But....Why?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Mar 19, 2009 1:23 PM EDT |
Why? Why don't people use the Command Line?
For most users it is almost superfluous. Those of you using Caldera or some such distro, you know who you are you uber geeks, that command line is very important. With the latest versions of many distros the CL is not much needed. Ms. Schroder is right to say we should learn to use the CL. Great tool. |
| techiem2 Mar 19, 2009 2:37 PM EDT |
Some of us spend as much time in a terminal as we do in the gui.... |
| Alcibiades Mar 19, 2009 2:57 PM EDT |
The problem is mainly down to us, its how we teach or fail to teach it. 1) People need some explanation they can relate to about what they are being taught. A useful one is: we are learning to talk to the computer in its own language. It may not be strictly true, but it makes sense to them. It explains the fact that it works, very quickly, and that its very different from what we are used to. It gives a reason for learning how to do it. You can talk about shells and so on for ever, but this they can relate to. 2) People need to be able to relate the commands to what they are used to. So cd is analogous to opening a folder by clicking on it. Moving up and down in the file structure. Seeing the exact same things as in Nautilus or whatever. You find other analogues for other things. Once people get their heads around that they are just doing by commands what they can also do by gestures, but in the computers own language, they find the whole thing much more manageable. Lots of awk can be explained in terms of repetitive edit commands. Pipes are just taking one file you've just changed with one app, then taking another app and doing something else with it. Its a matter of entering the mindset of people who grew up thinking mouse and graphical interfaces. Once you do that, the difficulties diminish greatly. |
| azerthoth Mar 19, 2009 3:19 PM EDT |
Since I do support as a hobby, I am continually bombarded with people looking for a GUI to do one thing or another. It's one thing to explain to them that all a GUI is, is something that is bolted on to the CLI interface anyway, and that the GUI may in fact not represent all that may be done with the same command or group of commands via CLI. Lots of people hear that and have their eyes glaze over. Package managers are the best example of this, I have yet to run into a GUI that is as powerful as the package manager that it is attached to. Since there are also usually more than one GUI option for most package managers, its something that can easily be described as too time consuming to learn all the tricks of all of them. You can then, carefully and slowly feed them one command at a time to get the to where they wanted to be, or get done what they set out to do. This shows them that CLI is nothing to be feared, but it a powerful way to get more done faster. If you can get them to start using CLI for package management (apt, portage, entropy, urpmi, whatever) then they will slowly start moving in that direction for other tasks as well. This is how I handle it, and it seems to work well. Start them slow, with something that is pretty much a daily occurance, then you can teach them how to automate parts of it, or script/alias repetitive bits. If you can convince them to just try to handle package management 'the hard way', and take your time with them the first few times through, they will eventually reach the point where they to wondered why they thought that they just had to have a GUI to do something. |
| krisum Mar 19, 2009 3:50 PM EDT |
When it comes to explaining a set of steps to get a task done unambiguously, the CLI is nearly always much easier (as also is following them) -- assuming, of course, there is a CLI available for the task. For example, compare "sudo aptitude install postgresql" to: open package manager, search for postgresql, select, ... with some screenshots to accompany it. And of course, the CLI being referred to is the bash shell with the GNU CL utilities and not the stone age dos command prompt ... |
| krisum Mar 19, 2009 3:56 PM EDT |
@azerthoth Looks like I did not refresh the page and kind of repeated your point. It might be useful for those unfamiliar with CLI to think of it as a command console, a more direct interface to be used as an additional tool rather than as a replacement of GUI. |
| beirwin Mar 19, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
My Mom made me take typing as a summer school course in high school back when the earth was cooling. I moaned and whinged, but am I ever glad I did. It makes using the cl so fast and convenient. I try to avoid the use of the rodent whenever I can. Besides, I'm old enough to remember when computers didn't have GUIs and the wretched mice. |
| hkwint Mar 19, 2009 9:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:I have yet to run into a GUI that is as powerful as the package manager that it is attached to. Probably you already did, but it's because that package manager is such a pile of crap. Still don't remember? It's called Windows. Anyway, why don't people mind typing in things in Word, while they do mind typing in things in their OS? I never saw someone who was typing a message look for a GUI to type that message. Probably I'm old fashioned, all my file management happens with coreutils like ls and the like (in bash). However, I did become a bit more modern since using Amarok to transfer mp3's to my portable player (skipped the graphical file manager there!). |
| gus3 Mar 19, 2009 10:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:Anyway, why don't people mind typing in things in Word, while they do mind typing in things in their OS?I know someone who would love to be able to type, period. The stamina in her wrists and elbows is too poor, and it becomes painful after just five minutes. |
| tracyanne Mar 19, 2009 10:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:I know someone who would love to be able to type, period. That's what scares most people, the fact that they can't type, and think they might be called upon to do so. That is also why most people don't use secure passwords, they can't type, and it's so hard just hunting and pecking out really simple passwords that contain only lower case letters, that anything that requires upper and lower case (most people don't even understand the terms), numbers that might include zero (what number is that?) and non alphabetic characters (what are those?) So the very thought that they might have to type actual words to get the computer to do something throws them into a catatonic panic. |
| tuxchick Mar 20, 2009 12:00 AM EDT |
TA, that gets my vote for best and most accurate rant of all time. Almost Hemingway-esque in its spareness and economy, and sharp as a laser scalpel. Bravo! Oh yeah, and ROFL. |
| gus3 Mar 20, 2009 1:07 AM EDT |
Nice distraction, but that is not at all what I said. She CAN'T TYPE. As in, she is physically unable to use a keyboard of any kind. Typewriter, piano, it makes no difference. There was a time, before her health failed, that she could use both impressively. Now, she is simply angry at anyone and everyone for their total lack of... anything. Windows has Dragon NaturallySpeaking. Linux does not yet have a similar, platform-centric cross-application voice recognition system. Biometrics? Same thing; not even fingerprint recognition is feasible for a Linux login. The argument that "typing in M$ Word is just like typing a password in the login screen" falls apart when the keyboard is just another useless PC peripheral. |
| tuxtom Mar 20, 2009 4:02 AM EDT |
TA hits the nail on the head. I find it incredibly painful to watch most people even try to read their email. You don't need to be a good typist to have a considerable advantage over your peers...you just need to have less fear. With all consideration to your friend requiring accessibility, gus, she is certainly an exception and certainly not the average user. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 20, 2009 5:12 AM EDT |
Quoting:Biometrics? Same thing; not even fingerprint recognition is feasible for a Linux login. A friend of mine has a laptop with a built-in fingerprint reader. He's been using it to log in since Ubuntu 8.04 came out. Not that it wasn't supported before 8.04 but he bought it around the time 8.04 came out. It works fine. As for speech recognition, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_speech_recognition_softwa... It looks like people have had moderate success using Windows apps in VMs or Wine. Also, it mentions that Canonical is interested it fixing this. When they start to throw their weight around, stuff usually happens so lets hope this is the case here as well. |
| jdixon Mar 20, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
> Windows has Dragon NaturallySpeaking. Linux does not yet have a similar, platform-centric cross-application voice recognition system. I thought Via Voice was available for Linux. I'll have to do some research. > Biometrics? Same thing; not even fingerprint recognition is feasible for a Linux login. TC had a writeup a while ago about using a fingerprint scanner with Linux. Apparently she got it working. |
| tuxchick Mar 20, 2009 10:19 AM EDT |
gus3, there aren't any active voice-recognition projects for Linux, which is sad. I guess the world has a greater need for yet another distro spin, dark unreadable window manager theme, and dark unreadable skins for media players. It seems that a combination of voice-controlled and touchscreen would meet the needs of most people who don't want to use a keyboard, for whatever reason. For touchscreen and voice the old GUI or CLI concepts aren't going to apply, it's going to need something different. |
| jdixon Mar 20, 2009 10:33 AM EDT |
> there aren't any active voice-recognition projects for Linux, Wikipedia concurs, as does a quick Google search. Apparently ViaVoice was only offered for a very limited time. There are numerous projects, but none of them are complete are feature ready. :( |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!