Ironically, in Linux, if I ever see a Terminal, it’s because I opened it. If I’m doing stuff in GUI, terminals never pop up.
In Windows, doing stuff in GUI a blank terminal opens up and goes away during GUI interaction, or while executing background tasks occasionally.
Like I get and appreciate the CLI and for networking, that’s pretty much all I’m using anyway, but I am shocked that enterprise networking doesn’t even bother to do any GUI. Once upon a time Mellanox Onyx bothered to do a GUI and I could see some people light up, finally an enterprise switch that would let them do some stuff from a GUI. Then nVidia bought them and Cumulus and ditched their GUI.
There’s this kind of weird “turn in your geek card” culture about rejecting GUIs, but there’s a good amount of the market that want at least the option, even if they frankly are a bit ashamed to admit it. You definitely have to move beyond GUI if you want your tasks to scale, but not every engagement witih the technology needs to scale.
While you don’t need to memorize button locations and menus, the frustration is that it takes longer, and memorizing those details slightly mitigates. It’s torture helping someone do something while they hunt for the UI element they need to get to the next level of hierarchy. They will do it, in time, but it just feels like an eternity.
The main issue in GUI versus CLI is that GUI narrows the available options at a time. This is great, for special purpose usage. But if you have complex stuff to do, a CLI can provide more instant access to a huge chunk of capabilities, and provide a framework for connecting capabilities together as well as a starting point for making repeatable content, or for communicating in a forum how to fix something. Just run command “X” instead of a series of screenshots navigating to the bowels of a GUI to do some obscure thing.
Of course UI people have generally recognized the power and usefulness of text based input to drive actions and any vaguely powerful GUI has to have some “CLI-ness” to it.
I suppose the point is that the way people interact with GUIs actually resembles how they interact with CLIs. They type from memory instead of hunting through a nested hierarchy to get where they were going. There was a time when Desktop UIs considered text input to be almost a sin against ease of use, an overcorrection for trying to be “better” than CLI. So you were made to try to remember which category was deignated to hold an application that you were looking for, or else click through a search dialog that only found filenames, and did so slowly.
Now a lot of GUIs incorporate more textual considerations. The ‘enter text to launch’ is one example, and a lot of advanced applications now have a “What do you want to do?” text prompt. The only UI for LLMs is CLI, really. One difference is GUI text entry tends to be a bit “fuzzier” compared to a traditional CLI interface which is pretty specific and unforgiving.
In a pretty high end high tech company, there’s still lots of people who see a terminal and think “ha hah, they are still stuck in old mainframe stuff like you used to see in the movies”.
My team determined long ago that we have to have two user experiences for our team to be taken seriously.
A GUI to mostly convince our own managers that it’s serious stuff. Also to convince clients who have execs make the purchasing decisions without consulting the people that will actually use it.
An API, mostly to appease people who say they want API, occasionally used.
A CLI to wrap that API, which is what 99% of the customers use 95% of the time (this target demographic is niche.
Admittedly, there’s a couple of GUI elements we created that are handy compared to what we can do from CLI, from visualizations to a quicker UI to iterate on some domain specific data. But most of the “get stuff done” is just so much more straightforward to do in CLI.
The plans can be super cheap compared to food and housing. A pretty poor person can still have consistent Internet now.
It’s not the affordability that makes these things almost certainly a scam, but they pretty much are almost certainly a scam anyway.
I actually use KDE’s discover to apply all the updates (flathub and yum). Mainly because I’m lazy and the update icon appears and it’s quick to just click through.
It depends on what you want to self host.
As an example, a family member self hosted home assistant. They didn’t have to know anything really. That was all they were doing and they bought the canned implementation.
If you have multiple services, you may need to know nginx configuration with virtual hosting.
You may want to use podman or docker or kubernetes.
It all depends …
Also the kernel makes those variable immutable by default now, except the well known standard ones, so even for buggy UEFI this is mitigated nowadays. Just pointing out it came from a once legitimate space as a consequence of “everything is a file in a monolithic file namespace”. Which on the one hand is bad if someone uses rm with all sorts of flags to overrule the “you don’t want to do this” protections in the utility. On the other hand what you accidentally managed to do in Linux represented a problem that windows malware could have exploited.
UEFI defines a structured way to have data shared with OS as read write variables, including the ability to create, modify, and delete variables that UEFI can see.
However, some firmware used this facility to store values and then their code assumed the variables would always be there. The code would then crash when it goes to read a deleted variable and not know what to do. The thing is deleting those variables per spec is a perfectly valid the due the OS to do, but firmware was buggy and the bugs not caught because normally OS would not bother those variables except for a few standard popular ones, like boot order.
The mention of UEFI in this context likely means they are thinking of a deletion recursing through sysfs and by extension deleting all visible UEFI variables which, in some firmware editions and versions, causes it not to be able to get through post or into the setup menu.
I vaguely recall this and the general issue was very bad firmware design, but it was possible to make it impossible to even reinstall a system. If you were industrious in windows you could have done the same thing, so malware under windows could also brick such platforms.
Of course rm has more safeguards on it so you have to pass more flags and really really be asking it to try to screw things up.
Well, they have friends, but after spending about a year not seeing them in person, they are used to just meeting them online. At least anecdotally that’s what I’m seeing with the kids of my group, that going out is a hassle and online is good enough. When they do, it’s maybe a total of three or four people hanging out, no big parties to speak of.
On a related note, the schools I know of pretty much stopped having dances other than the prom. In fact, from what I hear, the ability for students to socialize broadly has been pretty much tanked since the pandemic (stricter schedules, no more lockers, and various other measures instituted to avoid congregating students after pandemic and those policies seem to have stuck, presumably because it makes the students a bit easier to manage. It’s been a cause for concern for me about their social development, as while I never was big on those events, I at least remember a lot more downtime on school grounds that our kids don’t seem to get.
Not just them, frankly we haven’t really been seeing folks in person nearly as much since the pandemic. There are certain special occasions, but we almost never have a “random” visit for no particular reason anymore.
Both KDE and Gnome have a comparable set of default keyboard shortcuts.
The difference is if you are in KDE, you have easier ability to adjust to what you want with a lot more available shortcut actions, while in Gnome you generally are expected to live with the choices of the devs.
Which I find to be a weird stance.
Gnome also believes that a window must have control over its own titlebar to draw it as it sees fit while simultaneously declaring it must not have control over a tray icon.
Also funny that Gnome seems to have objected to KDE proposal and wrote their own even though they seem to say point blank that while they are dictating how all the other DEs will do it, they themselves will be ignoring it. Why get in the business of a protocol you don’t even want to implement in the first place…
Mainly because gnome is harder to ignore than a lot of other opinionated DEs.
It’s been the default target for fedora and red hat, and like other choices rh makes, it propagates throughout the broader ecosystem.
Even if you ignore them, they dictate how Linux desktops are broadly allowed to work by largely asserting authority over FreeDesktop and by extension Wayland.
One of these is that they absolutely hate the concept of server side decorations, as a result even as they begrudgingly allowed it as a Wayland protocol, they insisted that it must not be mandatory and they are allowed to ignore it. This means applications that do not care about their decorations otherwise now must care about their decorations. As a user, the consequence is that any GTK application you might use is likely to just pop out as a gnome looking window among a bunch of otherwise consistent windows.
I did that for a while, but ultimately got too frustrated due to a few things:
Ultimately, I found that experience I was trying to get to that gnome never would normally support and would evaporate on updates and never be quite right anyway was just a natural featureset of Plasma. So I just do that and haven’t had to sweat updates nearly as much as when I kept trying to make a go of it with gnome shell. I kept giving it a shot because of my gnome 2 experience (admittedly augmented by compiz), but gnome 3/mutter have not been a good fit for me.
Yeah, but it is hard to separate that, and it’s easy to get a bit resentful particularly when a projects quality declines in large part because they got lazy by duct taping in container registries instead of more carefully managing their project.
Maybe for some, but even if you have to keep it up because your work it relatives demand it, Windows ecosystem is essentially impossible to debug when it hits issues and you just have to take guesses as to why the obscure bad behavior is happening.
Windows is better at not needing to be fixed or the first place by self healing, whereas with Linux distributions you have to know how to fix those issues, but once it goes beyond easy to fix issues, Linux is reparable but windows isn’t.
If it isn’t blatantly obvious, it didn’t fix itself, and SFC didn’t fix it, then they always say reinstall…
You’ve been downvoted, but I’ve seen a fair share of ZFS implementations confirm your assessment.
E.g. “Don’t use ZFS if you care about performance, especially on SSD” is a fairly common refrain in response to anyone asking about how to get the best performance out of their solution.
Of course my terminals outnumber my browser tabs by about 3:1 right now. Commenting on an internet site needs neither scale nor complexity and a WebUI is fine for that.