this post was submitted on 19 May 2024

161 points (91.3% liked)

Linux

48208 readers

720 users here now

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.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

161

Can You Use Linux Without the Terminal? (How to Geek article) (www.howtogeek.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why would you want to?

How can I trust an application that was installed by a "Software Manager" that doesn't have super cow powers?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

This is more a question for non-power users. They are the key to widespread adoption and supplanting Windows. The OS has to be user friendly to the point that people don’t need to worry about the terminal unless absolutely necessary but still flexible enough to not alienate the power users that want to dive deep into it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There is also Synaptic which is a graphical front-end for apt, although I would definitely class it as less user friendly than Discover and the like.

I know if I was doing some Linux challenge with no terminal it would have to be my crutch.

Edit: Arch Linux has pamac which I used more frequently than the terminal back then.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

Can you live without using your thumbs?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Endeavour is a great example for gui only users for sure.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think tools like YaST help to save time, instead of editing the bootloader in config files, you can simply enter, search for "Boot Loader" and edit there, be following a tutorial or official documentation. I sometimes prefer to use YaST just so I don't do things wrong. it's like the old Control Panel in Windows.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Do you know how everything in your house works? How to repair everything? No right?

Would you be brave enough to mess with the grounding of your house, or the AC or the heaters, the washing machine, the doors? Not eveyone wants mess with every (subsystem) thing in their house/live"

Most of the people I know want their PC to work and if somwthing goes wrong they just send it to repair or ask somebody else to fix it, they don't wanna do it themselves, which I find normal, they have little to no interesting in PCs, and that is compleatly fine.

And before someone says "Yeah, but the computer won't kill you if you fuck up the fixing or messing, let me tell you, a "sudo rm -r" or "sudo chown -R" can fuck you system BAR, making you loose important data and info.

-...But refugee -I hear you about to type-, they SHOULD have 10921 back-ups in atleast 2542 independent locations. Yo, they don't wanna even see the terminal, and you want them to interest themselves for data integrity and redundacy? Come on.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I didn't say you have to know everything, just like I don't know everything in my house and how it works, but I do know how to do basic repairs so I don't pay loads of money for a guy to come and unclog a drain. I know how to reset my circuit breakers, how to change a fuse, how to change a lightbulb.

That's what the terminal is. No one here is telling you to write a bootloader in assembly or meticulously study kernel environment parameters. No one advocating for basic knowledge of a terminal likely has knowledge on subnet masks, compilers, or other low level systems that a modern Linux abstracts for you.

But! I know how to update my packages from a terminal. I know how to install a package outside of a repository, or one that's not listed on my graphical package manager. I know how to export an environment variable to get my software to work how it should.

That's what "knowing the terminal" gives you. It's a basic skill that unlocks you from being a mere "user" of a system to an owner of a system. I don't think everyone will ever need the terminal, but there are people who are replying to me that seem to have a genuine fear that people have knowledge of their computers in a meaningful way.

Knowledge is autonomy for whatever you do, and there's a reason why the most profitable of systems are the very systems that are locked down abstracted and "user friendly" in all ways that harm a user's rights and freedoms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'll coincide with you in that first-aid-quick-repairs is something people should in the best of cases know how to do, but setting a envirental variable or installing a package is not a "simple thing". I've worked with engineers that programmed math models for a living that had no idea what a enviromental varible even was. Yes is easy to do, but the concept behind it, what it is, what it does and why are not simple, without the right background or the will to learn about the topic.

And, about user and owner. Sure, I get your point and personally I share it. But again, that is an opinion, tell a non-interested-user that they don't really own their rig until they know how to use the terminal and I assure you that most of them will disagree.

Edit cause I wrongly posted before finishing: Comparing uncloging -manually pushing and pull a bar- or chaning a light -turn left, change, then right- or a breaker -literally just pulling a tab up- are WAY simpler actions. Yes, running apt upgrade is easy, but how you know is all well? That it work? + if I run apt update everyday I see almost no diference in my system, why should I even do something like that

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

the will to learn about the topic

I think this is the bigger issue, to be honest. Like your example of environmental variables, it's not a complicated concept, but when a guide says to set the variable for Editor rather than a context menu asking you to choose the default program to open this type of file in the future, all of a sudden, people lose their minds about how complicated it is.

Comparing uncloging -manually pushing and pull a bar- or chaning a light -turn left, change, then right- or a breaker -literally just pulling a tab up- are WAY simpler actions. Yes, running apt upgrade is easy, but how you know is all well? That it work? + if I run apt update everyday I see almost no diference in my system, why should I even do something like that

These examples don't make sense to me as a point against using the terminal, especially since GUI package managers are a thing these days. Many upgrades are under the hood, so to speak, and don't produce visible changes for most users, and this applies just as much to other operating systems as it does to Linux. When Windows finishes upgrading and reboots, or Chrome tells a user updates are available, and they restart it, how do they know all is good? For the most part, they take it as a given that all is good as long as there's no new, undesired behavior that starts after the upgrade.

Just because I haven't been exploited by a security vulnerability or encountered a particular bug is no reason to remain on a version of my OS or programs that is still liable to either of them. That's just a bizarre argument against staying up to date.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

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.

man would like to have words with your strawman.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's pretty unreasonable to expect people to know all the intricacies of their OS unless it's their job, but I do think people could stand to treat their computer less like an unknowable magic box when they need to work with it and take a few minutes to try any basic troubleshooting at all. An example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, last year, my fan stopped working nearly as well and began making crazy amounts of noise. Could I explain to you how the motor in my fan works? Absolutely not. But I unplugged it, looked up how to disassemble it and got out my screwdrivers and opened it up to see if there was anything that I could see wrong with it. Turns out there was a lot of hair wrapped around a shaft and the base of the blades that built up over the years I've had it, and removing that and reassembling it was all it took to get it working fine again.

Plenty of people don't want to put in even that small amount of time and effort to understand things when it comes to computers, which is also a valid choice of its own, but they tend to annoy me when they attribute being unable to do something to the system being too complicated to understand/use, rather than owning their decision to focus their time and energy elsewhere. There are absolutely complex programs that are not accessible for non-tech people on Linux or the BSDs, but the same could be said for Windows and Mac. In the case of the other two, people just choose the option that works for them, but with Linux, they decide ahead of time that Linux is tough and complicated and don't even try. It could be something as simple as they want to install Debian and need non-free firmware to use their wireless card, there are people who will declare this to complicated to understand and discard the idea of using an OS entirely over a question that can be resolved in less than 5 minutes with a quick search and nano, all because "Oh, I'm not a computer person, it says terminal."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, you do make a good point about misattributing the system being incapable to their lack of research. But people don't like it when they are wrong/corrected most of the time. It also applies everywhere, computers just so happen to be the most prominent. The point is that people will complain about anything anywhere.

You bring up an example of installing Debian and needing non-free firmware for their wireless card. Take a step back and think how many people are even aware about the term non-free? It is quite a ubiquitous english word with different meanings in the open source community. People reading it will assume they know what it means.

The scenario when someone that is fed up with windows and decides to install debian will see the word "non-free" and attribute it to "you must pay" at glance. If the resource they used to install it mentions and clarify what non-free means, good. Otherwise, it can be a boogeyman for them and make them re-think their decision to switch.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Ikr? "Since it interest me, it you interest you too"

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

...well... that is how I started learning (and getting used to) GNU/Linux, so eh.

load more comments