I’m not proposing anything here, I’m curious what you all think of the future.
What is your vision for what you want Linux to be?
I often read about wanting a smooth desktop experience like on MacOS, or having all the hardware and applications supported like Windows, or the convenience of Google products (mail, cloud storage, docs), etc.
A few years ago people were talking about convergence of phone/desktop, i.e. you plug your phone into a big screen and keyboard and it’s now your desktop computer. That’s one vision. ChromeOS has its “everything is in the cloud” vision. Stallman has his vision where no matter what it is, the most important part is that it’s free software.
If you could decide the future of personal computing, what would it be?
The problem with the command line line. Is that people don’t understand what they are typing . what command means what. And don’t really care to memorize them. I’ve seen tech illiterate people navigate their way through leading how a mobile OS works because of how user centric they are designed. If you give them a Linux distro with a bunch of command lines to type. They would rather call someone more knowledgeable to do it or give up on it entirely. Unfortunately this is something Linux Devs don’t understand
Linux dev’s do understand this, and there have been huge UI strides in the last 10 years that make Linux a lot more beginner friendly than it used to be. With the use and improve philosophy of Linux, you end up with the largest number of changes being targeted towards a similar demographic of the people making the changes—power users and nerds. As the audience for Linux has widened, we’ve seen a bigger variety of ideas integrated to make Linux approachable, as a direct reflection of the diversity of the people making the improvements.
Basically, Linux is a direct reflection of the people contributing to it.
For sure! The command line definitely lacks discoverability and just isn’t the mode of interacting with a computer that the average person is used to. That said there are situations where it is very much the right tool for the job and there’s plenty of times where it’s the easy way to set something up, even for a beginner.
If I’m being perfectly honest I do find that a lot of the complaints about the command line come across as a bit… silly, sometimes? I can absolutely acknowledge that it has its problems and seems intimidating, and I’m not expecting the average technology illiterate person to deal with it… But there really is not that much to it, and I think people are far more afraid of it than they need to be. Plus I think the amount of command line knowledge required for somebody to start using a mainstream distro is greatly exaggerated. You may eventually want to learn it (and shouldn’t be scared to!) and you may rarely run into something where the best way to solve a problem involves the command line… but you’ll be fine :).
Clicking buttons doesn’t mean you understand what they do. And often time they don’t do what you would think they do. CLI on the other hand is actually much more direct, because the entered command does the same thing on almost any machine and you can read about what it does with “man command”.
Removed by mod
What? Is this sarcasm? CLI offers much more debug potential than GUIs.
For someone who knows what they’re doing maybe, but this is about those who don’t, which is 99% of people.
So what are you doing when a GUI tells you “error”? You give up and do something else?
Removed by mod
This is no argument, this is simple opinion without any base. How does a “next/proceed/ok” button tell you anything? Also windows is hilariously known for its horrendous error messages. Stop trolling please.
Sometimes I think what we would do differently if we could rebuild the terminal from scratch. Do away with all the recursive acronym naming bullshit and the “You had to be a member of the compsci faculty at Stanford in 1975 to get it” references, use words that mean things to modern computer users.
Thats the reason I hate pacman. pacman -Syu…ok.
APT had (and kinda still has) the opposite problem. “apt-get install” is redundant. And true to Linux fashion, there have been a few implmentations of an “apt install” syntax, which were different enough to be a problem.
Also my OSMC box bitches at me when I run “apt upgrade” because it wants me to type “apt full-upgrade…”
There are some things I’d like to ask the Flatpak developers while holding them 6 inches off the ground by their shirt collar. Like why is it such a bitch to run flatpak update over ssh? It wants you to key in your password 96 times if you do that. It’s also really fun to deal with org.whatthefuck.WhatTheFuck too.
I don’t think apt is as bad as pacman, I use nala on my debian machine. The best syntax in my book has zypper, but I am biased. Simply running a flatpak from cli is a hassle. :P
Yeah I’ll go with that; convention is you run software by evoking its name as a command. apt install vim, then you can run vim by typing “vim.” Not with Flatpak, you evoke “flatpak run .org.bullshit.Vim”. It’s not merely designed to be used through a GUI, it’s designed to be not used through a CLI.