4 ms·

Moving or copying files a single time might be a bit faster using a GUI (or TUI). But when you factor in starting the file manager and navigating to the right p

by dancek 8y ago

Moving or copying files a single time might be a bit faster using a GUI (or TUI). But when you factor in starting the file manager and navigating to the right place, it's not a big difference. And when you need to do a more complicated operation you're looking at a shell oneliner vs. multiple (possibly repetitive) manual steps in the UI. If simple copying of files made up a great deal of my daily work, I'd certainly use a file manager (if I couldn't write a script to do it).

setr 8y ago
The primary benefit of any GUI over a functionally equivalent CLI is the improved discoverability, especially for rare, one-off tasks. CLIs over GuI primarily offers better repetition. Any comparison between the two systems should stem from there: you’ve only offered half of it. Eg getting a remote virtual disk set up in OSX’s finder is much easier than on terminal, without googling/general research, for a one-off drive. Getting 50 such disks up and going is far easier on terminal. (CLI has a better O(), but worse constant factor.)
- marmaduke 8y ago
  I disagree partly here: hitting tab twice in a shell usually lists available commands, possibly with some prefix. A GUI has the advantage of context, in that eg menu items of the disk utility make sense as you know they’ll be some operation on disks. On CLI eg I don’t remember the mkfs command for a file system, I type mkfs and hit tab twice. It could be better though, of course.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    That is the problem right there, you need to know mkfs exists to start with.
    - kurtisc 8y ago
      apropos file system You'll be searching (or using previous knowledge) for what you need to format it as, anyway.
    - marmaduke 8y ago
      Well one needs to know the Disk Utility exists as well, or disk management thingy in Windows.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Sure, but that is available on a simple right mouse click on the device. In any case you are focusing too much on mkfs, I can think of plenty of other examples, many of each aren't even portable across UNIX environments. While GUIs at least can offer navigation and visual cues as means to discover features.
  - vram22 8y ago
    A major issue with GUIs is that they are not scriptable [1], at least in the way CLIs are, like with a bash-like shell and all the stuff of the Unix philosophy [2] (I/O redirection, pipelines, wildcards, other Unix special characters that expand to, or mean, something (all of which you can use in your command pipelines). [1] I mean, I know there are some tools to automate GUI tasks, like AutoHotkey, AutoIt, etc., but due to various window-related issues, they are fragile, I've heard. Not saying that this makes CLIs superior for all uses, of course. Just better for some. [2]: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s08.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s08.html
  - setr 8y ago
    One issue is that cli apps expect a man page to be available, and that you’ll be willing to read it, so options by name alone tend to be more obtuse. Better if you already know it, worse when you dont. Eg ffmpeg is confusing no matter what, but the cli is particularly obtuse in how options interrelate (or even the format string required for them!). A gui for ffmpeg will naturally have fewer options (less expressive), related features to an option will be grouped by windows, and might even do things like visibly disable options based on current flags set, or even a preview mode. You could probably get by to a certain degree, when new to the program, on an ffmpeg gui for simple operations; even the most basic action of cli will be difficult just reading the options appearing by 2xtab. There’s simply a lot more a gui can do to help the learning/interactive process than a cli can (tui is a different story: its just a gui that happens to be in your terminal, and offers the same positives/negatives that any other gui does).
- dancek 8y ago
  I somewhat disagree. Yes, if the GUI has five possible actions and you're only familiar with one of them, it's much easier to learn to do the other four things with the GUI. But it's tedious to do something the GUI wasn't designed for. Once the GUI reaches hundreds of actions it's no longer easy to find the functionality you're looking for.
Normal_gaussian 8y ago
Very occasionally I use ranger to explore directories whose contents I've forgotten; but it is so infrequent that I'm often halfway through exploring with the shell before I remember it is better and faster with ranger
gmueckl 8y ago
I am surprised how fast I have become when using Double Commander. I really needed to learn the keyboard shortcuts, but that payed off. It is really made for keyboard control, not mouse based interaction. Seemingly minor details like searching by typing selection being a toggle (space bar) help me a lot.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by dancek 8y ago

setr 8y ago

The primary benefit of any GUI over a functionally equivalent CLI is the improved discoverability, especially for rare, one-off tasks. CLIs over GuI primarily offers better repetition. Any comparison between the two systems should stem from there: you’ve only offered half of it. Eg getting a remote virtual disk set up in OSX’s finder is much easier than on terminal, without googling/general research, for a one-off drive. Getting 50 such disks up and going is far easier on terminal. (CLI has a better O(), but worse constant factor.)

marmaduke 8y ago
I disagree partly here: hitting tab twice in a shell usually lists available commands, possibly with some prefix. A GUI has the advantage of context, in that eg menu items of the disk utility make sense as you know they’ll be some operation on disks. On CLI eg I don’t remember the mkfs command for a file system, I type mkfs and hit tab twice. It could be better though, of course.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  That is the problem right there, you need to know mkfs exists to start with.
  - kurtisc 8y ago
    apropos file system You'll be searching (or using previous knowledge) for what you need to format it as, anyway.
  - marmaduke 8y ago
    Well one needs to know the Disk Utility exists as well, or disk management thingy in Windows.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Sure, but that is available on a simple right mouse click on the device. In any case you are focusing too much on mkfs, I can think of plenty of other examples, many of each aren't even portable across UNIX environments. While GUIs at least can offer navigation and visual cues as means to discover features.
- vram22 8y ago
  A major issue with GUIs is that they are not scriptable [1], at least in the way CLIs are, like with a bash-like shell and all the stuff of the Unix philosophy [2] (I/O redirection, pipelines, wildcards, other Unix special characters that expand to, or mean, something (all of which you can use in your command pipelines). [1] I mean, I know there are some tools to automate GUI tasks, like AutoHotkey, AutoIt, etc., but due to various window-related issues, they are fragile, I've heard. Not saying that this makes CLIs superior for all uses, of course. Just better for some. [2]: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s08.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s08.html
- setr 8y ago
  One issue is that cli apps expect a man page to be available, and that you’ll be willing to read it, so options by name alone tend to be more obtuse. Better if you already know it, worse when you dont. Eg ffmpeg is confusing no matter what, but the cli is particularly obtuse in how options interrelate (or even the format string required for them!). A gui for ffmpeg will naturally have fewer options (less expressive), related features to an option will be grouped by windows, and might even do things like visibly disable options based on current flags set, or even a preview mode. You could probably get by to a certain degree, when new to the program, on an ffmpeg gui for simple operations; even the most basic action of cli will be difficult just reading the options appearing by 2xtab. There’s simply a lot more a gui can do to help the learning/interactive process than a cli can (tui is a different story: its just a gui that happens to be in your terminal, and offers the same positives/negatives that any other gui does).
dancek 8y ago
I somewhat disagree. Yes, if the GUI has five possible actions and you're only familiar with one of them, it's much easier to learn to do the other four things with the GUI. But it's tedious to do something the GUI wasn't designed for. Once the GUI reaches hundreds of actions it's no longer easy to find the functionality you're looking for.

Normal_gaussian 8y ago

Very occasionally I use ranger to explore directories whose contents I've forgotten; but it is so infrequent that I'm often halfway through exploring with the shell before I remember it is better and faster with ranger

gmueckl 8y ago

I am surprised how fast I have become when using Double Commander. I really needed to learn the keyboard shortcuts, but that payed off. It is really made for keyboard control, not mouse based interaction. Seemingly minor details like searching by typing selection being a toggle (space bar) help me a lot.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]