Hello, Why are people afraid of the commandline? what is easier and quicker first or second? first: 1.open web browser browse to google.co.uk 2.search for firefox. 3.open first link 4.find download button. 5. find correct download. 6. click download and browse to file location. 7. once download is complete browse to file. 8. double click file 9. press start 10. choose location to install 11. press next and choose more options. 12. press finish and wait. 10. start browser. second 1. Press alt and F1 2. type root and then the password (archlinux) 3. type pacman -S firefox (archlinux) 4. press Y to install. 5. press Alt and F7 6. login and start firefox. installing programs in linux is easier and faster IMO. Gui's may seem easier but with decent documentation installing a barebones OS and only installing what you want is very easy. If someone can learn a lanuage they can definatly learn a few simple commands and edit some text files.
The GUI method I just find easier, even if it might take me a few seconds longer. I just don't have a good memory nor the enthusiasm for so many "dry" commands , although admittedly I do remember and occasionaly use a few DOS commands in Windows such as: ipconfig, ping, tracert, and netstat, along with the their various switches and find them handy but where I find Linux particularly frustrating from my experience with it is that almost every fix for every little problem I encounter with it involves some sort of terminal command, none of which I'd be able to figure out on my own; I need to seek out answers with Google, and I acknowledge there's no shortage of kindly people with the right answers, but then I'm left frustrated by a lack of accomplishment because I could no way in heck figure out those commands on my own. With Linux when something goes wrong I feel I'm out in the middle of the Pacific with no compass or landmarks (my analogy). With Windows I can often figure out problems on my own because usually - not always of course - but usually there is some sense of bearing, or logical direction, in the process of resolving the problem, so even if I have to fight tooth and nail with it, I can still usually get it resolved at least partially on my own and also I will probably have a better understanding of what had to be done to fix the issue, and that just makes me feel better about it
What is the process for downloading FireFox in: Ubuntu? openSUSE? Fedora? PClinuxOS? <insert linux OS here>? Step 9 for win is not relevent. When clicking to download, you will be asked where you want to save the file. Here is how I list the procedure for Linux from a noob perspective: 1. boot live CD of new Linux OS to try. 2. wait for boot 3. plug in ethernet cable to computer 4. why isn't this working?? 5. unplug ethernet and replug 6. Let me check networking, click 7. Enter your IP address 8. I'm not sure what my IP address is...@#$%. 9. What did the ISP give me...hmmm. 10. I can't even check for commands on the net because I don't even have a connection. 11. Who thought this crap up. 12. Check for utilities or pdf in the GUI for reference material. 13. It would probably be faster if I just boot back into Windows and do some research 14. write down all of the nescessary information 15. exhausted from the struggle, turn off the computer and try again tomorrow In this example it might take 3 days just to download firefox!
with fedora,ubuntu and opensuse i would think you would just look through the menus for add/remove programs or words to that affect. SO far I have never found an Ethernet card which doesnt work with linux OOTB. 3. to 11. arent applicable tbh. let me ask another question. how many adverage users would be able to reinstall windows with all drivers,all programs,codecs,printers,scanners,flash player,java etc? Users know how to use windows but dont know much else. with modern linux distros such as ubuntu in a few clicks you have have a fully working operating systems with pretty much all programs you will need. then simply install restricted extras from software centre and you have all codecs,flash player,java etc. cd/dvd burning software is included,office program is included. If my clients don't have any need for any specific windows programs I install ubuntu for them and they are very happy with it.
Yes, but how do they get a working internet connection to download stuff? There isn't any noob/help documentation inside the Linux distros. There is inside Windows. Neither have I. The issue is DHCP: If I am new to Linux and wanting to trial it to see if it is for me, which of these will make ease of use better? 1. Some distros default enable DHCP 2. Some require command line to start DHCP 3. Some require the user to enter private and public IP information to configure DHCP. I am sure that over time this will sort itself out. Default enable of DHCP is becoming the norm. Because the A-Z Index of the command line for Linux can't be MAN'd. It must be found after you get a working internet connection; http://ss64.com/bash/
I disagree. I think "sudo apt-get install firefox" is easier than finding the package manager in the menu, searching for Firefox, then clicking on some checkbox and then clicking another button to install, and finally clicking an "OK" button to clear the screen.
it depends of person to person some feel command line is more easy and more usable then gui some feel gui......... like for example in fedora just type yum install .......... it install with all required packages or to join split Examples: lxsplit -s finename 100M( to split files into 100 mb each) lxsplit -j filename.001 (to join files) or wget for dowloading....... many are there but some time even i feel like all my fingers got bandaged and i only want my application work with single painful lazy mouse click
Most USERS use GUI based software, email, internet wordprocessing etc, they simply are not familiar with command line or familiar with the concepts that go along with command line. The better GUI's provide hints and simple descriptions and show a selection of options avaiable, the commandline you need to RTFM to know what the options are and what they do; simply put GUI is far more intuitive. Lodore, your initial GUI VS cmd is an apples and pears comparison, you are comparing downloading and installing the exe from the developer's site VS using a package manager. The GUI example for Firefox from synaptic would be 1.open synaptic, 2. search for firefox. 3. mark for installation. 4. Apply upgrades. 5. close 6. run. To be fair, what are the steps for downloading firefox from the mozzilla website and installing, firstly how do you discover the download URL from commandline ? Overall, for someone who is prepared to learn and use the command line IMHO you will find using a mixture of GUI and commandline most productive.
Hello Nick, i was comparing how people are used to installing programs in windows versis installing programs using the linux commandline with a package manager. Windows doesnt have package management so its hard to do a direct comparision. I agree that somethings would take longer using commandline. I wouldnt really want to use commandline to specific lots of parameters for a compressed file but for somethings commandline is easier and faster. Without a gui/another computer/a print out of the manual its near impossible to work out the commands. if when you logged in to the commandline it told you about the man pages that would be a nice first step. i know freebsd does but not many linux distros do. Most people will use GUI package managers because they can find it. the only reason i found the commandline stuff was mainly because im a computer technician and i like to try different ways of doing the same task. I normally install updates using the commandline because it is faster. the gui's take along time to refresh and show me all the packages that can be updated where as with the commandline package management is near instant. I do agree that GUI's are more friendly. I like the fact that linux has both GUI and CLI. Windows really give that choice. With windows you need the gui to use powershell. atm ive only learnt basic CLI to setup a desktop OS. linux servers are quite daunting for me atm. not only do i need to know the commands to update,install and maintain the distro i also need to go to a different website for each server role for example samba,bind etc.
Certainly most things can be done faster at the command line, or..lets take Windows for example...one can bring up functions faster at the start==>run than drilling down through several layers of Windows via the mouse. The issue with command line versus maneuvering the mouse is knowledge. Most people that are not knowledgeable will eventually get there via GUI. It's flexible..and allows one to be intuitive and get to your goal. Command line...it is not flexible, you need to know the exact syntax to type in. The success of these...lets look at the "average" user out there.
Long live the command line. I really couldn't care less whether people prefer the console or gui or what is perceived as easier or not. I know what I prefer but that doesn't mean using a gui is wrong. That's the beauty of linux, you have the choice to do it the way you want.
I think most people come from the Win world which of course is GUI oriented. So they're simply used to a GUI and the command line can seem strange. I date back to the DOS days and am very comfortable with the command line, which can often be easier to use and more powerful. But many younger people have just been raised on a GUI and I think that more than fearing the command line, they're just used to something else. Only down side I can think of to the command line is that the user will make typos from time to time. But that just goes with the territory.
Very true and same here, command line is more natural for me to get around as that's what I've always used but not only that it makes more sense and direct in getting things done.
Oh, come on. It's a simple fact that a GUI is easier than a command line for the vast majority of users. If a command line was really easier, there would have been no need for graphical shells back in the DOS era. We wouldn't have made the logical progression from DOS to Windows. Microsoft and Apple wouldn't pride themselves on their GUIs (OS X would presumably have a powerful command line as well, but you see Apple barely mentioning it at all, if ever, and only advertising how great their UI is). Linux users would never boot into GNOME/KDE and instead work from a raw command line interface. A well-designed GUI makes it intuitive to use the computer and helps you along. The command line does no such thing.
All I can say is I'm glad I'm not the only one who wanted to say this except it would have taken me a couple verbose and awkward paragraphs to state what you've put perfectly succinct
I don't know, but if I had to take a guess, maybe it's the part where you said that people prefer GUIs simply out of familiarity and not because it's actually easier to use?
Nowhere did I say that people prefer GUI's. I simply said they are used to them. I'm used to them too, we all are. I guess I was just pointing out that some people see the command line as a challenge mostly because they weren't raised on one. If you were around in the DOS days, both would feel familiar enough, and both are good for different reasons.
