Almost as annoying as the windows evangelists

Usually it’s the other way around

Not really. But you know, gotta find ways to feel smarter than other people so here we go.

And those Windows evangelists! Don't we all know 'em with their strong opinions about operating systems? shakes fist at cloud
- Yeah you just can't be in a server room anymore without some dude trying to sell you on Office365 and Cortana, sigh.
  
  Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and savior, the Microsoft App Store, and his enlightened prophet, Candy Crush Saga?

There are definitely people who think it is reasonable to memorize button locations and 10 levels of menus in GUI programs but would rather go into cardiac arrest than use something like program --option input-file output-file.

thing with gui is you don't need to memorize button locations and menus. If you do it's poor layout. Good gui lets you find things you didn't know you were looking for intuitively, without external resources or manual. CLI requires you to know what exactly you are doing and is impossible to use without external resources. Nothing against terminal but unless you know what you are doing and every command required to complete that action, it's ass. If gui was so bad and cli was so good, guis would not be used by anyone.
I mean you dont go around copy pasting device ids and running commands for 20 minutes to connect your device through terminal when it is done with 2 clicks in the gui even by someone who has never used a pc before.
- 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.
  
  Sure terminal can be better in a few cases but the fact you are typing this from a guy browser on a gui os speaks for itself.
  
  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.
- To be fair if you want to learn your options (without properly informing yourself using a manual) tab complete can be useful if implemented.
  Also most programs come with their manuals so I'd barely call it external. The manuals are also usually better than what I've come to expect from the text to go with buttons in a GUI.
  Knowing what commands are required is always going to be necessary but there's also not that many worth remembering.
- The alternative to memorization is the analog to "hunt and peck typing" where you just search the whole fucking screen/program.
- thing with terminal is you don't need to memorize commands, syntax and options. If you do it's poor design. Good code lets you find things you didn't know you were looking for intuitively, without external resources or manual. Gui requires you to know what exactly you are doing and is impossible to use without external resources. Nothing against gui but unless you know what you are doing and every click required to complete that action, it's ass. If term was so bad and gui was so good, terminals would not be used by anyone.
  I mean you dont go around copy pasting device ids and running buttons for 20 minutes to connect your device through gui when it is done with 2 commands in the term even by someone who has never used a pc before.
  Ftfy buddy
  
  Okay then how do I mount my drive through terminal and set it to automount every time and change it's name to appear as "disk 3" everywhere?
  
  man genfstab
  genfstab whateveroptionsyouwant
  Now give me all the X and Y coordinates of where i would click on my QHD screen for your example in gui plz
  
  Your guide did literally nothing other than return errors. Seems like even you don't know how to do this. And you follow wrong instructions that don't work up with asking for coordinates of buttons for gui, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. As in you've gone through the barrel, through the bottom, dug through the entire earth and are scraping the bottom of another barrel from under it.
  I like the terminal on linux a lot, but with arguments like these you need to touch grass at least once a year my friend.
  
  man genfstab gave an error? Neither CLI nor GUI is gonna help with simply not having something installed that the guide assumed.
  
  Why would i install random software some rando on some random site tells me to to do a function my preinstalled gui(and terminal) can out of the box?
  
  Yeah, you wouldn't. My point is that's because it's preinstalled, not because of any GUI/CLI advantage.
  
  Yawn, sure sure.
  Thats a lot of text without a single x y coordinate buddy. Try harder while touching that grass, won't ya?
  
  Got it not even you can think of anything to defend clis inferiority.
As far as I'm concerned "windows key, start typing the name of the application" or "CMD+space, start typing the name of the application" is the right way to handle GUI. Apple nailed it with Spotlight and it's vastly improved Windows and a variety of Linux DE's
- Uh.. Do you think spotlight was first doing search by typing from a hotkey..?
  What you're describing are basic menus and icon search. I honestly don't get what you're getting at with this at all, maybe I'm just dumb.
  
  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.
  
  It wasn't the first, no. But it was the first that was commonplace and implemented well enough that others almost immediately adopted it.
  It's the same as the iPad. Tablets existed before the ipad. Nobody bought them until apple created a market for them. It's their biggest strength as a company.
- Ahh I hate that windows does that. It makes it impossible to do anything else with the super key.
  Super+D is what I use but anything but just tap that button and flash your screen with a menu you didn't want is great.

It's not that they are mad others use CLI, it's that they're mad that Linux devs regularly stop creating P&CI features, instead opting for CLI with no P&CI equivalent action.

It's kind of obvious why - CLI is already very flexible right out of the box, and it takes much less work to add functionality within CLI rather than creating it for the P&CI.

At the same time, I understand the P&CI folk's frustration, since one of biggest obstacles to getting more people on Linux is the lack of P&CI solutions, and the fact that many actions on Linux are explained solely via CLI.

CLI folks have invested the time to use terminals effectively and view overuse of the P&CI as beneath them, and P&CI folks have no interest in dumping time into learning CLI to do something they could do on Windows with P&CI.

Pardon my ignorance but what does P&CI stand for?
Edit: nvm got it I think it's Point & Click Interface
- Correct, point and click interface
Linux is the terminal.
The GUI applications are just terminal applications where you press buttons instead of typing. Creating the buttons and UI is extra overhead for developers.
CLI folks have invested the time to use terminals effectively and view overuse of the P&CI as beneath them, and P&CI folks have no interest in dumping time into learning CLI to do something they could do on Windows with P&CI.
There are people who have learned to use Linux, using whatever tools are best for the job and people who have decided that the only way to interact with a computer is with a mouse and refuse to learn anything else.
You don't have to swap away from Windows. But, if you choose to, know that you will have to learn a new operating system and, on Linux, this means becoming familiar with the terminal.
If you're going to artificially limit yourself, despite the chorus of Linux users telling you otherwise, by deciding that any terminal use indicates a failure of the OS or of developers, then you should not use Linux.
It's hard enough to learn a new OS. Artificially restricting yourself to only using your mouse is going to severely limit your ability to function.
- Obviously I'm talking about the DE packages, not the kernel or CLI base. We are talking about windows users switching to linux-based DEs, which are directly trying to compete with Windows and iOS.
  This is not me having issue with CLIs. I've been on Linux for decades. I am pointing out the perspective of those that are frustrated with Linux DEs being blatantly unready for mass-adoption, specifically because they expect layman users to learn CLI. See my previous comment and this comment for more details.
  
  I do understand their perspective.
  It's just that their expectations do not align with reality and they're only going to hurt their experience by thinking that there is a path to using Linux without using the terminal. Some distros do a really good job of creating something that seems like a pure GUI experience, but that illusion only lasts right up until there is a problem that the UI designers didn't anticipate and the only way forward is to type terminal commands.
  I'm not trying to be an asshole when I say this kind of thing.
  It's just disingenuous for people to recommend Linux and also say 'Don't worry, you won't need the terminal' or to foster the illusion, in new users, that their fear of the terminal is justified. I get that, of all things Linux, the most alien thing from a Windows/Smartphone user's perspective, is a text-based interface.
  It seems difficult and social media is full of people acting like the terminal is incredibly difficult to learn so people believe that they can simply opt out of using the terminal. You can't, and trying to do so is going to make users have a horrible experience. It'd be like telling people that Windows doesn't require a mouse, that's possibly true but if a person artificially limits themselves in that way, they're going to have a much harder time than they would have if they'd spend the time to use the OS properly.
  
  This is kind of erasing the author with your description of the issue. The reason that apps eventually require CLI to complete tasks is because devs think of CLI first and then produce a stop-gap P&CI over top of it. It is explicitly how devs in the Linux environment operate which creates a gap between CLI and P&CI. If apps were developed with P&CI in mind first, with CLI added after, this would not be a problem - and we know this because of every app developed for both Windows and Linux, which lack these gaps in functionality - or lack CLI entirely.
  Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It's not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It's not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you're trying to do your job at work. I think it's pretty reasonable most people don't want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they've already figured out how to with a P&CI.
  Being realistic, of course, this paradigm shift is not going to happen. Linux will continue to be only a small portion of total computers used by end users because of this, and various other reasons it's found unpalatable.
  I've heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
  
  The CLI is first because Linux is, first and foremost, an operating system built for terminal access. It was based on Unix, a mainframe operating system that served terminals.
  I’ve heard that KDE and GNOME, however, are both at a level now where P&CIs are all you really need. I have not tried them myself, though.
  Between all of my devices at home and work, I use KDE, XFCE and hyprland.
  KDE has a pretty comprehensive GUI, but to say that they're all you need is a gross exaggeration. Sure, you can connect your bluetooth device via the GUI but if there is any problem with it the GUI is woefully insufficient for troubleshooting. Similarly, you can adjust the volume in the GUI... but if your device is using the wrong bitrate or you want to do anything more complicated than control the device that sound is sent to, then you're going to be editing dot files and using the terminal.
  In Linux, the GUI applications are a convenience but the core of the system is the terminal interface. That's what everything has been designed for since the beginning. Graphical Desktop environments are not, at all, a replacement for the terminal.
  Your stance also de-emphasizes the difficulty of learning CLI for the first time. It’s not the most difficult thing ever, but it can be fairly frustrating. It’s not something you want to deal with when just trying to unwind after work on your PC, or while you’re trying to do your job at work. I think it’s pretty reasonable most people don’t want to have to learn yet another paradigm just to do what they’ve already figured out how to with a P&CI.
  I don't think that it is reasonable to want to swap operating systems without learning the new operating system.
  If a person has decided that they never want to use anything but a mouse to solve their problems then Linux is not the OS for them. Learning a new operating system means learning how the operating system works, not declaring how you think it should work and declaring anything outside of your expectations as unreasonable.
  If you're coming into this with the idea that you're going to swap to Linux but only use your Windows/Mac knowledge to puzzle through a GUI and also refuse to touch anything that is in the terminal then you should not use Linux. If you're asking for help and then telling the people trying to help you that you're not going to use the terminal, you're going to face a lot of negative responses.
they're mad that Linux devs regularly stop creating P&CI features, instead opting for CLI with no P&CI equivalent action.
I've never seen this?
It's typically a completely different developer who creates the CLI first, and then one of us adds a P&C after.
So if something is brand new, sure there might be no P&C, yet.
I promise There's no conspiracy to not have nice things. Haha.
- I was specifically trying to not sound conspiratorial. I'm pointing out that it's a matter of having learned a paradigm vs having to learn a new paradigm.
  Devs have already gotten used to CLI and very rarely make full P&CI suites because of it. Even if the original Dev only did CLI for the app and someone came back and made a P&CI for that app, those P&CI interfaces are still fairly barebones. This is both a mix of devs knowing how good CLI can be and because it's all open source volunteer work.
  Layman users of P&CI-focused DEs actively avoid CLI so they don't have to learn it. This means that using most Linux apps are something to be avoided for most Windows users, making the OS base mostly unusable for them.
  To be clear, when I am talking about P&CI-focused DEs, like windows and iOS, I mean that if you cannot perform an action with the P&CI, then that action essentially does not exist for the average user. Contrast that with Linux DEs, where it's quite common to have to directly edit configs or use the CLI to perform various actions.
  As a veteran user, CLI does not bother me. I do understand the frustration of those who want some Linux DEs to become as default as Windows and iOS, because lack of P&CI does damage that effort.
  This is not every app in Linux obvi, but the ones that are best at making sure the P&CI is full-flddged, are the apps that develop for windows and iOS as well as Linux - Blender, LibreOffice, Logseq, Godot, etc. The most common offenders are the utility apps, such as those that handle drivers, sound systems, DE functions, etc.
  
  This means that using most Linux apps are something to be avoided for most Windows users, making the OS base mostly unusable for them.
  I take your point. And this was very much the case for a long time.
  But it's worth pointing out that Gnome and KDE are both done, now.
  I haven't been forced to reach for command line to change something - anything - on either of my last couple of Linux installs.
  Edit: I almost didn't notice, but it feels worth celebrating and raising awareness.

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.

I don’t think so, but I do criticize not having an option, that is why I stopped using Cisco personally and professionally, some things are fast using the cli, some things just need an Ui, you need both.

A cli is a ui. I know that's pedantic but this is Linux memes
- another name for CLI is the TUI (Terminal User Interface)
  
  See, in my mind, a CLI is a line buffer-based interface, whereas a TUI is an interactive character-based interface. sed or bash is CLI and vi or rogue is TUI.
  
  You make a fair point
  
  I think of tui as "text user interface" and use it as a broad category but mostly for more advanced clis that have a graphical quality to them despite being text based, such as ranger or slack-term. Some tuis even have mouse controls!
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.

I posted a meme a while back and out of the woodwork comes some guy ranting about how apt install sshfs is confusing. Like, the meme wasn't even about CLI vs GUI lol. Nobody was claiming superiority, but there they go ranting anyway.

To me apt is confusing but that's because I've become so used to pacman. The only package manager that comes close to pacman for me is xbps.
- Yeah apt tends to shit itself very often. I don't like how it's actually two different programs (dpkg and apt) glued together with perl and python. It all feels too fragile. A friend once tried updating a package, and it failed because... he was issuing the apt command from with a python virtual environment. Can't say for pacman because I've never used arch, but xbps is just one set of self-contained binaries, which feels much more robust. Alpine's APK fits that bill as well, lovely little package manager. Tho I guess apt predates both of those, so it's not a fair comparison. Someone had to make those mistakes for the first time.
  I also really dislike the Debian/Ubuntu culture of fucking around with the sources file to add other people's repositories on top of the distro-default ones (ubuntu calls this PPA). It's a good idea in theory, but in practice those third party repos always fuck up in some way and brick your package manager. Just search for "apt Failed to fetch" in your favourite internet search engine, and you will see hundreds of people confused about it. You can do it with almost any package manager, but for some reason it's mainly the debian/ubuntu people who like shooting themselves in the foot like this.
I think you linked the wrong post

I have a coworker that likes to pick fun at my usage of CLI tools. He said it's confusing "why would I use a terminal when the GUI was made after?". They vehemently hate anytime they have to work with CLI.

I watched them use an FTP program to download and change one value in a .conf file. Like they downloaded the file, opened it in notepad++, changed one thing, saved it, reuploaded / overretten the original. I tried to show them how to just use nano and got told their way was "better since you could ensure the file was replaced". Its okay, I've secretly caught them using it a couple times lol

Fortunately, Linux terminals are gorgeous and easy to use. I never wanted to use Windows' com because it was so ugly and user-hostile. I know Powershell is a thing now, but it still looks ugly to me.

Yes, that's a real thing. They use it as an excuse to dog on linux distros & say "Muh linux not great yet"

Maybe I misinterpreted the meme, I thought the yelling guy is also a Linux user.

Speaking from experience.... Yes. Absolutely yes.

Yes https://lemm.ee/post/59138795/19097469