Comments on: The GUI v. CLI Debate

By: mike

mike — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:44:26 +0000

I find it a major problem when reading an how-to or when advice is given in a forum etc using a graphical method, as they tend to be specific to the major desktop environments (usually gnome when dealing with ubuntu) and are therefore not easily transferable to another environment. For instance I often use customised installations using openbox or xfce with non-standard apps

As a new linux user I prefer to read up and research a topic before asking for advice and the graphical method is more often an hindrance than not.

Give advice or write-ups using both.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:30:29 +0000

On psychocats you told us to post here, so…

Where do you host your site?

By: FreeBeer

FreeBeer — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:31:10 +0000

I don’t even know why there would be a debate about this. Each approach has their strength and weaknesses. Depending on what you want or need to do, you’re free to select the tool most suitable for the job.

Sometimes I like to interact visually, so a GUI is my choice. Sometimes I need the CLI.

I was initially attracted to Linux exactly because the command line promised to empower me more over my machine and its data. I wasn’t disappointed.

By: Nonny

Nonny — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:10:29 +0000

I usually use the form of the question to determine the method.

If they ask: How do I do x?
They get a GUI response.

If they ask: How do I fix x?
They get a CLI response.

By: MK

MK — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:45:01 +0000

I think most of those offering help in CLI, when GUI is available, are just lazy. Once you know the command to use, looking up and verifying the GUI instructions is awkward. There is usually no consideration given to the daunting effect CLI has on new users.

By: Mesanna

Mesanna — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:31:50 +0000

I think the CLI is very useful for common problems where the answer can be copied straight from a tutorial into the terminal. I tend to think that anyone who has taken the trouble to install Linux and is trying to troubleshoot their problems would not have any issue with copying and pasting a few lines of code. However your point about using the GUI for a task that will be repeated is a good one. I have in the past blindly copied text into the terminal without any real understanding of what I was doing – only knowing that this would fix my problem. Sometimes going through the steps visually helps people grasp the concepts more easily.

I must admit I tend to use Synaptic most often to install software, as I can never remember exact package names (e.g. is it virtualbox or virtual-box?). Synaptic is actually quicker here (for me).

By: John Ward

John Ward — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:17:53 +0000

I think the interesting thing is that anyone who comes to a Linux system with a GUI is bound to have to use the terminal at some stage, but quickly find that it’s a best of both worlds situation. Take Ubuntu and Software Manager. You can do one of two things to install software.

1. CLI way: Open terminal and type “sudo apt-get install xxxxx”. Hit Y and enter. Done.
2. GUI way: Click on Administration menu, then choose System, then choose Software Packages, type your password, wait for the program to start, search through that program and find the one you want, select, tick it and acknowledge the messages about dependencies that needs to install too. Hit apply, when finished hit close.

Which is quicker?

Not only that, terminal doesn’t impose itself as a difficult system when used. It’s not difficult, maybe a little daunting but eventually you have those same people going back to their Windows system’s Command Prompt to see what they haven’t discovered for all those years.

By: greg

greg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:08:19 +0000

I think you bring up some great points here and have done a great job at framing a discussion around the CLI/GUI situation.

You’ve brought up key usability problems in gnome and KDE.

1. If something is easy to do in the command line and requires lengthy GUI instructions; then the GUI interface is broken and should be redesigned.

2. If the terminal version of your program gives more useful debugging information than the GUI, then your GUI is seriously flawed and should be fixed. Terminating your GUI with no error message, while sending all useful debug to standard out, is simply not good enough for a main stream program.

There are some things a command line just does better than a GUI like navigating file structures, working with text files, chaining commands together, and scripting. For everything else like installing software, the GUI should be better than the CLI. It’s currently not better, because the GUI is clunky and slow, but that’s changing.

By: Balakrishnan

Balakrishnan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:33:33 +0000

“One is a hammer. One is a screwdriver.”

Love the analogy.
Very well said.

And as for the psychocats ubuntu page, I often find myself referring folks to it on ubuntuforums whenever someone asks for a good guide for ‘noobs’. I found it really helpful a couple of years back when I was getting started with Ubuntu. You did a fantastic job there. Thanks a lot.