Thats the neat part, we dont need to and theres literally no benefit in doing so. Heres the cycle
Linux user suggests Linux to eveyone (like a dumbass) -> people install Linux -> its not a Windows clone -> people get pissed and complain (without doing anything constructive) -> people reinstall Windows
The fact is the more nontechnical people use Linux the more complaints maintainers get, the less detailed bug reports become, and the increase to funding/contributions will be mininal if even noticeable.
Been using Linux for almost two decades now. Mostly Ubuntu and now recently Linux Mint.
True Linux users build their own kernel and distro from scratch from an environment running directly in EFI
@wander1236 @Lexam with tcc, this should be possible…
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc
normie users should be able to everything without using a terminal
A true mainstream Linux distro would need guidelines like this:
- The user is never be expected to type a command into a terminal.
- The user is never be expected to edit a configuration file.
- There is a graphical UI for every possible action the user might want to (or have to) do.
This especially includes:
- Configuring audio devices
- Installing graphics drivers
- Updating the operating system
- Managing applications and storage space
- Connecting to networked storage
- Adjusting kernel parameters (This is neccessary on certain hardware, yet, barely any distro has a graphical UI for it.)
The only distro that comes close to this is Linux Mint, but not even Mint covers everything I just mentioned.
If we want Linux to succeed, there needs to be at least one distro that confidently ships without a terminal.
There can never be a distro that ships without a terminal. I will burn it with the fire of a thousand suns. Even Windows has a terminal
Windows doesn’t even cover everything you just said. The number of times Windows 10 broke my Bluetooth devices and I had to much around in registry to remove the device profile just to try to repair the device, is part of the reason I switched to Linux in the first place.
Yes, many distros need a little refining and smoothing for the general public, but only because people are so used to dealing with bullshit troubleshooting on Windows that they don’t see it as bullshit anymore.
That’s a low bar, but importantly they’re still correct that technically Windows looks like it can handle those things as far as a regular consumer can see. Windows is unholy trash, but it at least doesn’t tell people who can’t even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands they likely found on a forum or third-party website.
Personally I think a little more tinkering spirit would do the whole world good, not just with computers, but reality is the way that it is for the moment(things can change, fingers crossed).
but at least people who can’t even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands.
This! I work in IT, in fact, I’m the director of both the IT and software teams at my company and I am constantly teaching my new techs and reminding my existing techs that they need to remember just how little the “average” person knows about computers, and how much more that is than what they’d actually care to learn.
99% of people don’t care about computers, or how to make things “more efficient”, or anything else. They just care about the easiest way to do something. And like it or not, the easiest way for the vast majority of people is through a GUI.
There is even an XKCD about this
And that’s even before you get to the security problems! I am constantly trying to prevent users from going to FreeNuclearCodes.com or sending passwords and social security numbers to i7716tvq_88@gmail.com (actual email address I had to block last week)
You were absolutely right about everything up until your very last sentence.
We need a distro that comes with GUIs for everything indeed, but shipping without a terminal would be both a bad idea and would cause the distro maintainer to go up in flames immediately.
Interesting, i kinda read that quickly and took awsay from it more of a
Ships without the expectation to need a terminal, not actually ship without one at all
The reason I had no problem whatsoever editing config files is because I’d been doing it for decades already in Windows with .ini files.
And not needing a terminal is different than not having access to one. Windows has a terminal.
I think it even ships with 3(?) terminals for some reason now for some reason lol
Seriously - Linux needs a standardized config schema spec. Something that programs should provide which an application can read and provide a frontend interface for the users to adjust config files.
Could be something like:
schema_version: 1.0 application: name: Poo Analyzer icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/icon.png description: Analyzes photos of poo schema: - config_file: path: /etc/pooanalyzer/conf/poo.conf conf_type: ini configs: - field: poo_directory type: dir_path name: Poo Image Directory description: Directory of Poo Images icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/poo.png - field: poo_type type: list name: Poo Types description: Types of Poo to Analyze values: - dog - cat - human - brown bear icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/animal.png ...Any distro could then create any frontend they’d like to manage this - the user could even install their own.
This particular program would work great in combination with old school German/Dutch toilets with the poop shelf, take a pic after the deed and let the program tell you how you need to adjust your diet.
I agree and disagree.
The premise is solid: unify config so it’s standardized and machine parse-able for better integrations like an easier-to-build UI/UX. It could even have ramifications for cloud-init and older IaC tech like Puppet.
The problem is Linux itself. Or rather, the subsystems that are cobbled together to make Linux a viable OS. You’re not going to get all the different projects to pivot to a common config scheme, so this YAML standard would need a backend to convert to/from whatever each little deamon and driver requires. This creates a few secondary problems like community backlash (see systemd), and having multiple places where config data must be actively synchronized.
I think the current crop of GUI config systems are aleady well down the most pragmatic path: each config panel touches one or more standard config files, wherever they are, and however they are structured. It’s not pretty under the hood, and it’s complicated, but it works. These tools just need a lot more polish on the frontend.
They could still use whatever config format they wanted - this would just be for providing their config schema. It also doesn’t need to be YAML, that’s just the easiest one for me to type on my phone. In fact, I think most schema validation programs rely on JSON as it is.
I also don’t think programs should be required to provide it. Many core programs and kernel modules would likely take years if they ever were able to add it just to avoid the risk of mistakes causing any major issues, especially if they haven’t needed an update in years. There are also many config files that use their own nonstandardized schema. A possibility is that they could be allowed to provide a CLI tool which could update the config or they could just ignore it entirely.
But creating a common schema for… well, the config schema would make it easier for systems to provide a frontend interface for updating your configs.
Ever heard of xdg?
Been using fedora on a laptop for a year with no command line intervention.
I don’t mind the command line, but it has been uneccesary.
Every KDE distro can do all of these except whatever adjusting kernel parameters means? I don’t know how to do any of this in the command and I’ve been using Linux for 8 years.
OpenSuse does all of this or almost all of this.
No pc OS available meets your requirements for this lol, not linux, windowns or crapple osx
Sure would be nice if linux was the first available though.
They don’t need to take away the command line. Just to make it so a low skill user can get by without it. Even windows ships with PowerShell.
I’ve been a happy daily linux user for over 20 years. No need to wait for “linux to succeed” whatever that means. It has gotten better and more advanced every year since I first switched.
I dont understand, why do we want Linux to go mainstream? Eveyone constantly says it yet nobody has an answer. In order to become mainstream it would need to be so dumbed down that people like me would stop using it.
Eh. I’m mostly a power user, all day at work in terminals and keyboard shortcut galore.
It doesn’t prevent me from laying back and running a “filthy casual” kubuntu with little to no setup at all. At one point you reach the state where you just want to use your computer, not tinker with it all the time.
This is why Arch never stuck for me. I work with Linux all day. I don’t want to spend my free time fixing my own shit because a update broke the bootloader.
This is ultimately why I switched from Arch… Now I’ve just got an Arch distrobox and if it breaks, no big deal.
Ubuntu Server baby. That shit is absolutely rock solid, I’ve literally never had an update break stuff in the decade+ I’ve been managing it.
I am not able to comprehend what you mean. I love tinkering, ricing and starting all over again if something is permanently fucked. This is not a joke.
I respect your approach, though , ofc.
And Alexander wept, seeing as he had no more computers to set up and tinker
-Alexander (probably)
My dad who retires today and who has been a Windows user since roughly 1993 has set up multiple Pi-Holes and OpenVPN in the last few years and recently even installed Ubuntu in WSL so he can run bash scripts locally too. He’s not in a tech job, he’s a doctor.
A year ago my friend who has been using Windows for his gaming for the last 22 years asked my to help him set up a Fedora dual boot. Just to play around with, even though he doesn’t have a tech background. He didn’t really use it much. But today his work had him blocked by their own fuck-up and he decided to use the time to try it out again.
This evening he told me about how he upgraded his Fedora back to a current version using GUI tools. Then he saw that Windows wasn’t the default boot in his grub boot order anymore. He tried to find an app for editing grub, realised this was the kind of thing people do with CLI. So in the next two hours he learned enough CLI using a free beginners lesson he found online somewhere, until he found the
historycommand, where he found the grub command we used during the original setup. He was so excited about this success!I think the CLI criticisms are way overblown, and non-programmers can use CLIs perfectly well if they want to.
I think the CLI criticisms are way overblown, and non-programmers can use CLIs perfectly well if they want to.
it’s not even criticism, it’s just people being lazy and not wanting to learn things, which is fine, be lazy all you want. But at least be honest with yourself about it.
I think people have trama from Windows CMD and DOS
It is much nicer these days
I was thinking that a lot of them are too young to even know what those are… My thought was that they’ve been raised on GUI for everything, without being able to tinker even if they wanted to, that the entire concept of CLI is alien to them.
For those outside of tech that’s a fair statement.
However anyone in a technical field probably has at least a base understanding of CLI. This is purely an anecdotal observation but it seems like Linux is natural for those who grow up with it.
What scares me is that I’ve tried to hook multiple “geekier” teenagers on Linux, and they aren’t interested. Even the math-y ones don’t know the difference between an operating system and a browser. My main computer is Arch with xmonad and it disturbs and confuses them.
We have a lost generation when it comes to computers. Lots of the little geeks that would have been playing around in the registry or learning powershell 15 years ago are so stuck in walled gardens that they don’t even know there’s a world outside of them.
deleted by creator
To be fair, Windows really hasn’t pushed Powershell all that much. They haven’t even fully ported over all of Command Prompt’s commands. You have to prefix those with
.\(I think; it’s been a while) in order to get them to run even though the error message that comes up if you don’t include that will tell you, “Hey, there’s a command named this. Prefix it with that to use it.”Now, instead of simply porting everything over, they have one app (named Terminal) running both programs.
Unfortunately I use Windows at work and I constantly use the CLI. I probably use the CLI more on Linux, but I’m generally doing really awesome stuff on Linux and really dumb stuff on Windows.
If you’re just a regular chud consumer, then maybe you don’t need it on either OS.
those are the people not even liked by lifelong linux users. my grandparents used linux and never touched a terminal. before he was mentally gone my grandpa bet on horses online. Also every gui installer was made by someone not like this.
meanwhile windows you have no choice but to use terminal as well as customized installer image if you want to mitigate the built in spying and use an offline account
Well yea, Linux is about learning how the computer works; wheras windows wants to hide it
No. This may be the case for some distros like Gentoo or Arch, but applying this to the whole ecosystem and expecting everyone to even be interested in computers (which they should not fucking have to be to use a user-friendly Linux) is what alienates people.
Exactly. If Linux expects me to open a program before I can use it, that’s already too complicated for most people. I want to just tell the computer what I want and have it so it for me. I don’t want to know what a file is or what Firefox does, leave that nerd shit out of my OS.
Then go to apple or smth?
Using the terminal is actually telling the computer what to do.
Linux is community made and it will kill itself it it doesn’t reproduce.
Linix needs people to understand it, so we can maintain it.
iPhone is too complicated for most people who don’t want to know what an app is
Linux is software.
It doesn’t contain this intrinsic meaning you refer to.
Linux is FOSS, maybe check that up?
There’s an OS that doesn’t require command line use to do anything slightly advanced? That hasn’t been my experience.
I believe Linux distros aimed at nontechnical users should strive to not need a user to ever use a terminal, but I also believe folks should be encouraged to try them anyways.
“I don’t want to learn/use the CLI” is equivalent to saying “I only want to use features that have a GUI”, which you can already do on any operating system (including Linux).
No, it means not needing terminal to have a usable system or to fix it
even Windows sometimes doesn’t meet this
Counterpoint: why should the standard for “just works” mean no CLI? What if distro maintainers decide that their user’s experience is improved by relegating some tasks to the shell?
because taking away user choice and accessibility is never a good idea
Because knowing terminal commands is neither accessible nor feasible for the average computer user. It might be more efficient, if you take the time to learn it but the average computer user doesn’t want to spend that extra time. They want everything to be accessible and to be easy.
Linux should always have the choice to use the terminal. But if you want the day of the Linux desktop to actually arrive some day, you need at least a couple of distros that don’t require you to know what a package manager is.
neither accessible nor feasible for the average computer user.
Absolute hogwash. Learning like five short words is absolutely not unfeasible for any literate person, if a user can’t do that, you can be sure they aren’t actually an average user, they can’t do anything with gui either. And probably need help tying their shoes.
A two years old child can learn 5 short words. A grown up can write them on a sticky note and plop them on a screen.A good modern gui also presents itself in front of you. It directs your attention to important buttons/options. You don’t need any prior knowledge to know that a cog shaped button labeled settings will take you to settings. Good UIs are self explanatory. CLI are not.
To be able to use the terminal, you either need another person to tell you the necessary commands or search for a tutorial yourself, either online or somewhere else.
That’s not intuitive. It’s not too hard to learn, but you need to actively pursue learning how to do it. An average person doesn’t want to do that. An average person doesn’t even want to memorize more than one password. They should. But they won’t. Thus, password managers were created. And non technical minded people still don’t even use those.
You got to look at it from the point of view of someone who has no interest in knowing any more about their computer than how to turn it on, where to put their photos and how to open their browser and maybe an office suite. The kind of people that wouldn’t even update the system, if there wasn’t a notification asking for it. They’re not stupid. They just don’t care about computers and don’t want to spend any more mental power on them than necessary, the same way you wouldn’t want to think about manually keeping the timing of your car’s engine on point for the current conditions. You just want it to get you safely from A to B. Or maybe you do, but I assure you, most people wouldn’t.
A good modern gui also presents itself in front of you. It directs your attention to important buttons/options. You don’t need any prior knowledge to know that a cog shaped button labeled settings will take you to settings. Good UIs are self explanatory. CLI are not.
it also suffers from exponential growth complexity. CLI only has linear growth complexity. Every button and element you add to a gui makes refactoring the entire GUI layout exponentially harder.
self explanatory
If you ever had to teach anyone anything, properly teach, you would know it’s a myth. It’s self-explanatory to you because you’re already familiar with the logic, language, conventions. I’m guessing, you grew up with all that from childhood, and you just forgot how you had to learn all that, and now you assume this knowledge didn’t need to be taught. You think cog is a universally understood language for settings because you always had it in front of you. Just like a lot of people think/thought that 3.5 floppy is a universally understood icon for “save”, and people who grow up in more recent time have no idea what I am talking about.
And then you assume that you are the average person, and start measuring everyone by this mark.
But if several years of teaching people of different skills, motivations, and ages, how to work with computers taught me anything, it’s that there is no universal language, there is no, and cannot be anything self-explanatory, and intuitive interface is a myth perpetuated by people who newer used anything other that one OS they grew up with. There is no amount of skeuomorphism you can employ that doesn’t require at least some amount of learning.
And when it comes to learning, let me tell you, there is nothing more straightforward to teach than “you type words and then read what the computer typed you back.”
And if several years of tech support taught me anything, it’s that if a regular person who doesn’t care about a computer encounters a problem, they don’t have inherently better time fixing it with GUI, never, not at all, not in a million years. I however always have way better time helping them, if it’s Linux and I can tell them what to type and they can read me the response. This actually true even if people are good with computers and know their OS.It’s self-explanatory to you because you’re already familiar with the logic, language, conventions. I’m guessing, you grew up with all that from childhood…
This argument can be used as a reason to implement GUIs.
If we wish to market to an audience that has had some basic experience with using Windows and Mac, we can skip some of the reteaching by implementing familiar GUIs
Most people didn’t grew up with Windows or Mac, that was a blip in time, most people grew up with a phone. When it comes to PC they’re a blank slate, they will have as much familiarity with the idea of a Windows start menus as they are with Linux console. That is to say, they saw it in a movie.
Most people do know how to use a computer though. Windows and macOS have been around for a very long time by now, and both have not required you to use the CLI for anything but very extreme cases in more than 25 years. You’re not starting with a blank slate. They know how a GUI is supposed to work. It is self explanatory to them. Shoving them towards a CLI is making them relearn stuff they already knew how to do. There’s a reason a lot of Windows migrants end up with KDE or Cinnamon. It’s familiar, it’s easy. Most people do in fact associate a cog with settings. CLI aren’t familiar to most people and thus a much larger hurdle.
Also, I’m not talking about fixing problems. The CLI is a perfectly valid tool to fix problems. Not everything has to be graphical. Just enough that you don’t need it unless something breaks.
Most people do know how to use a computer though.
That was kind of true for a brief period of time. And even then it wasn’t true entirely. Now most people encounter a computer when they enter the workforce. They know shit about shit, they never had to tinker with computers, most of them never had one outside of some chromebook that allowed them to render two web pages. In most cases they start from basically blank slate.
Most people do in fact associate a cog with settings.
Most people don’t know that it’s cog. Most people don’t know it’s a button. Most people don’t have concept of a button in mind. Most people entering workforce right this moment never used a mouse to press a cog button in their life. Unless they’re in IT or engineering.
Also, I’m not talking about fixing problems
This is usually when you kind of required to use console on Linux, that’s why I was talking about it.
But my broader point was against so called intuitive self-explanatory nature of the menu you have to click with your mouse.
Of course they know how to use a computer. They don’t know a thing about how a computer works but that doesn’t mean they can’t use it. Heck, my 8 y/o cousin can figure out how to open and play Minecraft on his tablet. No need for him to know about commands, programming languages and bits n bytes.
Most people these days know how to use their phones, at the very least, and even there cog = settings. Most people don’t know how to use a CLI or how a spreadsheet program works, but they certainly can use a browser on a computer. Which is also a form of using a computer.
And maybe they don’t explicitly know it’s a button. But they know if they tap or click on a cog it takes them to settings.
And even figuring out how a mouse works is a thing of a few seconds, if all you’ve used before was a touchscreen (or even nothing at all). There‘s a reason they took off in the first place.
Although, if someone truly has never used a computer in any shape or form before. No smartphone, no tablet, not even a smart TV, you‘d probably have a point that it’s not much more difficult for them to learn the common iconography than it would be to learn the CLI. But people rarely start with such a blank slate today.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s a good thing, people are less and less tech literate these days. But my point is, tech illiteracy doesn’t mean they have never used any computer ever and do not know what an app- or settings-icon is. I’d wager it’s more the other way around: People are so used to their devices working and their UIs looking pretty (and very samey) that iconography like cogs for settings are especially self explanatory to them. It’s the same on their phone, tablet and even TV after all.
They want everything to be accessible and to be easy.
CLI is both accessible and easy, intuitive even. The only problem is that it requires a fundamental knowledge basis, and some syntactic context. But that’s all pretty minimal.
I would argue a GUI is more confusing if it has any nested elements in it (like photoshop for example)
Agreed. But some people who never ever touched a terminal are scared by them and think they should not have to ever touch it. They can’t fathom that it’s actually less complicated to use for some tasks. And so this topic comes up every few days and nothing ever changes. Round and round it goes, like clockwork.
knowing terminal commands is neither accessible nor feasible for the average computer user
I don’t think that’s true. It’s literally just asking your computer what to do, much easier to remember than memorizing which subpage of the control panel opens the right wizard to get what you want.
But people don’t memorize which subpage of the control panel leads to what they need. They go after content clues. You need to change your ip adress? Well it’s probably somewhere in the settings under the category network.
But cli you have to memorize. It doesn’t give you any context clues
But cli you have to memorize
It literally keeps a history of everything you’ve typed in, that you can search with context clues or just look through chronologically and get the exact command you needed from last time. Seems like you’re just making excuses. Needing to look in a dozen different pages isn’t any easier than looking to see what program you need to use.
What if we took the most used commands and instead of having to arrow-up through them, we just laid them out in a list or a grid, so you could click on them? And then we give them a little icon each that makes it a little prettier, more quickly recognizable and easier to click on. And because there are a lot of commands, maybe sort them by category. But who’d ever want that?
Also, I don’t know, when you last used a settings app or something similar but once you‘re more than two sub pages in, you’re usually in the realm of stuff even people who use a cli a lot would have to look up the commands. Because a good UI Design makes stuff you need regularly easy accessible.
You mean something like this? They exist, they’ve been around, for awhile actually.
The problem with them is that it is simply not easier. If you know what you want to do, it is faster to press two keys and start searching history, or just start typing and use autocomplete, than it is to move your mouse to click a square. And if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’ll have to do research regardless, and maybe I’m biased but I still think it is easier to copy and paste a command than it is to read the directions to get to the submenu I want, and then replicate each step in my own GUI.
Also, I don’t know, when you last used a settings app or something similar but once you‘re more than two sub pages in, you’re usually in the realm of stuff even people who use a CLI a lot would have to look up the commands
That’s just not true, at least for Windows. Many common things are hidden in window menus that can only be accessed from specific pages from the control panel, because MS never really committed to the whole Metro thing so you gotta dig around for the real stuff that hasn’t been added to the regular control panel.
Because a good UI Design makes stuff you need regularly easy accessible.
Right, but how often are UIs designed goodly? GUIs are nice, don’t get me wrong, but the simplicity of a CLI is wrongly maligned because people think it’s scary, and are in fact very easy to use if you spend the minimum necessary effort to know what you’re doing. Literally just tell the computer what you want to do
Different is not hard. Popular Linux distros have been streamlined to the point of not needing a CLI for casual use for 10+ years now anyway.
I’m aware stuff like that exists. I was being sarcastic. Just wanted to highlight, that searching through recent commands would be much easier in a GUI as well. Should’ve used a “/s”, my bad.
Also, I too wouldn’t highlight Windows as a staple of good UI design. Their jumble of 4 different design languages nested into each other in the most unintuitive ways with some actions having multiple possible ways and some having been hidden away deeply is not how I’d want a GUI to be. It’s also not user friendly and very much one reason I’ve banished windows from my household.
But, people are used to it. At least enough to find basic settings. And I think that’s the best argument against pushing the terminal. People are familiar with graphical interfaces. They understand commonly used symbols (like cog = settings and similar stuff) because all mainstream operating systems (be it desktop or mobile) have used something similar for close to 3 decades. They are familiar with menus and submenus. They don’t know where everything is, when they use an unfamiliar program/OS, of course but they are familiar with the concepts. They are not with CLIs. You are, because you have been using them for a while. So am I and so are quite a few other people who regularly use it. The average Joe computer user doesn’t.
Even stuff like tab to autocomplete and arrow-up for history are foreign concepts for someone who has never used a terminal before. Sure, it’s not hard to learn but they’d need to learn it. Not to mention, that a lot of commands are abstract enough that they are hard to memorise and thus to understand. It’s like a language you do have to learn. Not a difficult language if you don’t need to do complicated things but it’s a hurdle nonetheless.
Which is also why don’t like the “literally just telling the computer what to do” argument, I’ve heard a few times now. I mean, it’s not entirely wrong but it’s telling the computer what to do in its language, not in yours. You don’t type “Hello computer please update my system and programs” or even just “update”, you type “sudo pacman -Syu”. Any non-tech person will be utterly confused at what even a “sudo” is or what pacman has to do with Linux. And yes, pacman is an especially obtrusive example and Arch definitely not the distro for newbies, regardless of their stance on terminals but my point still stands, even with apt, dnf and co. To tell a computer what to do via CLI, you’ll either have to either learn its language or copy it from someone who does.
A GUI however tries to translate that language for you already and give you context clues based on common culture (floppy = save, cog = settings, folder = directories, etc.). It’s a language even small children and illiterate people and can understand, to some extent at least.
But yes, I do agree, the most popular distros are fairly streamlined and mostly useable without CLI. And that’s good. Makes it possible for Linux to slowly gain market share even among non technical people and I can, in good faith, recommend/install it for friends and family, knowing they’ll manage unless there’s a problem. And I do think, Linux is getting better in this regard every day, and while not on par yet with the current mainstream OSes in terms of ease of use, it’s not far behind anymore. But it is still behind.
I’m just tired of the elitist-enthusiast who doesn’t want linux to become easier to use for the everyman because it’d be less special. That attitude does not further FOSS and does not help anyone. Because that’s not how you reduce Microsoft’s, Google’s or Apple’s influence on the tech scene.
Giving the would-be linux newbs the benefit of the doubt, IF they have any terminal experience at all it is with CMD/PowerShell. I don’t blame them one bit for wanting to banish all terminals into the shadow realms, they had a traumatic experience.
CMD is downright awful, when Powershell came on the scene I weeped for joy at work
I’ve been using Linux for almost 20 years, but I still remember the fear of the terminal. The truth is that there is not much that you need to learn for daily use. Unless I’m working on an actual project (like configuring servers/networking) I don’t spend much time in a CLI. Start with a beginner friendly distro (Linux Mint Debian Edition is my pick). You shouldn’t need terminal at all for basic usage. Next, find some tutorials on basic Linux terminal usage and practice. The goal isn’t to “learn every command” but to just familiarize yourself with how it works. Learn how to navigate your files and folders (ls, cp, mv, touch, etc). Learn how to edit text files (use nano). After that, anything you need to learn will be because you want to do something beyond basic use.
gasp how dare you suggest nano over vim! /s
I have nothing against Nano, but after just a few months of using Neovim for basically all my text editing needs, Nano is completely unusable to me.
Uhh you mean the only correct text editor (vim) /s /lh
