hardware, yet, barely any distro has a graphical UI for it.)
The only distro that comes close to this is Linux Mint, but not even Mint covers everything I just mentioned.
If we want Linux to succeed, there needs to be at least one distro that confidently ships without a terminal.
There can never be a distro that ships without a terminal. I will burn it with the fire of a thousand suns. Even Windows has a terminal
Windows doesn’t even cover everything you just said. The number of times Windows 10 broke my Bluetooth devices and I had to much around in registry to remove the device profile just to try to repair the device, is part of the reason I switched to Linux in the first place.
Yes, many distros need a little refining and smoothing for the general public, but only because people are so used to dealing with bullshit troubleshooting on Windows that they don’t see it as bullshit anymore.
That’s a low bar, but importantly they’re still correct that technically Windows looks like it can handle those things as far as a regular consumer can see. Windows is unholy trash, but it at least doesn’t tell people who can’t even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands they likely found on a forum or third-party website.
Personally I think a little more tinkering spirit would do the whole world good, not just with computers, but reality is the way that it is for the moment(things can change, fingers crossed).
but at least people who can’t even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands.
This! I work in IT, in fact, I’m the director of both the IT and software teams at my company and I am constantly teaching my new techs and reminding my existing techs that they need to remember just how little the “average” person knows about computers, and how much more that is than what they’d actually care to learn.
99% of people don’t care about computers, or how to make things “more efficient”, or anything else. They just care about the easiest way to do something. And like it or not, the easiest way for the vast majority of people is through a GUI.
There is even an XKCD about this
And that’s even before you get to the security problems! I am constantly trying to prevent users from going to FreeNuclearCodes.com or sending passwords and social security numbers to i7716tvq_88@gmail.com (actual email address I had to block last week)
You were absolutely right about everything up until your very last sentence.
We need a distro that comes with GUIs for everything indeed, but shipping without a terminal would be both a bad idea and would cause the distro maintainer to go up in flames immediately.
Interesting, i kinda read that quickly and took awsay from it more of a
Ships without the expectation to need a terminal, not actually ship without one at all
The reason I had no problem whatsoever editing config files is because I’d been doing it for decades already in Windows with .ini files.
And not needing a terminal is different than not having access to one. Windows has a terminal.
I think it even ships with 3(?) terminals for some reason now for some reason lol
Seriously - Linux needs a standardized config schema spec. Something that programs should provide which an application can read and provide a frontend interface for the users to adjust config files.
Could be something like:
schema_version: 1.0 application: name: Poo Analyzer icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/icon.png description: Analyzes photos of poo schema: - config_file: path: /etc/pooanalyzer/conf/poo.conf conf_type: ini configs: - field: poo_directory type: dir_path name: Poo Image Directory description: Directory of Poo Images icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/poo.png - field: poo_type type: list name: Poo Types description: Types of Poo to Analyze values: - dog - cat - human - brown bear icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/animal.png ...Any distro could then create any frontend they’d like to manage this - the user could even install their own.
This particular program would work great in combination with old school German/Dutch toilets with the poop shelf, take a pic after the deed and let the program tell you how you need to adjust your diet.
Ever heard of xdg?
I agree and disagree.
The premise is solid: unify config so it’s standardized and machine parse-able for better integrations like an easier-to-build UI/UX. It could even have ramifications for cloud-init and older IaC tech like Puppet.
The problem is Linux itself. Or rather, the subsystems that are cobbled together to make Linux a viable OS. You’re not going to get all the different projects to pivot to a common config scheme, so this YAML standard would need a backend to convert to/from whatever each little deamon and driver requires. This creates a few secondary problems like community backlash (see systemd), and having multiple places where config data must be actively synchronized.
I think the current crop of GUI config systems are aleady well down the most pragmatic path: each config panel touches one or more standard config files, wherever they are, and however they are structured. It’s not pretty under the hood, and it’s complicated, but it works. These tools just need a lot more polish on the frontend.
They could still use whatever config format they wanted - this would just be for providing their config schema. It also doesn’t need to be YAML, that’s just the easiest one for me to type on my phone. In fact, I think most schema validation programs rely on JSON as it is.
I also don’t think programs should be required to provide it. Many core programs and kernel modules would likely take years if they ever were able to add it just to avoid the risk of mistakes causing any major issues, especially if they haven’t needed an update in years. There are also many config files that use their own nonstandardized schema. A possibility is that they could be allowed to provide a CLI tool which could update the config or they could just ignore it entirely.
But creating a common schema for… well, the config schema would make it easier for systems to provide a frontend interface for updating your configs.
OpenSuse does all of this or almost all of this.
Every KDE distro can do all of these except whatever adjusting kernel parameters means? I don’t know how to do any of this in the command and I’ve been using Linux for 8 years.
Been using fedora on a laptop for a year with no command line intervention.
I don’t mind the command line, but it has been uneccesary.
No pc OS available meets your requirements for this lol, not linux, windowns or crapple osx
Sure would be nice if linux was the first available though.
They don’t need to take away the command line. Just to make it so a low skill user can get by without it. Even windows ships with PowerShell.
I dont understand, why do we want Linux to go mainstream? Eveyone constantly says it yet nobody has an answer. In order to become mainstream it would need to be so dumbed down that people like me would stop using it.
@fell If it is neccessary to adjust kernel Parameters for certain hardware this should best be combined with the driver. Expecting a “normal” user to do such a task is a little bit to much I fear.
Other than that I agree (except a distro without a terminal should never exist)
The user is never be expected to type a command into a terminal.
Nope! Absolutely not. This is where Windows 95 fucked us all over. Prior to 95, windows was an application executed from a DOS prompt. Users may not have known many commands, but they learned that commands could be given.
Windows 95 tried to convince us that a GUI developer knew better than the user everything the user wanted to be able to do with that computer. It did make simple use easier, but the way it did it was by hiding the average user away from any simple ability to automate. It took away virtually all command line utilities that could be scripted to run themselves, and replaced them with GUI-driven applications that required the human’s time and attention, repeatedly and monotonously sorting through graphical menus and prompts to achieve a task that the computer could easily be “trained” to do itself. It did it by dumbing down the user, reducing their expectations to the few idea the GUI allowed them to express.
GUIs are Fisher-Price toys. They are the bright and shiny, but functionally crippled. There is no need for a distro that deliberately impairs the user in the way that you describe.
What is your goal? Are you content with Linux being niche?
If not, what group do you think this appeals to?
The casual device user continues to ignore Windows desktops and use their phone let alone Linux at this point.
The normie desktop user who just wants a internet browser and basic office software can easily be won over to Linux Mint. You advocating everything be CLI based will kill that.
The casual desktop enthusiast & PC gamer will get irritated and impatient and go back to comfy Windows. They mostly just want their games to run smoothly and maybe look pretty. Maybe install an application that does something moderately technical for them with tweaks here and there.
You already have the hardcore techy users. They don’t need to be converted.
In my opinion, Linux and its various distro’s main goal ought to be to undermine for-profit OS. Not to turn everyone into computer techs. The latter is a pipe dream anyway.
In my opinion, Linux and its various distro’s main goal ought to be to undermine for-profit OS. Not to turn everyone into computer techs.
Turning everyone into “computer techs” is how we undermine for-profit OS. The command line is a spoon. In the hand of a toddler, it goes flying across the room, along with the mashed potatoes it held. Microsoft’s answer to that flying spoon is to teach the kid that they can never touch the spoon; they must let mommy do it for them (and here is “mommy’s” bill for that “service”).
Microsoft teaches that it is a “pipe dream” for the average person to ever have sufficient mastery over the spoon to be able to feed themselves. They taught us that spoons are scary and dangerous.
Linux keeps putting that spoon on her tray, and encouraging her to use it.
My “goal” has less to do with bringing Linux to the masses and more with bringing the masses to Linux. The “pipe dream” argument you presented should not be ported in. The “normie” should be taught from a very young age that the command line isn’t “unfriendly”, but wildly powerful, and well within their capacity to wield.
Microsoft is not the reason I believe its a pipedream to turn people into computer techs. Its a cold hard reality.
Even particularly smart people have to want to be computer techs. I work with teachers, genuinely smart people, who have zero desire or motivation to learn computer use outside how it can help them teach in a fairly “if its not broke don’t fix it” mentality. They aren’t incurious but they have limited time and resources and they use such elsewhere. My attempts to get them to even try Linux Mint has thus far failed, the idea that I could get them to learn CLI is absurd.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe even dim wits could learn to be computer techs and use a command line, but that requires them to want that. Most people do not intrinsically desire that.
Most people do not intrinsically desire that.
The only things that people “intrinsically” want are food and fornication. Everything else, they have been taught and trained. The training they have received from Microsoft domination has been “don’t learn how to use a computer”.
That training is something to despise and reject, not incorporate into Linux.
The only things that people “intrinsically” want are food and fornication. Everything else, they have been taught and trained.
EVERYTHING? I enjoy doing things that aren’t eating and sex on a intrinsic level that I was never trained to enjoy. I just… wanted to do those things. A lot of things are intrinsically fun that are not eating and sex.
The training they have received from Microsoft domination has been “don’t learn how to use a computer”.
Why didn’t people adopt personal computers en masse before Windows came to be then? After Windows 3.0, personal ownership of computers more than doubled over the course of 5-6 years and then continued to balloon, speeding up adoption well beyond the previous decade.
Look, I’m not a fan of Microsoft either but this is conspiracism.
EVERYTHING? I enjoy doing things that aren’t eating and sex on a intrinsic level that I was never trained to enjoy.
No, not “intrinsically”, you don’t. Food, fuck, sleep, that’s about it. You likely enjoy other things as well, but not intrinsically. I enjoy Sudoku, but that is something I learned. There is no “enjoy sudoko” element within me that I did not put there myself.
Why didn’t people adopt personal computers en masse before Windows came to be then?
They did. Everyone I knew back in the Windows 3.1 days already had computers. Most of those people didn’t have Windows, and used standalone applications. The increase in ownership came when hardware prices finally fell enough for them to be affordable. Windows development was a result of that uptick, not the cause.
Do you also think that anyone that wants a car should be a mechanic? Anyone that wants a house should be a builder? Anyone that wants to have electricity should be a electrician? Anyone that wants to listen to music should be a musician? Anyone that wants to eat they should learn how to farm? Anyone that wants a drug should be a pharmacist?
People put their time and effort in different things, you might’ve learned how to program and became tech literate, but that doesn’t mean everyone else wants or should do the same.
Sure life would be easier if everyone was an expert in every field, but that’s a clearly ridiculous proposition.
Maybe realize the sheer privilege that is wanting everyone to be a “computer tech” just because you are one yourself. Maybe realize that the only reason you can afford to be a “computer tech” is because someone else is a “hardware tech” or a “architecture tech” or a “electricity tech” or whatever else, and those people would likely also want you to be a “tech” in their field so they don’t need to make things that “just work” for non-“tech” people.
Do you also think that anyone that wants a car should be a mechanic?
I reject the premise.
I think that anyone who wants to be a driver should be able to understand that the brake pedal squeezes the pads against the rotor.
I don’t think that everyone who can identify a brake rotor is a mechanic.
Anyone that wants a drug should be a pharmacist?
I think that anyone who wants any sort of medicine should have enough medical, mathematical, and statistical knowledge to understand that vaccines don’t cause autism. I don’t think that everyone with such knowledge is a pharmacist, mathematician, or statistician.
The idea that the command line is “unfriendly” and that decelopers should hide it away is, in my opinion, the computer equivalent of the antivax movement.
I reject the premise.
Here is a simpler one:
People see computers the same way they see clothes, it’s a tool for a job. Some people know a lot about them and some people make their living making or modifying them. But most people just want it to be usable.
In the same vein, saying people should be able to use the terminal to use a computer is like saying that people should be able to sew to wear clothes.
Much like how people don’t want to pick up a needle to patch a hole in their clothes, they don’t want to mess with the terminal to troubleshoot any errors. People expect things to “just work” and that’s not an unreasonable expectation.
It’s easy for you to say that everyone should just know how to use the terminal, but it’s also easy for someone that sews to say that everyone should know how to use a sewing machine; or for someone that likes hardware to say everyone should be able to open their computers and swap components; or for someone that how to drive to say that everyone should know too; or for someone that diets a lot to say that everyone should know how to count calories; etc. etc. etc.
Point is that people learn different things, not everyone has the same interests or specialties. And just because they don’t share specialties, doesn’t mean they should be shut out of important or useful tools.
P.S.: the antivax movement happens because of lack of trust in medical institutions. People should be able to trust qualified doctors to inform them and recommend proper procedures, people shouldn’t need to be “medicine savvy” enough to know what each drug or procedure does before they seek treatment. If anything, this need for “medicine savviness” is what pushes people into “doing their own research” and becoming antivax.
they don’t want to mess with the terminal to troubleshoot any errors.
I reject your premise that the purpose of the terminal is to troubleshoot errors. That is part of the widespread misconception I am talking about.
The terminal is simply for using the computer. With all the command line utilities available, and their widespread interoperability, the terminal should be one of the first tools a user looks for.
A GUI is a hammer. The CLI is the Snap-On tool truck.
indeed 30 years ago it might have made sense. But it’s 2025 now users want the less pain in the neck usage of a os. if my whole family is to use a Linux environement thet moment they will see a consol they will run away.
if my whole family is to use a Linux environement thet moment they will see a consol they will run away.
Then they will never script anything. They will never automate a task themselves. They will only ever operate a computer manually, interactively, rather than programmatically.
Windows pushed users to remain toddlers their entire lives. They charge us for the privilege, so they want to keep spoon feeding us for our entire lives. When we see a spoon anywhere but in their hands, they want us to throw it across the room rather than pick it up and try to use it.
Microsoft wants your family to run away screaming, rather than asking what that console is and what it can do.
The objective of Linux is to put the spoon on the tray of your toddler’s high chair. Linux encourages her to pick it up, poke it at her food, and keep encouraging her to learn, to develop and build on her skills, until she is asking for the fork, the knife.
Then they will never script anything. They will never automate a task themselves. They will only ever operate a computer manually, interactively, rather than programmatically.
Here’s the thing.
Most people don’t care about automation. They just don’t.
The objective of Linux is to put the spoon on the tray of your toddler’s high chair. Linux encourages her to pick it up, poke it at her food, and keep encouraging her to learn, to develop and build on her skills, until she is asking for the fork, the knife.
And your still refusing the point. People don’t want a knife and a fork. You can’t make them want it. They want something they can intuitively understand. Because to most people, tech is a basic tool to get another job done.
Most people only need a basic hammer, screwdriver, etc…
That’s all they need to do what they need day to day to get other things done.
Machinists need more complicated tools with tons of settings, complicated setup and saftey to know. So they spend the time learning. But you don’t need a wood shop to hang a picture frame.
This is before we even talk about accessibility. That means much more than large fonts or screen readers. It’s also about the fact humans exist on distribution curves in every possible way. For some people, it will just never make sense. No matter what you do. Because it’s just not how their brains work. In the same way mine can’t do languages very well. It just doesn’t click for me. And deep dives into computers wont click for some. Should they never learn to use a computer? Or can they learn basic enough functions from good GUIs to get by.
It’s even fine to say linux isn’t meant for that. But if you want everyone to get away from macOS and Windows, you need a viable alternative for everyone
Most people don’t care about automation. They just don’t.
Microsoft would certainly have us believe that. Decades of operant conditioning by Microsoft and Apple have given us that attitude.
Most people certainly do want automation; they don’t know how to automate. There was a meme floating around recently about a temp who replaced hours and hours of tedious, daily transcription between two applications with ctrl-c, ctrl-v.
We have all seen plenty of examples like this, with users doing excessive manual labor out of simple ignorance of absurdly simple automation.
And your still refusing the point.
The point arises from the very attitude I am challenging, so yes, I am refusing the point. We should not be encouraging or supporting the behaviors you describe, but should instead be promoting the tools that allow the average user to identify menial tasks and relegate them to the machine.
So fuck people with disabilities then?
Your still believe computers are machines and not hand tools at this point.
How much copy paste do you think the average user actually uses of their computer?
I understand where you’re coming from, but this may simply be a difference in goals.
If your goal is that people become more computer-literate, then yes, perhaps we should use the GUI less. People who are already Linux users aren’t going to have that big of an issue using apt instead of a GUI software manager.
If your goal is that more people use Linux, then you need to have GUI support. If anything else, it eases them in so that they’re not drinking from the firehose all at once.
My litmus test would be “could I feasibly teach my grandparents how to use this?” Which I think is true of Linux Mint (yes, you need terminal for good driver management, but it’s not like my grandparents do that via Windows GUI)
Also, I’m not really aware of any Linux distros that remove command line utilities - mostly, they just have the same thing in both GUI and commands
deleted by creator
Dude, nobody wants to take away the CLI on Linux
…
If we want Linux to succeed, there needs to be at least one distro that confidently ships without a terminal.
Just realized that person above wants that. Was too focused on the part you quoted, my bad. That’s indeed outlandish.
No worries!
I’ve been a happy daily linux user for over 20 years. No need to wait for “linux to succeed” whatever that means. It has gotten better and more advanced every year since I first switched.
I can understand people not wanting to learn a ton of CLIs, I cannot understand people refusing to use any at all. They have the distinct advantage that you can copy + paste stuff, whereas in Windows you sometimes have to follow like a dozen steps to do whatever you want to do in a 2000s GUI.
I got blocked by someone here for the same idea that I thought was balanced: it is a useful tool, it makes it easy to share how to do something.
That’s it. Use it if you want, or don’t, but it’s not a negative thing. And I too don’t advocating sitting up at night reading man pages or anything…
Dude, in a previous job I had a superior aggressively refuse to let me teach him how to do some extremely basic things on his computer (he’d just call me over to do it whenever he needed it done) and told me he did not know what an internet browser was (he used one everyday).
Now, I did not understand his thought process, but he exists. There are 100% people who understand the basics but experience intense cognitive stress at the mere sight of a command line.
I’ve used PowerShell in Windows for the past 15 years. Following dozens of steps in a GUI is not required.
I also use Linux, with bash and Python for automation. I’ve also grown to love NixOS for its automation options.
Both operating systems feature rich automation options. Both have ClickOps oriented interfaces for those that want it or are unwilling to learn to automate / use a CLI.
Doing ClickOps is a choice and a mindset, not a requirement of Windows. Using a CLI in Linux is not a requirement depending on the distro or your use case.
I couldn’t see anyone in my family using a CLI, they’d either be scared of it or get annoyed that they have to remember things. They’d quite happily spend all day clicking around a GUI to avoid 5 seconds of scary terminal words.
What scares me is that I’ve tried to hook multiple “geekier” teenagers on Linux, and they aren’t interested. Even the math-y ones don’t know the difference between an operating system and a browser. My main computer is Arch with xmonad and it disturbs and confuses them.
We have a lost generation when it comes to computers. Lots of the little geeks that would have been playing around in the registry or learning powershell 15 years ago are so stuck in walled gardens that they don’t even know there’s a world outside of them.
My dad who retires today and who has been a Windows user since roughly 1993 has set up multiple Pi-Holes and OpenVPN in the last few years and recently even installed Ubuntu in WSL so he can run bash scripts locally too. He’s not in a tech job, he’s a doctor.
A year ago my friend who has been using Windows for his gaming for the last 22 years asked my to help him set up a Fedora dual boot. Just to play around with, even though he doesn’t have a tech background. He didn’t really use it much. But today his work had him blocked by their own fuck-up and he decided to use the time to try it out again.
This evening he told me about how he upgraded his Fedora back to a current version using GUI tools. Then he saw that Windows wasn’t the default boot in his grub boot order anymore. He tried to find an app for editing grub, realised this was the kind of thing people do with CLI. So in the next two hours he learned enough CLI using a free beginners lesson he found online somewhere, until he found the
historycommand, where he found the grub command we used during the original setup. He was so excited about this success!I think the CLI criticisms are way overblown, and non-programmers can use CLIs perfectly well if they want to.
I think people have trama from Windows CMD and DOS
It is much nicer these days
I think a good portion of the people complaining have never touched DOS, maybe CMD once or twice with a tutorial online (which sounds a whole lot like some stackexchange user teaching me about bluez, but this is scarier because they were told linux hard.)
I’m a pretty advanced user on Windows and I sometimes use the command prompts but it’s pretty darn rare, and I certainly don’t have any commands memorized. I have a couple basic commands memorized for the run tool but even that rarely comes up. I don’t tinker with my machine for the sake of it though, ideally I want it to “just work” and I’d want the same thing from Linux. And I do want that but unfortunately there’s a few programs I need for my work that don’t run on it (namely lightroom and Photoshop). Spending time on Lemmy did make me want to install a dual boot mint though, I have a separate drive for it I need to move from my old machine, doing that soon^tm.
You need the CLI more on average using linux, but many people can still get by without it. Tbh I thought I’d need it more so I learned the absolute basics it, and then it turned out I only “need” it rarely when I’m trying to do something weird or something that should be working isn’t, but I end up using it all the time because it’s just so convenient! And I learned more as I went along. Then I learned how to write basic scripts to automate stuff I wanted it to do by just chaining some of those commands together in a file, which was even more convenient. Honestly now Windows GUI is more difficult to me, I can’t just type “yo do this shit” I have to click 4000 different things.
But yeah, adobe locks you in to windows anyway, dualboot ftw! Good luck on your journey!
Yeah, Adobe sucks major ass but while I’ve been meticulous for quite a few years to choose software that’s either FOSS or at least had native Linux versions, I can’t see myself doing the photography stuff in the alternatives. I’m moving more and more away from that work for moving images instead and the main programs I use for that do work (DaVinci resolve, blender). Thank you!
I was thinking that a lot of them are too young to even know what those are… My thought was that they’ve been raised on GUI for everything, without being able to tinker even if they wanted to, that the entire concept of CLI is alien to them.
For those outside of tech that’s a fair statement.
However anyone in a technical field probably has at least a base understanding of CLI. This is purely an anecdotal observation but it seems like Linux is natural for those who grow up with it.
I think the CLI criticisms are way overblown, and non-programmers can use CLIs perfectly well if they want to.
it’s not even criticism, it’s just people being lazy and not wanting to learn things, which is fine, be lazy all you want. But at least be honest with yourself about it.
Unfortunately I use Windows at work and I constantly use the CLI. I probably use the CLI more on Linux, but I’m generally doing really awesome stuff on Linux and really dumb stuff on Windows.
If you’re just a regular chud consumer, then maybe you don’t need it on either OS.
those are the people not even liked by lifelong linux users. my grandparents used linux and never touched a terminal. before he was mentally gone my grandpa bet on horses online. Also every gui installer was made by someone not like this.
meanwhile windows you have no choice but to use terminal as well as customized installer image if you want to mitigate the built in spying and use an offline account
I believe Linux distros aimed at nontechnical users should strive to not need a user to ever use a terminal, but I also believe folks should be encouraged to try them anyways.
If you see having to use the terminal as a failure of the operating system then you shouldn’t use Linux
You don’t have to live in the terminal, but the amount of people who treat the terminal like it’s lava is too damn high.
This is the kind of mindset that prevents mass adoption of Linux. Sure the terminal should be available but there still should be distros catering to less tech-savvy people if we want the year of the Linux desktop to arrive at all. Some governments are looking to replace Windows with Linux, and you cannot expect the average desk worker to know or even care about doing stuff in a terminal.
You don’t need to do everything on the terminal – even today, you don’t have to. But you should not fear the terminal, the same way you should not fear a piano because you play a violin. Windows also has a terminal, there’s stuff that tells you to go there to enable some Powershel things, and no one complains.
Great comparison, because playing either piano or violin is beyond 99% of all people who just want to listen to music. Common users and office workers have never even heard of Powershell.
You really don’t understand who you’re talking to here. The average person hasn’t heard about browser extensions. I’m serious. The amount of even engineers that work with me who are incredibly good at one specific thing, like autocad design, but don’t really know or care about general computer things is pretty high, let alone non technical personnel. I’ve had people ask me to explain extensions and how to use ad blocking software. People just want a computer that works and does the thing they want it to without fancy things.
People don’t fear the terminal, they just don’t understand it and they don’t care to memorize things to learn it. If Linux wants to be an end user desktop, you need to do everything by the GUI. What is intuitive, interesting and easy to you is a nightmare for other people. I’m assuming vice versa if the accountant gives you a 10 dimension excel spreadsheet or something. It might just be me projecting my fear of accounting excel spreadsheets.
You should not have to learn for years before being comfortable using a computer. If everyone has to do that it’s not something that will be adopted widely, as we can obviously see with Linux on Desktop. It’s both a Software problem (either lack thereof or bad design) as well as a culture problem; the latter is what I criticize, because it’s so utterly unnecessary and alienates common people.
And the Windows Shell really isn’t comparable, it’s 100% optional.
Learn for years? Dude you just search on the internet if you need to find out how to do something in the terminal that you don’t know how to do. This isn’t the 90s where you had to have a bookshelf of technical manuals to install and run your favorite distro.
Then you have the security issue that comes from teaching users they should just trust whatever random people tell them to do when facing an issue with their computer.
That would be an issue with a GUI too though.
You can’t do as much damage with a GUI that tells you what you’re doing in regular language vs commands.
sudo rm -rf /* means nothing to a newbie
“Reset to factory settings” is pretty freaking clear
Lol okay, just enter a command from the internet you don’t understand. What can possibly go wrong? The learning isn’t about being able to enter something, but to know what not to copy and paste. Just executing commands from the internet is the fastest way to fuck up your computer, to use the CLI regularly you have to understand what happens. And to do so is something that grows over years; years of broken systems, at least if you wildly enter stuff from the internet.
This is not good enough if we ever want Linux to be mass adopted. And expecting it is even worse if this is to ever change; In my many years being into Linux I read outright warnings for e.g. Linux Mint users to not ever look for help outside of Mint forums because of this culture. Which is ridiculous, it shouldn’t be this way.
You don’t need years for a terminal, at least not for the stuff a normal user would have to expect to do with it (so eg.: not browsing files, that has good UIs already). But you should expect to have to learn something. We require people to learn and even certify their learning when they are to drive a car for example, and for computers we are not even askng 1/6th of that, even tho the last few decades show we maybe should.
Why? A computer is not a car. You should have to learn to use certain programs, sure. Can’t expect people to master spreadsheet or video editing programs by default. And maybe you should learn about the dangers of the Internet. But, at least in my opinion, the operating system should require as little attention as possible. It should be as intuitive as possible for anyone touching it for the first time. CLI is useful, sure. But it’s definitely not intuitive and thus inaccessible for many users.
The moment you need a secondary resource to be able to use your system, that system has failed for the vast majority of users. And it’s near impossible to learn how to use the terminal without a secondary resource. A good GUI you can figure out pretty quickly.
Terminal usage is a tool just like GUI tools, I don’t think it’s helpful either to preload people with the belief that it’s some arcane tool that takes years before you can start using it, like anything you pick it up by doing.
Can’t really say it’s 100% optional as a blanket case either, heavily depends on a user, my work I’ve depended on having a terminal for years, and that was even before I moved into SWE, I’ve seen lots of business developed processes put together as an amalgam of batch files, VBA/VBS, and python because they needed to put something together with what they had rights to.
Be honest that I don’t see the terminal as a barrier to Linux anyhow, for the use case of “I browse the internet and use office programs”, you absolutely do not need to drop to the CLI, at least not for Debian or Mint, can handle installs and updates through their graphical package managers. Most people probably aren’t setting up services or the like on their machines, and if they are they already require terminal usage on any operating system.
Now you’re just lying. I’m literally a non-programmer & it took me 1 month to properly learn the basics of CLI.
The lengths you terminal-haters will go to, oh man
Year of the Linux desktop but it’s chrome os? :-)
Noooo go away and take that monkey’s paw with you :(
That just isn’t how novice users interact with a computer, though. Most mainstream OSes have GUI for anything you’d need to do as a novice.
Everything but ffmpeg. ffmpeg was what made me accept (with silent contempt) the Terninal on Windows, fish made me love it on linux
Touching virtual buttons on a multitouch screen wasn’t how novice users interacted with a computer until it was.
To me this feels like recommending Android to someone and then people on social media saying that I’m elitist for expecting someone to use a computer with only a touchscreen when everyone knows that you interact with computers with a mouse and keyboard.
I’m not speaking hypothetically, this was the exact argument people were using when smartphones were still nerd toys and not a standard part of human experience. “Nobody will ever use them”, “they’re too confusing”, “typing on a screen is too clunky at least my flip phone has buttons”.
People can learn. As soon as the iPhone came out suddenly everyone was capable of using a touchscreen interface and learning a new OS.
Linux isn’t for everyone. But if you’re going to choose make the leap to Linux, you will be using the terminal occasionally. You don’t have to be a terminal-only user, most people use a GUI for daily tasks.
As long as you’re okay learning how to do some basic terminal tasks you’ll be fine. But if you come into with the mindset that the terminal shouldn’t be needed and get upset at people for telling you otherwise, you’re going to have a bad time.
The difference is that the touch screen stuff was a more dumbed down experience, not an increase in difficulty and options.
Thing is, terminal came first, then came a gui tool make things easier, more intuitive and then came touch to make things even easier.
Saying users should just get used to using the terminal feels to me more like someone designing a smartphone in 2025, that requires you to use a trackball and physical keyboard and then complaining about people wanting touchscreens, when they clearly could just get used to the trackball.
Of course they could, but why should they want to?
Using the terminal is not the next evolution, it’s technically two steps back. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or doesn’t have it’s place. It can be incredibly efficient for power users. But most users aren’t power users. They want the operating system to get out of their way so they can focus on what they actually want to do. And that’s not learning how to update their system via the CLI.
We’re not talking about most users, Linux isn’t for everyone.
Every time this argument comes up people always point at someone like their grandmother and her inability to learn the terminal as if that is the target audience for Linux. It isn’t, Linux isn’t for everyone. It’s an operating system built by and for enthusiasts.
There has been a lot of improvements to Linux so that ‘enthusiasts’ need to do less work but even the most user friendly distro requires you to use the terminal for some tasks.
But why shouldn’t it be for everyone? Why do grandmothers have to use Windows or macOS?
I mean, yes, for now, Linux isn’t a everyman‘s OS. But why shouldn’t the community strive to make it so? Isn’t the idea behind FOSS „by the people for the people“ not „by enthusiasts for enthusiasts“?
And I’m not saying that every distro should be idiot proof. The Arches and Gentoos do have their rightful place. I just think, the mindset should be more „how can we make Linux as a whole more accessible and inviting for everyone, so FOSS can become the dominant type of software one day“ and less (and I’m exaggerating here) „how dare regular people want to benefit from the same freedom as me, this should be for enthusiasts only“.
Because at the moment, only valve is really doing something to make Linux more mainstream and do you really want that movement in the hand of a company instead of the people?
I’d take it a step further that by “by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts”, they’re really meaning “it’s for the elites”. They like that it’s hard, they had to work to learn it and they’ll be damned if anyone should get it easier, and also it’s a way to flex on people.
I may be overstating this person’s take on it and reading more into it than is there, but that’s my general view of this enthusiast (elitist) mindset, and really, it isn’t doing anyone any favors.
Regular joes can’t really hurt the direction of this ecosystem; corpos are limited in the influence they have over it, and anyone can exclude their contributions (even systemd can be left out still). But more people using it means more resources available to improve things and more interest in that happening. It also means more direct support for mainstream programs rather than just a hodge podge of companies throwing out minimally usable versions as a proof of concept and not bothering to go further with the work of Wine, Valve through Proton and Steam Deck, and CodeWeavers, to pick up the slack and try to get things to mostly work right.
Anyway, tl;dr, I agree with you… The Gentoos and Arches aren’t going away just because there’s more mainstream interest, if anything they’ll get more enthusiasts to join because they got the itch from the easier distros, much like a gateway drug.
I’d take it a step further that by “by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts”, they’re really meaning “it’s for the elites”. They like that it’s hard, they had to work to learn it and they’ll be damned if anyone should get it easier, and also it’s a way to flex on people.
I may be overstating this person’s take on it and reading more into it than is there, but that’s my general view of this enthusiast (elitist) mindset, and really, it isn’t doing anyone any favors.
You’re going to always have a negative view of people that disagree with you if you simply create an strawman position and declare it as their beliefs rather than listening to what they’re saying.
I’ve never been against GUIs, as I’ve said in my previous comments. But, like the user I was replying to, treating terminal use like a failure of UI design instead of the core reason that Linux was developed is just ignorant of the history of the operating system.
If some people want to make a fully graphical UI for the everyman, that’s perfectly fine but that is only one small use case for Linux and since, as of today, such a UI doesn’t exist then everyone using Linux will need to learn to use the terminal because some tasks will require it. That’s the reality of Linux today.
Absolutely! Honestly I feel like human apathy towards leaning new things has increased exponentially over the years. People are thinking less and less, especially with Ai enabling people to put their brain in a jar and forgo critical thinking themselves.
Most mainstream OSes have GUI for anything you’d need to do as a novice.
And how is Linux any different?
I’ve literally had a non-technical person who used Linux for less than a week fix an issue through the xfce gui while I was googling a solution.
You just need to choose a correct distro and DE for the job.
some linux users dream of having their grandma run linux so they never have to look at windows or macos ever again
I am very proficient with the terminal. But there are many use cases when I want a OS that does not need the terminal at all. For instances media dedicated pcs.
I have a pc that I only use from the couch, for playing games a viewing media, and using the terminal from my remote size keyboard is a bore, I would prefer a 100% gui solution for that usage.
For gaming and media consumption, you can run Steam Big Picture Mode or Plex/Jellyfin which are designed for controller use.
But you’re not doing system administration with a TV remote on any operating system. By having a system that you can fully control from the terminal, you can just ssh into it to fix any issues without wasting system resources on a GUI that you will rarely use.
Nah, that’s wrong.
While I agree with you that reluctance to use the terminal for literally anything is way too high, regular users shouldn’t have to. And some distros make that easy for them to never have to stick a toe into the terminal, and this is not a bad thing.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that there are some tasks that can be done in a GUI.
I don’t believe that any Linux DE is at the point where a regular user never needs to use the terminal. Knowing how to use the terminal is, currently, a required skill for using Linux.
Now, don’t take this to mean that I think someone’s grandmother needs to be a terminal user. By “regular user” I mean “average person who has chosen to use Linux” and not “random person off the streets”, that person should probably use Windows still because Linux isn’t ready for everyone.
my friend, I want to impart something on you. I write this with the sincere hope it changes your mind.
The average user of a computer does not want to even think about the operating system it uses.
Most people, myself included, want to work on our computer, not work on our computer (which is why I use Mint). An operating system should be the software version of a motherboard – an invisible plinth upon which all the other things you actually care about, sit. In a hardware context the things you care about are all the components plugged into the motherboard – your GPU, CPU, RAM, storage devices, and so on. In a software context, this is email, web browsing, video games, and office software, the programs the average user actually gives a shit about. Notice: Nowhere in that list does it say getting up into the systems guts via terminal or command prompt or whatever flavor of blinking cursor you prefer. Most users just want their programs to run and to never think about the underlying system, and that is okay. Not everyone needs to be technical, and shouldn’t have to be to use a computer and reap the full benefits of using one. I choose to be because I’m a fucking spaz, but that doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t want to be should instead be condemned to inferior offerings from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. If Linux were, indeed, the best – as Microsoft seems determined to prove via Windows enshittification – then it should be, ideally, just as easy for nontechnical people to pick up as Windows. If it isn’t, that’s a problem with Linux that is yet to be solved, not a problem with people.
Fortunately, my experience using Mint for the past year has been largely exactly that. It’s very close to that ideal, if not already there – I’ve had a few very minor issues, but, nothing I was unable to fix via a quick internet search.
I say all this in the hope you’ll understand, if you want Linux to take off, it needs to be accessible to the average idiot. It must be, because I don’t know if you’ve seen the news, but we are not cumulatively getting smarter.
The average user of a computer does not want to even think about the operating system it uses.
That is certainly true.
Not everyone needs to be technical, and shouldn’t have to be to use a computer and reap the full benefits of using one. I choose to be because I’m a fucking spaz, but that doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t want to be should instead be condemned to inferior offerings from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. If Linux were, indeed, the best – as Microsoft seems determined to prove via Windows enshittification – then it should be, ideally, just as easy for nontechnical people to pick up as Windows. If it isn’t, that’s a problem with Linux that is yet to be solved, not a problem with people. […] I say all this in the hope you’ll understand, if you want Linux to take off, it needs to be accessible to the average idiot.
You seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying.
I am not here as a Linux evangelical, trying to spread the
Source CodeWord of Linus. It’s admirable that you want that, you should contribute to the many open source projects that are bringing that closer to reality.I’m here as a user of Linux trying to read Linux memes in c/linuxmemes and so I focus my attention on the present state of being a user in Linux, not some hypothetical reality that, though desirable, doesn’t yet exist.
In the current state of things, Linux is not for everyone. It is a good operating system, but not everyone has the time to use it. I will certainly tell people of the advantages that it has over Windows and, for those capable, I will recommend it.
For the people that choose to use Linux today, the 1st of April in the Year of our Lord 2025: you will have to use the Terminal. It isn’t optional. Nor, despite the griping of newbies, is it a difficult thing to learn and you should become comfortable with it if you want to be a successful user of Linux. Artificially limiting yourself to GUI applications is going to make the operating system seem less capable than it actually is and you will be frustrated by a much larger set of problems.
Until that glorious day in The Future when the universal GUI DE comes out, learn to use the terminal.
normie users should not have to use the terminal
I’ve gone back and forth on this topic over the years, but I’ve finally just come to the conclusion that the year of the Linux Desktop just…shouldn’t come, and I hate when I see this argument that people shouldn’t have to learn to use the terminal.
The terminal is about as difficult to learn as a Word Processor or a Spreadsheet Application.
Sure, it can get complicated sometimes, but most of the time you just become familiar with your daily habits in it and when something weird comes up that’s what a search engine is for.
A lot of the time when I hear “Computer users shouldn’t have to learn how to use the terminal,” what I hear is “Computer users shouldn’t have to learn how to use the Computer.”
f you want to play basketball but don’t want to pick up a ball or learn how to dribble, then you don’t want to play basketball. Maybe you just like to watch basketball?
But using a computer is not a spectator sport, you’re typing and clicking and touching, etc. You’re interacting with the computer, and thusly you have to speak it’s language, at least a little, to get stuff done.
Additionally, most Linux Distros these days have made things incredibly user friendly, just not as braindead easy as Windows or MacOS.
Beginner friendly distros (Ubuntu, Mint) generally require you to open up a terminal to update your system and install/uninstall new software, and that’s usually all you have to do. That is a couple commands to remember and one password.
If most people can’t manage that then, yeah, I’m sorry, Linux will never be for you, and distros shouldn’t inherently have to create an autoupdate fix all errors back end for you just for the sake of getting every idiot under the sun using Linux.
You don’t want to learn how to use the terminal? Then you don’t want to use Linux. You just hate Windows, and hating Windows does not mean you love Linux.
Saucy rant over.
But why not make Linux idiot proof? What would you lose from the existence of a distro that has an easy gui tool for everything an average computer user would ever do?
The terminal wouldn’t go away or lose it’s functionality, if that’s how you prefer doing things but it would open up the benefits of Linux to a way bigger audience.
Because knowing how to use a terminal is not the same as knowing how to use a computer. Windows doesn’t need you to use the cmd for anything most people would ever do. Neither does macOS, Android, iOS, even ChromeOS. Only Linux can’t get rid of that stigma and I just don’t get why.
Why is it better to force users to run updates via the terminal than having a menu for that in the settings or the „AppStore“ (graphical package manager) or a „Update“ app?
Why don’t you want Linux to become easy enough to use that my grandma could handle it?
Because the use of the terminal is as intuitive as using a Word Processor. Learning to use the terminal is as important as learning how to type. Without this knowledge, I’d argue you’re not using your computer, you’re spectating. Which is fine if you’re paying for support, but with Linux you are doing no such thing unless you use Redhat.
As soon as computers hit the general public, there should have been a mass effort to teach people that the terminal is the main interface through which everything happens on a computer, just like there were a ton of men suddenly learning to type in the early 70s when computing suddenly became important to everyday work. Prior to that typing was considered the sole domain of female secretaries. But this never happened for use of the terminal for better or worse.
Ultimately I get that people don’t have time to learn everything, but, again, the terminal is as ubiquitous as the Word Processor and ten thousand times more powerful. The fact it is not a staple in the arsenal of anyone who has ever sat in front of a Computer screen is a sad state of affairs.
The argument I’m making is that we have multiple generations of people where the majority of them simply don’t speak the language of computers while the majority of them have to use them everyday. It’s no wonder they all get so frustrated. If only someone had taught them how to use it in the first place rather than gave them a bandaid solution that hides the majority of what’s happening behind the scenes.
While frustrating to learn at first, that is all learning, it is always hard to learn something new. Picking up a Word Processor is hard, learning to use Graphics Manipulation Program is hard, etc. But people rarely argue you shouldn’t learn to use those tools, even though the terminal is just as essential to modern computer use as those tools. Again, we have multiple generations who generally lack the knowledge on how to use something as essential as the Word Processor, and that is a damn shame.
The CLI is very much an enthusiast/professional tool. It isn‘t and it shouldn’t be the default in this day and age. Saying everyone should know how to use the CLI is like saying everyone should know how to use a DSLR camera instead of just relying on their phone’s or everyone should know how to drive a manual transmission car. Those are all great skills to have but most people just want a snapshot or a car that gets them from A to B safely. They don’t want to think about it. And most people just want a computer that gets out of their way. And why shouldn’t they have it?
And I’m not saying the terminal shouldn’t exist and that people shouldn’t be encouraged to learn about how it functions. But there should always be the option to completely avoid it. Because of you want mainstream adoption, you need to face the sad reality, that the Mainstream doesn’t want to look under the hood. And if you don’t want mainstream adoption, why?
I do want mainstream adoption … of the terminal. The terminal is not just a professional tool. In fact, whenever anything goes wrong with your computer silently, I can almost guarantee there’s some helpful output that you’d see had you been invoking that program from the terminal. So what ends up happening? You go to a “professional” who looks at that output, search engines the output, and uses the online documentation to attempt a fix.
The analogy to the car is somewhat apt. I’d argue we’d all be better off if we knew how to at least do some basic mechanic work. This is the same thing. I’m not saying we all need to live in the terminal…I’m saying we all should know the very basics around it. Update our system, read and search error problems should they arise, and know when and where to reach out to others for help when we can’t solve it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest everybody learn a tool, especially when, again, that tool becomes ubiquitous amongst anyone who does any troubleshooting with computers on a regular basis (i.e. everyone who ever encountered an error ever).
I don’t care about mainstream Linux adoption. I care about mainstream curiosity into how things we use everyday work and attaining a basic knowledge of it.
Many attempts have been made at graphical package updaters, and honestly they always end up just outputting an error message when something goes wrong. The reason it frustrates new users so much is that they aren’t used to having to troubleshoot their own systems. If they don’t wish to do so, that’s fine, but then they should pay for support since that requires other people’s time, efforts, and skills to do so.
Arguing that everything should just work on Linux, a free OS, without having to troubleshoot things on your own (which, again, 99% of the time, involves the terminal regardless of what OS you’re using), is simply a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If you want to run Linux, and you refuse to pay for it, then complain that it should be more “user friendly”, which is just another way of saying “I want tech support but don’t want to pay for it”, then it shows you probably shouldn’t be using that OS, and maybe you don’t understand even the basics of how a computer works?
If you’re just not willing to do even the bare minimum to open up a terminal, attempt to run the program, read the output, and then research said output, then you should be on a platform that will provide the support you need should anything go wrong. In other words, you should be on Windows or MacOS.
If you all want the year of the Linux Desktop, and you all seem to be proclaiming it can’t happen until it can operate without the use of the terminal, then you should pay a group of developers to develop it and provide support for it. Until then, you are the maintainer of your own computer, and you should probably just do the work and open the terminal up and do the bare minimum, or shutup and go back to Windows/MacOS.
Edit: wording/grammar.
The terminal will never reach mainstream adoption because it already had in the 80s and 90s and people progressed away from CLI and towards GUI. It’s archaic. It’s a fallback. It’s useful, sure. I use it regularly. But not because I‘d not just prefer having a graphical front end. It’s only more useful because the respective front end is lacking.
Also, the „shut up and go use Windows/macOS“ attitude seems very elitist to me. You‘d rather have the non techies suffer high prices, privacy violations, etc., have them suffer microsoft/Apple instead of making the system more inviting for them? And you‘d rather have another company (like valve is doing right now btw) swoop in and offer what you refuse to entertain because you want everyone to do things the way you like to do things.
Giving the would-be linux newbs the benefit of the doubt, IF they have any terminal experience at all it is with CMD/PowerShell. I don’t blame them one bit for wanting to banish all terminals into the shadow realms, they had a traumatic experience.
CMD is downright awful, when Powershell came on the scene I weeped for joy at work
half of the time the people who swear by clis and attack people who prefer a gui can’t tell me what a given command is without pressing the up arrow 50 times first
Amateurs use the up arrow. The real pros use
history | grep 'something I remember from the command statement':)or fuck :)
I was not aware of fuck. That’s fabulous
There’s finger as well
Ctrl+r surely
Next time, tell them, they should install fish and starship
Ctrl+r to reverse search or use atuin shell history.
But no comment otherwise :P.
I use fish, also I dont need to remember every CLI command just the ones I use
“I don’t want to learn/use the CLI” is equivalent to saying “I only want to use features that have a GUI”, which you can already do on any operating system (including Linux).
No, it means not needing terminal to have a usable system or to fix it
even Windows sometimes doesn’t meet this
What? No, it doesn’t mean that.
If you want audio, but will have to use CLI to fix the issue. You have a feature you want, but can’t use because of CLI.
Same with installing software or using advanced settings. If that is only accessible through CLI, it is a major flaw for any user.
It’s a major flaw for those who doesn’t want to learn how to copy-paste to CLI and take the first few steps into the terminal. Which is a valid approach.
I’ve been using Linux for almost 20 years, but I still remember the fear of the terminal. The truth is that there is not much that you need to learn for daily use. Unless I’m working on an actual project (like configuring servers/networking) I don’t spend much time in a CLI. Start with a beginner friendly distro (Linux Mint Debian Edition is my pick). You shouldn’t need terminal at all for basic usage. Next, find some tutorials on basic Linux terminal usage and practice. The goal isn’t to “learn every command” but to just familiarize yourself with how it works. Learn how to navigate your files and folders (ls, cp, mv, touch, etc). Learn how to edit text files (use nano). After that, anything you need to learn will be because you want to do something beyond basic use.
gasp how dare you suggest nano over vim! /s
I have nothing against Nano, but after just a few months of using Neovim for basically all my text editing needs, Nano is completely unusable to me.
Uhh you mean the only correct text editor (vim) /s /lh
