You're viewing a single thread.
Yall miss the point. Im guessing willfully. No average desktop user wants to be forced to use command line to do anything.
Linux will never see mainstream desktop usage.
My mom is in her 70s, never has been techy, and has been using Linux as her daily driver for a solid eight years now. I have to do less troubleshooting for her now that she's on Linux than I ever did when she used Windows. "You have to use the command line" is an extremely outdated criticism of desktop Linux.
Yup. I got relatives started on Mint dual booted with Windows. They don't use Windows as Linux just works.
I've been using various distros for the past 6 months trying to find the right fit for my work. I do remote desktop support of many windows based enterprises.
I use Linux desktop every single day for 8 hours. I also play games of all sorts.
KDE neon was what I had when I started out and it was great. Zero problems. There's no reason you'd ever need CLI in plasma desktop that I can see. Fedora/plasma is a no go. Too complex with selinux and you really do need to know what you're doing. Still quite usable for 90% of day to day
For the past month I've been on mint 21 and have had zero issues and zero CLI time. Been enjoying baldurs gate 3 out of the box, using outlook, teams, various browsers and whatnot. Not going to give a comprehensive list here, but everything works perfectly and almost everything has been installed straight from the software manager.
The average Linux distro doesn’t need to use command line for anything. Literally just click on Firefox or google chrome and you’re done lol.
As for gamers, if you take 5 hours to mod games but cant learn to use CLI for 5 minutes then idk what to tell you chief. Though right now it won’t be mainstream because devs don’t want to update their anti cheats for Linux, not because of compatibility
The whole “waste time, value freedom” super duper complexity shit is just propaganda regurgitated by people who heard about Linux through a game of telephone, Hollywood, and YouTube videos. That’s not to say the Linux community is very good at marketing or giving troubleshooting suggestions for tech illiterate people
Not true at all. In my experience just about everything I need to do must be installed via cli on Ubuntu, following sometimes a page long guide of shit to do.
What kind of things do you install? Typically the "page long guide"s are showing every basic step to hold the users hand. If you're installing something in ubuntu, you update your repos, then install the package.
Every time I install something in windows, the endless unique install wizards, weird spyware packaging, restart requirements, etc make me want to rage quit. Not to mention the sketchy sites most Windows freeware comes from, or the windows store that will continually re-install candy crush and minecraft.
With Linux, even the CLI you learn a handful of basic concepts and live your life. To me complaining about typing "apt get install" is akin to complaining you need to learn to read to know when the bus is arriving.
I'll admit there are three extra steps with say, installing chrome. But if you say out loud what you're doing, ie "I need to add the repository so my computer knows where to get chrome" "Now that it knows where chrome is, I'll run apt get update to refresh the packages" "Now that it knows where it is, and its refreshed, let me install it with apt get install chrome".
or if you download a deb package, the ubuntu apt store will automatically open it with a double click then you click "install".
No offense to you, but there seems to be an attitude that when trying something new, you should not be expected to learn the slightest thing about it. Sure your mom or grandpa might not be able to install it, but if you're at the point where you've acknowledged the page long guide, you're certainly smart enough to try something and give it an honest try.
Call me crazy but I'd rather have to learn how to use APT then have to learn each and every creative technique they come up with the make me install the ask toolbar or norton AV or sign me up for a newsletter. Linux has never had that problem.
Anytime I need to install something in windows, it just feels, uncivilized? Like every step of the way is disrespectful to the user. Windows is political, it has business priorities that effect how it's used. Linux feels like a rock, like yeah you can get mad at it when you drop it on your foot but the rock isn't interacting back the same way that windows is constantly changing and questioning your judgement.
I am willing to bet there are even remote terminals you can set up on their computer and fix stuff for them. Which is definitely easier than having to go there to help them out.
U dont need command line on most just works distros for average use ! My brother and my mom use linux mint and ubuntu on their PCs and it just works !
Anything more than web browsing and yeah, you really do.
Like what?
I've installed ZorinOS on a non tech savvy friends computer so she could get more life out of her old laptop and she was fine without using any terminal
GUI alternatives are constantly improving and becoming more visually pleasing throughout distros, and besides, there's real scenarios where normal people HAVE to use Powershell or CMD to get stuff done on Windows. This is becoming less and less of a hurdle.
noob
I think you're right. For the average desktop user, it's more about being able to use the software they need, without a terminal.
I think that desktop in linux has advanced a lot in the last few years, and now I'm running my games on a KDE desktop, too! But I keep having to go to the terminal to do stuff I took for granted on other systems, like OS security updates.
The linux developers have done an awesome job and linux has come so far it's amazing. But for the vast majority of computer users they don't even know what a terminal is, period, and linux is useless to them unless a Linux user sets it up for them for a very specific use case and that's all they ever do with it.
If all they want is an email and web appliance, a typical computer ignorant user can use linux if it is given to them by someone else.
Yet an ignorant computer user can go and buy a Mac or a windows machine from a retailer and get the job done without having to know anything at all other than they want a computer for x y or z.
Its like the linux developers can't fathom a PC experience without the terminal as a vital participant.
Its like the linux developers can’t fathom a PC experience without the terminal as a vital participant.
That's not wrong. I'm now struggling to do things on Windows without the terminal. Thinking in terms of commands and processes and files is a great way to do computing. Learning all that stuff has a payoff and it genuinely is difficult to imagine trying to get by without knowing it. Once you do know it you reach for it all the time.
What OS security updates are you doing from the terminal?
The usual
pacman -SyuWell you chose an arch based distro, users who don't want to use the terminal can choose something like mint or pop os
I guess you’re right. Maybe endeavour has something along those lines.
It wasn't always the case. Windows 3x gui had to be started from a dos prompt. But this anti cli sentiment swings both ways for all OS's.
The bigger issue I have though is a general unwillingness to learn how to do things beyond click icons for apps. Devices now are engineered to be as simple as possible. Which ya, for most people is fine. But these devices in turn are generally way more challenging to fix. So it encourages just buying a new one instead. Creating more ewaste for something that should be easier to fix, all because of software, or physical assembly.
a general unwillingness to learn how to do things beyond click icons for apps
I'd say "a general unwillingness to learn how to do things", period.
I think an issue is that people tend to think of Linux as meaning "all distributions." So if something is compatible with X distro version yy.zz, the general idea is "it's compatible with Linux." This, in my experience, is one of the things that leads to mandatory command-line usage --- it definitely is possible to get it to work under a different flavor of Linux, but it's not necessarily easy if you're uncomfortable with a command line.
Another is drivers --- if it's mainlined, it will Just Work, but if it's not...well, it may work, but you might have to jump through hoops and get busy with the command line.
In short: if you view your distro the same way you view a particular Windows release, then I really don't think you need the command line for desktop Linux. But you need to accept that some software isn't "compatible," in the above, user-friendly sense of the word.
There is no such operating system as Linux, but there are operating systems built on top of the kernel called Linux. In other words, Linux (a kernel) is not an alternative to Windows (an operating system), but a specific Linux-based OS could be.
IMO it would help if we stopped pretending that Linux is an operating system unto itself and started promoting the actual operating systems that are built on Linux. I see people in this thread arguing over whether "Linux" is user-friendly or not and it's meaningless because they aren't actually talking about Linux, but rather some unspecified thing that runs on top of Linux, and may not even be talking about the same thing.
I tend to agree, but more because I think that Linux needs a killer feature to convince people to switch and privacy aint it for most people.
that killer app is soon going to be "doesn't have advertising in every menu"
You can use Ubuntu and Zorin just fine without the terminal.
You can do this with many distros today. It must have been many years since this person tried Linux.
Yeah, it's painfully obvious that's the case.
Until you try to use a flash drive and nothing can see the default mount point. You can web browse and that's about all
I'm guessing the last time you tried Linux was over 15 years ago
What? Nautilus (ubuntu default file browser) finds drives wherever they are mounted and lists as their own location, as if it was windows. That includes the default mount point. Even if it wasn't detected, it can still get to the mount point by browsing through the file system normally.
Installing software can be done via a software manager (included in ubuntu and most other distros). Software not in the manager is usually distributed as a portable binary (also common on windows) or an app image (even easier to use than an installer). Once installed, that software is the same as on windows.
Besides basic file manipulation, installing/running software, and web browsing, what else does the average user even do? All of it can be done on linux, with or without CLI.
Agreed. Also from a Tech support POV, there is no "standard" OS and troubleshooting the vast different environments would be a pain. With Windows, you have a standard layout, with couple different versions - Home / Pro / Enterprise. With linux, you have different syntax, differnt DE's, etc. Still use Linux at home / work but i am interested in it. Got to have that motivation to do so.
Same thing with moving to Lemmy, gotta have that motivation to make the change.
Imagine having to do family tech support on the phone while driving with Linux. Especially if everyone in the family decided to use their freedom and now everyone runs a totally different distro.
wrong.
m$ pc will vanish. the kids that do socialmedia where i work do it all on iphone. record, cut, make audio. or some other apple device. while there are enough boomers to explain active directory to them, they aint listening as they are sure to never touch windows unless they are into hardcore gaming and casemodding. other than that windows is dead.
Windows will more than survive on corporate and enterprise licenses purchased by the thousands daily. The integration of their cloud services like SharePoint into mass subscriptions of office 365 is enough for Microsoft to not care about some niche influencer market. Besides multimedia editing software was always dominated by Apple which Microsoft specifically brought back from bankruptcy specifically to avoid an anti-trust case. They don't want that corner of the market and never have.
Linux desktops will never be able to take over unless corporations start installing it for all of their employees. Which again is unlikely considering large corporations don't like change especially in their revenue.
Wasn't the German government running SuSE?
doubt it.
Linux doesn't force you to use the command line for anything. It's optional.
That command line sure comes in handy when you're trying to help someone do something and you can just send them a one-liner to paste into the terminal rather than have to show a series of screenshots "click this > then this > this this and this> This checkbox >this menu"
As soon as a distro has a control panel equivalent that has stuff like a driver manager and event log it's all over
They do
You might be surprised to learn that multiple distros have control panel equivalent of driver managers and event logs.
People without much OS knowledge use windows because that's what's installed on the PC when they buy it. If best buy sold a PC with a just works distro installed they'd use it and not really know or care
I know Ubuntu has had that for a while, which means that others probably have as well.
I could see ChromeOS killing off Windows somehow. It's already huge.
I don't know... Debian 12 or latest Fedora (ugh) are pretty darn idiot proof. CLI doesn't really enter into the picture on those if you don't want it to. And, your computer won't have to be tossed out for another 10 years.
I'm personally just getting back into Linux after a 20-year hiatus, and configuring/compiling Gentoo from the ground up has definitely given me a different perspective on computers.
In general, almost all Linux distros stem from 3 primary distributions: Debian, Arch and Fedora. (The outliers would be things like Void, Gentoo and Slackware.) All of these other distros that "just work" are, for the most part, skins of those primary 3 with different apps pre-installed.
Kali? It's Debian. Ubuntu? It's Debian. Mint? It's either Ubuntu (which itself is Debian) or now Linux Mint Debian Edition. The "look and feel" of a distro has nothing inherently to do with that distro.
What they all have in common is that the eye-candy Desktop Environment is there to provide a "friendlier" interface than a CLI - but there is nothing a DE can do that the native terminal can't.
I've also found it's just faster/easier to install things via terminal than browse through an artificial "app store."
Maybe I'm moving away from the idea of a desktop environment in general, in favor of a Window Manager that just handles putting programs in floating windows in a black space.