4 ms·

The elitism can be absurd. Sometimes I wonder if it's stockholm syndrome. "You want to configure things with a GUI with discoverability? Not read a dissertation

The elitism can be absurd. Sometimes I wonder if it's stockholm syndrome. "You want to configure things with a GUI with discoverability? Not read a dissertation-length man page and edit config files whose syntax changes between versions so you can't even rely on google results? Go back to winbl0ws"

swiley 7y ago
Most of the config files are (IMHO) much more discoverable than most GUIs, usually the default config has the default settings commented out along with a block of comments explaining them. A lot of GUI apps I've used have really crappy settings dialogs that don't explain things well and aren't searchable. But it's really the individual app, both can be done nicely or poorly, config files are often easier to implement and copy between machines and app versions (at least that's the feeling I've gotten.) And at least with config files there's something to google. GUIs change even more often (there are even fewer reasons to keep them stable than config file syntax.) Also you're not really supposed to read through the entire man page for an app that you only touch once or twice, you're supposed to just search for what you need and leave. My personal opinion is that GUIs are often less user friendly, they just look friendlier. GUIs make it easier to sell software, not to use it. Free software isn't being sold and that's why it tends to not have a GUI.
pushpop 7y ago
I have a theory on why guides in Linux are predominantly text based and it has nothing to do with elitism. I think it’s a mixture of two factors: 1. From the perspective of the writer, it’s much easier to describe instructions via text when publishing those instructions via a predominately text-based medium such as web sites. The alternative is taking screenshots and editing those images to highlight relevant widgets. This is more time consuming and not ever site offers an easy way to upload those images (meaning you’re then sometimes having to manually upload them) nor even embed them into the discussion (eg HN). And on top of that, you still need some text to accompany the images anyway. So you might as well go with a text driven solution. And if you’re having to describe a UI in text, it’s obviously going to be easier to do so with a text based UI than a graphical UI. This is a problem I’ve personally experienced as someone who used to write a lot of documentation for graphical UIs. It can be annoying and remember that a lot of time, people providing guides are those volunteering their time. So naturally people will opt for a lazier approach. 2. The other major factor for why I think CLI instructions are so common even on desktop Linux is because there isn’t a single agreed standard desktop environment. Not even a standard GUI toolkit, let alone DE. Arguments about whether this choice / fragmentation is a net good or bad thing aside; it makes much more sense to offer a guide that is going to be more universal (as the CLI on Linux tends to be - notwithstanding some district-specific file system hierarchies). Where as a guide with images will not only be very specific to using that unique management tool but would also be subject to any changes to the UI of that tool even if the underlying configuration files haven’t changed. So with CLI examples you end up with a guide that is not only more universal but also has greater longevity. The longevity point is something that can frustrate less technically capable Windows users who are left confused each time Microsoft decide to redesign their Control Panel applets (et al) and Linux isn’t any less subject to UI changes in its graphical frontends either. So it does make some sense to provide instructions to configuring things directly in the backend - even if it seems counterintuitive to a desktop user. Ultimately though, I don’t see anyone who uses Linux being rude about those who use GUIs. At worst they might recommend using the CLI if someone has tried configuring something from a GUI and found themselves getting stuck because options aren’t getting applied in a way that was being expected. However there are examples when the reverse is also true. For example on HN a few weeks ago some CLI users moaning about the complexity of kemu was repeatedly (and rightfully) recommended to use a frontend instead.
patrick5415 7y ago
Personally, I find config files to be simple and elegant, and gui based configuration to be clunky and cumbersome. For most things anyway.
type0 7y ago
I like GUI programs but even on Windows some setups are easier done using command line because I at least could repeat the correct command sequences in the right order.

swiley 7y ago

Most of the config files are (IMHO) much more discoverable than most GUIs, usually the default config has the default settings commented out along with a block of comments explaining them. A lot of GUI apps I've used have really crappy settings dialogs that don't explain things well and aren't searchable. But it's really the individual app, both can be done nicely or poorly, config files are often easier to implement and copy between machines and app versions (at least that's the feeling I've gotten.) And at least with config files there's something to google. GUIs change even more often (there are even fewer reasons to keep them stable than config file syntax.) Also you're not really supposed to read through the entire man page for an app that you only touch once or twice, you're supposed to just search for what you need and leave. My personal opinion is that GUIs are often less user friendly, they just look friendlier. GUIs make it easier to sell software, not to use it. Free software isn't being sold and that's why it tends to not have a GUI.

pushpop 7y ago

I have a theory on why guides in Linux are predominantly text based and it has nothing to do with elitism. I think it’s a mixture of two factors: 1. From the perspective of the writer, it’s much easier to describe instructions via text when publishing those instructions via a predominately text-based medium such as web sites. The alternative is taking screenshots and editing those images to highlight relevant widgets. This is more time consuming and not ever site offers an easy way to upload those images (meaning you’re then sometimes having to manually upload them) nor even embed them into the discussion (eg HN). And on top of that, you still need some text to accompany the images anyway. So you might as well go with a text driven solution. And if you’re having to describe a UI in text, it’s obviously going to be easier to do so with a text based UI than a graphical UI. This is a problem I’ve personally experienced as someone who used to write a lot of documentation for graphical UIs. It can be annoying and remember that a lot of time, people providing guides are those volunteering their time. So naturally people will opt for a lazier approach. 2. The other major factor for why I think CLI instructions are so common even on desktop Linux is because there isn’t a single agreed standard desktop environment. Not even a standard GUI toolkit, let alone DE. Arguments about whether this choice / fragmentation is a net good or bad thing aside; it makes much more sense to offer a guide that is going to be more universal (as the CLI on Linux tends to be - notwithstanding some district-specific file system hierarchies). Where as a guide with images will not only be very specific to using that unique management tool but would also be subject to any changes to the UI of that tool even if the underlying configuration files haven’t changed. So with CLI examples you end up with a guide that is not only more universal but also has greater longevity. The longevity point is something that can frustrate less technically capable Windows users who are left confused each time Microsoft decide to redesign their Control Panel applets (et al) and Linux isn’t any less subject to UI changes in its graphical frontends either. So it does make some sense to provide instructions to configuring things directly in the backend - even if it seems counterintuitive to a desktop user. Ultimately though, I don’t see anyone who uses Linux being rude about those who use GUIs. At worst they might recommend using the CLI if someone has tried configuring something from a GUI and found themselves getting stuck because options aren’t getting applied in a way that was being expected. However there are examples when the reverse is also true. For example on HN a few weeks ago some CLI users moaning about the complexity of kemu was repeatedly (and rightfully) recommended to use a frontend instead.

patrick5415 7y ago

Personally, I find config files to be simple and elegant, and gui based configuration to be clunky and cumbersome. For most things anyway.

type0 7y ago

I like GUI programs but even on Windows some setups are easier done using command line because I at least could repeat the correct command sequences in the right order.